Replies

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I read the jury instructions.

With the disclaimer that this is absolutely not a prediction of what the jury will do, not much in the jury instructions change what I had to say here:

https://terikanefield.com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/

I wrote about predicate crimes for predicate crimes.

The predicate crime for falsification of business records is
NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE.

The jury gets three possible predicate crimes for 17-152.

1/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that the primary crime happened in February 17. You don't get to a predicate crime until you have an intent to defraud on February 17.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dalfen

The crime he is charged with is falsification of business records.

Election interference is a predicate crime. The predicate crime requires a predicate crime.

Read the jury instructions.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Bear with me here. I have a question.

The charged crime is intentionally falsifying documents.

To bump that up to a felony, the documents have to be falsified to cover a crime.

The crime is "election interference," which, to be a crime, must rely on an illegal means.

Possible illegal means: (1) FECA violation, (2) tax violations or (3) and falsifying the records Cohen used as part of the Stormy Daniels payoff.

Here is my question . . .

7/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@darwinwoodka @Adventurer

"The coverup is what matters" is a cliche that doesn't apply here.

The agreement to do the disbursement is not a crime. Nobody is claiming it is.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

They didn't really need election interference. Right?

Why not charge falsifying of business records and then say the predicate crime was one of these three:

(1) FECA violation, (2) tax violations or (3) and falsifying the records Cohen used as part of the Stormy Daniels payoff.

See what I mean? Why take the detour?

8/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dalfen Yup. It isn't what anyone thinks it is from reading news articles.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

The jurors don't get to have a copy of the jury instructions. (A rule in New York that I can't explain except to joke that the Prosecution Lobby won.)

They can come back and have them read again or ask questions and take notes.

I don't see how trying to figure out the elements of the crime isn't a mass of confusion to the jurors. I find it confusing while I'm reading them.

9/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dalfen Sorry if I was cryptic. I don't type well on my phone. I'm used to my computer and keyboard (which I have now)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@BernardSheppard

They wouldn't think "That's gotta be a crime - they paid off Stormy Daniels in order to try to win the election, and that's election interference" because it isn't true.

They know better. They know that hush money isn't a crime and it isn't a crime to keep bad information from voters. Candidates do it all the time.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Oggie we will never know.

This, then would be the crime: Cohen gave Trump an invoice for legal service. Trump recorded it as legal services in order not avoid reporting it as a contribution to his own campaign.

In other words, his intent for falsifying the records would be to violate FECA.

It's possible the jury might find that. I don't know what evidence was entered about possible FECA violations.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@evilotto

The judge gave erroneous or confusing jury instructions would be appealable.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@smurthys If that's the law in New York, there is no appeal.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@RufusJCooter That's a good answer.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Cdespinosa Where is the crime?

Paying off a porn star to win the election isn't a crime.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Cdespinosa

Chris, you might want to read the jury instructions to see what the prosecution has to prove. I linked to them earlier. The explanation of the crimes starts at about page 20 (if I recall)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • khanakhh
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • InstantRegret
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • everett
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines