5/30 ruling against Trump

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 10:10 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: They don't know. Nobody on this board is qualified to opine on it. It's just parroting of partisan talking points about how this is "such a slam dunk appeal". 

Spot on.

I have heard, during the trial, times where talking head lawyers said this or that could be used.  I'm like everyone else though and have no idea.

I was stunned that he was found guilty on ALL counts.  Really thought it would turn out differently.

[Dill]

(05-31-2024, 08:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: I agree it probably did change the mind of anyone who had their mind made up already.  There has to be a handful of people that look at this and go "wow...he really did do something".  Even though he is appealing other judgements against him already.

That, and the fact that chaos just follows the guy. 

Four years of Trump will be four more years of bombast, accusation--and legal/political crisis.

A portion of the MAGA base loves that, but a lot of Republicans want stability and order.
Some of them do understand that Trump's social media behavior, going after court and prosecutor
staff, is truly despicable and embarrassing to the nation, and that's on him, NOT Biden and Bragg. 

Schu behavior is a national embarrassment, and will be on display again for sentencing.

Even on that side of the aisle, not everyone is sure that a rush to dismantle the "deep state,"
lock up immigrants, and readiness to use the Guard on citizens will create more disorder than it prevents.

Trump's real hope is that Right Wing media can create and sustain an image of Biden negative enough
to overpower Trump's own behavior in the minds of "undecided" voters.  
That has worked so far, but Trump still has 4 months of unpredictable behavior ahead. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2024, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Spot on.

I have heard, during the trial, times where talking head lawyers said this or that could be used.  I'm like everyone else though and have no idea.

I was stunned that he was found guilty on ALL counts.  Really thought it would turn out differently.

I was expecting 9 or 10 not-guilty verdicts for the first three payments which he did not sign for himself.

[Dill]

LOL Trump speaks. "Fascist" are in the WH.

What kind of "fascists" don't want to control a border?

"Paying a lawyer" is perfectly legal, and a "legal expense." "What else you gonna call it?"

"Wanted to testify . . . I would have loved to testify . . . but they go after you for everything."

"This is bigger than me . . . bigger that Trump . . . I'm up six points in the Daily Mail poll."

"Timing was perfect . . . everybody dropped the case."

Weissenberg jailed to prevent him from testifying.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2024, 12:19 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Trump speaks. "Fascist" are in the WH.

What kind of "fascists" don't want to control a border?

"Paying a lawyer" is perfectly legal, and a "legal expense." "What else you gonna call it?"

"Wanted to testify . . . I would have loved to testify . . . but they go after you for everything."

"This is bigger than me . . . bigger that Trump . . . I'm up six points in the Daily Mail poll."

"Timing was perfect . . . everybody dropped the case."

Weissenberg jailed to prevent him from testifying.

It really amazes me how much his followers will buy into this. If he wanted to testify, he could have. The only thing preventing him was himself. As for his CFO, his team could have subpoenaed him just as easily as the DA could have. Why didn't they?

[GMDino]

I heard him say that some witnesses (I think...he was rambling a good bit) were "literally crucified"!

Why isn't the MSM covering that?!?!  

[*pally*]

Nothing stopped the defense from calling Weissellberg...except that little clause in his severence agreement that took away his millions in retirement compensation if he said anything disparing against Trump...a fact the prosecution was sure to bring up

[CKwi88]

(05-31-2024, 01:51 PM)pally Wrote: Nothing stopped the defense from calling Weissellberg...except that little clause in his severence agreement that took away his millions in retirement compensation if he said anything disparing against Trump...a fact the prosecution was sure to bring up

Trump's narrative relies on his flock's ignorance of criminal procedure. This is why he rails against irrelevant things like the venue, the district, the language of standard jury instruction metaphors, him exercising his right to remain silent, choosing which witnesses to call or not call etc.

[Dill]

(05-31-2024, 02:17 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Trump's narrative relies on his flock's ignorance of criminal procedure. This is why he rails against irrelevant things like the venue, the district, the judge, the language of standard jury instruction metaphors, him exercising his right to remain silent, choosing which witnesses to call or not call etc.

There's an eager willingness to go along, and they get a lot of help from talk radio too. 

Experts speak non stop about how the verdict contradicts the plain reading of the law and how 
NOONE has ever been convicted of falsifying documents and if they were it was rare and not connected
to election fraud and there is nothing illegal about paying off a porn star and if there was a case there 
then why did the feds drop it [when Barr ordered them to], and everyone in the law business agrees the 
trial was a sham, and (as you say CK), the Judge's daughter  did this and the prosecutor's wife did that 
and New York City is 100% blue and that's why they tried him where the crime was committed instead 
of Texas. My favorite is "the Dems have embraced the police-state." So--the plainest sort of judicial activism! 
though so far I've heard no one but Trump dispute that it was illegal to represent payments to Stormy 
as payments to Cohen for legal service.

Turn to the next station and it's more of the same;, 
by the time you catch catch Fox news in the evening, it's clear "everyone agrees." 


Anyway that's the gist of it, and what we'll be hearing in the coming week as these talking points 
trickle down into our forum. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-31-2024, 10:10 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: They don't know. Nobody on this board is qualified to opine on it. It's just parroting of partisan talking points about how this is "such a slam dunk appeal". 

I don't understand the appeals process, but I don't see why people who believe that Trump is innocent of all charges but was found guilty of all charges because of a corrupt system that is weaponized against him have so much faith he will get off on appeal.  Wouldn't the appeals process be rigged against him, too?

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-31-2024, 03:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't understand the appeals process, but I don't see why people who believe that Trump is innocent of all charges but was found guilty of all charges because of a corrupt system that is weaponized against him have so much faith he will get off on appeal.  Wouldn't the appeals process be rigged against him, too?

I guess it's more about him testifying the next time. 

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 03:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't understand the appeals process, but I don't see why people who believe that Trump is innocent of all charges but was found guilty of all charges because of a corrupt system that is weaponized against him have so much faith he will get off on appeal.  Wouldn't the appeals process be rigged against him, too?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/05/31/trump-likely-to-appeal-guilty-verdict-heres-what-to-expect-as-process-plays-out/?sh=2e4b4a7c7701

Quote:Trump will have 30 days after he’s sentenced on July 11 to file a notice of appeal—which just says he intends to appeal the case—and then six months to file a full appeal, meaning the appeals process might not have even gotten fully underway by the November election, let alone completed.


He’ll appeal the verdict first to an intermediate appellate court, the First Judicial Department of New York’s Appellate Division, and if that fails, he can then ask New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to take up the case—followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary—though neither of those higher courts are obligated to hear the case.


The whole process is likely to take months or years to fully play out, NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallo said Thursday, noting cases can take years in the Appellate Division alone—and while the nature of Trump’s case means “maybe it gets a closer look, maybe it moves along a little faster,” the process will ultimately still take “many months.”

https://nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/

Supreme Court of the State of New York

[/url]

Quote:

NYCourts.gov

Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
[url=https://nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/index.shtml]
Hon. Dianne T. Renwick, Presiding Justice
Susanna Molina Rojas, Clerk of the Court

https://nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/PDFs/First%20all%20African%20American%20bench.pdf

Quote:Historic Sitting – First All African-American Bench 

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024, oral arguments before the Appellate Division, First Department were heard for the first time by an all African-American bench. The bench was comprised of Presiding Justice Dianne T. Renwick, Justice Troy K. Webber, Justice Tanya R. Kennedy, Justice Bahaati Pitt-Burke, and Justice Marsha D. Michael. 

In her opening remarks, Presiding Justice Renwick noted that this historic event was fittingly taking place during Black History Month. She also paid tribute to the African American jurists who previously sat on the Court, and said, “This day would have been difficult to imagine even a generation ago.” 

Presiding Justice Renwick continued, “It is fair to say that when this Court first opened its doors in 1896, most people would not have imagined that the Court would eventually be comprised of such a diverse bench, including judges of Black, Asian, and Latino descent. 

“As we know, a judiciary that reflects the makeup of its citizenry not only gains legitimacy in the eyes of the people it is designed to serve, but it also leads to better decision making where various perspectives can be considered in every adjudication. As Maya Angelou wrote, ‘We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter their color.’” 

To view a video recording of the arguments, please click here. 

(From left to right: Justice Bahaati Pitt-Burke, Justice Troy K. Webber, Presiding Justice Dianne T. Renwick, Justice Tanya R. Kennedy, and Justice Marsha D. Michael.)

[SunsetBengal]

(05-31-2024, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: If that happens I'm selling "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" shirts on line to every MAGA person I know. 

That's one hell of great idea! In fact, it also gives me an idea.

I'm going to go down to the local Walmart parking lot and sell "Go Cart Mozart" t-shirts to every punk driving a shit box with a bumble bee exhaust! Thanks for the tip! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

An interesting article from a former federal prosecutor.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html


The following are all undeniable facts.

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

I think the underlined sections are of particular importance.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting article from a former federal prosecutor.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html


The following are all undeniable facts.

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

I think the underlined sections are of particular importance.

So because the crime was so unique we should let him off the hook?

You can’t break the law to promote somebody to get elected. He broke the law to get himself elected. Thus turning the misdemeanor (10s of thousands of dollars is that really still a misdemeanor?) into a felony.

He should have stuck to business and stayed out of politics. As soon as he committed the crime to get himself elected he made the problem worse for himself from my understanding.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 04:53 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So because the crime was so unique we should let him off the hook?

You can’t break the law to promote somebody to get elected. He broke the law to get himself elected. Thus turning the misdemeanor (10s of thousands of dollars is that really still a misdemeanor?) into a felony.

He should have stuck to business and stayed out of politics. As soon as he committed the crime to get himself elected he made the problem worse for himself from my understanding.

You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand what you read.  

[Arturo Bandini]

One thing is sure if I somehow need a judiciary advice for an US Court, I'm not asking any of the self called specialist out there.

I've made wrong predictions more than my fair share but being that completely wrong ? I don't remember.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2024, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand what you read.  

By the way, the factset is almost indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton.  A lawfirm paid, $3M I think in total, for the oppo research we all know as "The Dossier".  It was billed as legal fees to the Clinton campaign.  As with Trump, the FEC declined to pursue charges.  Instead, they fined Hillary and the DNC like $100k.  And while we're on the subject, the social media and "30 former intelligence officials" attempting to quash and spin Hunter's laptop was clearly an illegal campaign contribution, notwithstanding this Trump case.

So I'll wait with baited breath for the upcoming charges against Clinton.  Guess he should have hired her lawyers instead of Cohen - "only the best people!" LOL.

My other issue is the NDA is not illegal, and if Trump had simply paid out of his own pocket I don't think there is a chargeable crime, even for a NY prosecutor.  But the whole point of an NDA is secrecy and anonymity, and it can be difficult to pursue recourse assuming you can even definitively prove the source of a leak.  Which is why they use pseudonyms.

Also, not making a legal argument just a practical observation....These business records are PRIVATE.  IRS audits are PRIVATE.  So we really are talking about, yet again, a PROCESS crime.  So I struggle to understand where the intent, irrespective of whether Trump had knowledge of it, was to commit a "felony" when a legal NDA is never public regardless of the bookkeeping.  Maybe I missed an explanation somewhere, but I don't see how the falsification of business records is election interference by concealing records that were never public to begin with.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2024, 05:17 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: One thing is sure if I somehow need a judiciary advice for an US Court, I'm not asking any of the self called specialist out there.

I've made wrong predictions more than my fair share but being that completely wrong ? I don't remember.

Also feels a bit like a unique case of reverse "jury nullification" where there's no proof of a crime, knowledge or intent beyond a reasonable doubt but the jury convicts anyway.

Best I can make of it, because I still haven't seen a really solid breakdown, is they found him guilty of falsifying business records according to the instructions given them.  And apparently the mere act of signing a check is proof of knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt.  CEO's and CFO's of public companies have to attest to the accuracy of their filings, but failing in their fiduciary duty doesn't automatically imply an intent to break the law or commit or cover-up some other crime.  Unless it's gross negligence (which following the advice of counsel would never be), it doesn't automatically make you a party to the fraud.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-31-2024, 08:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a pretty naive take. The polling we have seen shows that, yes, 75-80% of voters will not change their positions on Trump based on this. However, in a race this close, that 20-25% on the margins will make a difference. Will they be swayed? Uncertain at this point. We will see what comes out in the next few weeks. Right now the right wing media and the Trump campaign are playing defense by making the claims that are the basis for what you say here. It's their job to say these things, so I don't begrudge them, but it also isn't necessarily reality.

Always good to open with an insult.

I am curious as to those statistics.

Is that 75-80& of current DJT supporters?

Independents?

The total voter block?

If the total voter block, I would submit that the 20-25% may be democrat voters.