@Teri_Kanefield: Adding today's Status Kuo from @jaykuo to your weekend blog post, yes there were crimes committed, and because of NY's specific statutes, previously charged or not, it seems like this could even rise to the level of election interference. Yes, that's attention grabbing, but not inaccurate per NY state election laws.
It will be fascinating to see how this all plays out in any case.
@Teri_Kanefield My reading of it is that the NY laws regarding campaigns and what constitutes campaign or election interference are pretty much unique to NY and that is where the beef is sandwiched.
All the same, whether this case is strong or not, he IS on trial and subject to a gag order, which he clearly has violated a few different ways. If anything, Trump's big mouth appears to be on trial.
His pre-trial release on current cases is dependent upon him not committing any criminal offenses. Criminal contempt appears likely and could jeopardise his liberty, even though he may only be liable for fines in the contempt matter.
@Teri_Kanefield
All the money hiding done to further another crime - blocking news of his immorality with other women without consent of better half, to win election. More evidence will be there next week. 😅
@Teri_Kanefield@Hash sounds like they have Pecker on the stand saying things like "we got fined $175k for in-kind contributions" and "I'm here under a non-prosecution agreement as is AMI" which means they are taking that route?
pecker admitting to a crime does not prove that Trump commited the crime.
The defense asked for (and got) an instruction to the jury that Trump's guilt cannot be presumed from fines AMI paid.
If Trump reimbursed, I'm suggesting that Pecker shouldn't have had to pay fines.
We have no idea what deal the prosecution made. Was there another crime Pecker didn't want to talk about, so he copped to this one to make them happy? We don't know so it's off limits.
I am probably not alone in noticing that the concept of “no one is above the law” is largely nonsense. What history and current events have made screamingly obvious is that entire groups of people are above all laws, rules, and morals.
Everyday is another lesson in how the individual and marginalized groups are completely without protection afforded to members of the ruling minority.
The US Constitution has become the instrument of oppression, not liberation.
@Teri_Kanefield yeah, it sounds like they're trying to make the "conspired together to make a campaign finance violation" into "election interference," which sure, is an illegal act to influence an election, but that's stretching the term "election interference" as far as it can go
@Teri_Kanefield@jonas_trostle Definitely hamstringing him at a crucial time in the election cycle so that is good old fashioned bare knuckle politics which Democrats need to employ at every turn for every race in 2024. Bringing a gun to a gunfight for a change
@Teri_Kanefield I read your article. Objective analysis as ever, but I came away wondering if Trump was right in claiming the case should never have been brought against him. You appeared to establish, from the facts so far available, that no laws had actually been broken.
There's not a lot of question that the business records laws were broken and I think it's reasonable that the verdict on misdemeanor charges will be guilty.
The question has been and continues to be if there is a provable predicate crime that elevates the business records charges to a felony.
@joeinwynnewood Provided it can be proved that there was intent, the falsification of records could result in a guilty finding. We'll have to wait a bit longer for that to become clear. Same goes for the predicate crime aspect...we need to wait and see. But it could go either way. Before reading Kanefield's piece, I thought it was more clear cut. It ain't!
No guarantees of course, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Weisselberg puts the nail in the records falsification intent coffin (assuming he's got enough perjury time to serve...).
Agree that Teri did a good job of ensuring there were no bubbles of mine to burst.
@Teri_Kanefield@imbou Have you seen this recap? They review the case in some detail, and argue that the case for predicate crimes is actually very strong, so that conviction is likely.
By "strong crime" I think you mean "there is enough evidence for a conviction."
Saying that before the evidence has been presented is not the kind of analysis I do or pay attention to.
As I wrote in my blog, assessing the likelihood of a conviction or acquittal is a waste of time because it requires subsituting our judgement for the jury.
Norm Eisen has been saying that this is a slam dunk case for months.
@Teri_Kanefield@imbou Yes, I recognize the clarity of your thoughts, and am wary of the fear-mongering pundit class, as you say.
Yet, having lost large swathes of my family in the holocaust, I share the existential dread of looming fascism that many feel. And, though I accept that voting, not trying people in court, is what will save democracy (or not), it still matters: (1/2)
to instill and sustain some trust in our democratic institutions, people need to feel that justice is carried out. If not, they’ll turn away from democracy, abandon it.
Something like a quarter or third of Trump voters say they won’t vote for him if he is a convicted felon. So it might make the difference in the 2024 elections… (2/2)
@RockerDoc I don't believe whatever poll that came from.
If they don't care that he owes a half billion in fines for fraud, or that the Trump Or was convicted of a string of felonies, or that he was found by a jury to have committed sexual assault, I refuse to believe that they'll say "oh my. He falsified business records. I guess I won't vote for him after all."
There's more. If they were not swayed by the J6 committee, and support his stand on abortion, and are cool with him winking at the Proud Boys, it seems silly to think that falsifying business records will bother them.
Depends on (1) whether paying an invoice that includes expenses is criminal and (2) how Trump deducted it on his taxes.
The proseuction has talked about Cohen's taxes but not Trump's. They've said the the crime (if any) would be helping Cohen cheat and that would be difficult.
You are proving my point: People spend time digging for a posisble crime.
At this stage, the prosecution's legal theory should be clear.
“”” As you likely understand by now, falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanour offence in the state of New York. But it becomes a felony when committed to further or cover up another crime. “””
Just like, the civil fraud judgment relies on a NY-specific law and fraud definition. Thus driving legal commenters from all over the US nuts because the NY fraud is different from the common one they learnt in school.
@Teri_Kanefield Ah, but he is not indicated under the Federal statute, but under a NY statute that has some funny “if you commit a crime to cover up election manipulation, this is a severe aggravation factor and makes it suddenly a felony” language.
Again, we've got NY specific law, in this case criminal law, that is different in the fine print from other jurisdictions.
(E.g. the statute the civil case in NY was tried on seems not require injured parties for fraud, does it?)
@Teri_Kanefield I’m pretty sure they have a well-laid out case, but if he walks on this one, it will be because of the reasons you have cited. Also, if he is convicted and it is overturned on appeal, again, because of reasoning you have cited. I will be mad, but not at you. ;-)
@Teri_Kanefield If it was a ‘loan’, it was also an expenditure, right? And he didn’t list it. But, if it was a loan that wasn’t paid back, it was a contribution, again, not listed on his campaign financials. Further, as a loan or an expenditure, not listing the purpose is also an issue. Deliberately mislabeling either/or is also an issue. Misrepresenting is the problem, right?
@Teri_Kanefield It may be missing something but I suspect there's a pretty cut and dry case for the misdemeanor on records falsification but they couldn't toll the clock if that was all they had.
So I guess my question is if the jury can even weigh in on the misdemeanor as a lesser included crime OR do they have to find it rising to the felony level or acquit?
@Teri_Kanefield I'm curious, was the tax treatment for Trump different for a campaign self-contribution (what the payments actually were) vs a legal expense (what he documented the payments as). Are legal payments deductible on taxes whereas campaign contributions are not? Is taking a deduction he wasn't entitled to tax fraud?
@Teri_Kanefield I'd think the loan would need to be on the campaign's books. A loan "agreement" would also need to be in place in some form (even if unwritten), but I'm sure the defense will establish that, but there has got to be some issue with an unpaid loan and avoided interest payments/accurual.
Add comment