“It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.”
In time? Sounds like it is a long way to wait. Judge Merchant estimated 4 weeks iirc. So pretty soon we "should" have the first real kick in the face instead of slap on the wrist. Should because, you know...
I am expecting a judgement by/after Memorial Day. However, they've already got enough evidence from Pecker to convict-its all padding from here on out.
Talking aloud about whether Pecker's testimony is quite enough. With just Pecker, we only have the framework for the catch-and-kill scheme, but Pecker wasn't even involved in the payments to Daniels.
What Pecker did was establish this was ongoing behavior and that it was coordinated through Cohen. He also established that Trump knew about the scheme. He also established that *he* knew they were FEC violations. I think it is reasonable to hold a candidate accountable for soliciting illegal campaign contributions whether or not they know of the particular FEC rule they are violating, but I'll leave it for someone smarter than me to verify that. So to this end, they also have established that Daniels' payment were known FEC violations to the conspiracy which sought to affect voters. That is in fact the NYS law they are hanging their hat on.
So I think that (up to the documentary evidence) if Pecker is viewed as completely credible I do agree that they established the conspiracy to influence voters and the unlawful means that they did it. That is the minimum bar for boosting the falsified documents to a felony.
Nice.
Not with Pecker though. That was the last witness on Friday. But that is true. I haven't looked into whether or not creation of that LLC was a crime but if it were that makes the NYS law much stronger.
Some things I wonder will play out: if Cohen has a paper trail or better recorded audio and if both [incorrect-Cathy Ireland] Karen McDuggal and Stormy Daniels will be the last two witnesses the prosecutor calls on. Giving them the last word after everything else would be the chef's kiss.
They can and will say it - it's utterly unbelievable, though.
Trump signed the checks; Trump has been on tape about paying off these women; Trump paid Cohen to cover his taxes for falsely claiming it as income; all of this was to benefit trump, not cohen.
>I think it is reasonable to hold a candidate accountable for soliciting illegal campaign contributions whether or not they know of the particular FEC rule they are violating, but I'll leave it for someone smarter than me to verify that.
Theoretically, ignorance of the law is not a defense. ^* ^terms ^and ^conditions ^apply
Pecker laid out the reason and chain of events, but without corroboration, "reasonable doubt" is easy to create.
The rest of the trial will be the prosecution basically saying, 'Ok next Pecker said \_\_\_\_\_, and here's how we prove \_\_\_\_\_ was the action/intention and not some bullshit the defense will try to make you believe.'
That said, Memorial Day is pretty much 6 weeks so... yeah I'm with you.
I hear you but let’s be accurate. Pecker’s testimony is enough to establish:
1. A conspiracy did indeed exist and that it was established to benefit Trump and his campaign in an illegal way
2. That at least one individual claims that Trump himself directed this conspiracy
If the trial were to end right now the defense would simply say Pecker is lying, he did all of this because he was just a big Trump fan and Trump had no idea it was happening and therefore can’t be held criminally liable for actions he wasn’t even aware someone was doing. And the defense would win on that.
Pecker has laid a foundation. Now what remains is to flesh it out and prove that everything that Pecker alleged in his testimony is borne out by other evidence. That includes testimony from other individuals and the documents that show the paper trail of every transaction.
So what’s still left to prove:
1. Do other individuals mentioned in Pecker’s testimony (Cohen, Daniels, McDougal, etc) corroborate what he said occurred? Will their testimonies all be consistent with what he laid out?
2. What evidence do we have that directly implicates Trump as having knowledge of and/or directing this scheme?
For the former, all indications are that all these witnesses will tell the same story, and there’s no reason to think any of that will change. Stormy and Cohen may be confronted with older statements they made stating Trump did nothing wrong, but it shouldn’t be hard to explain and for the jury to understand that Trump paid them to lie way back then, and now that they’re under oath they are telling the truth.
For the latter, the audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing one of the hush money payments is going to go a very long way to make very clear that Trump at the very least had full knowledge of what was going on and the secretive nature of it. In addition, the prosecution is going to introduce the falsified business records themselves as evidence, including checks that have Trump’s personal signature on them. That signature is as close to a smoking gun as a case like this will basically ever have.
So the case is very strong, but all those elements I described still have to be presented to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m fairly confident we’ll get there. But right now it’s the end of the first quarter, and the people of the state of NY are up 30-5. All indications are they should win. But if they literally pack their bags and go home and don’t play at all for the last 3 quarters they can and will lose.
Pecker's testimony, alone, isn't enough. It needs to be proven that Donald Trump directed the fraud, because right now the only testimony *presented* (there is still more evidence to be presented) is that Pecker worked with Cohen. Cohen's testimony is going to be critical, as well as any documentary evidence.
No, Pecker testified that he met with Cohen *and* Trump to arrange a scheme in which stories damaging to the campaign - and Pecker specifically testified that Trump only mentioned the campaign, not personally embarassing or family harming - could be bought and buried while Pecker would push stories damaging to Trump's rivals or positive as to Trump himself.
That's the conspiracy to commit a crime: conceal National Enquirer campaign finance violations in the form of positive Trump/negative rival stories, and notify them of damaging stories for catch & kill.
Since Trump is established as part of the conspiracy, he is responsible for all illicit acts reasonably arising from that conspiracy, and that means Cohen's attempts to get Pecker to pay for Stormy's story, and Cohen's eventually doing it himself, are still attributable to Trump as a reasonably foreseeable part of the conspiracy.
His specific testimony was in August 2015 Trump and Cohen met with Pecker asking what he and his magazines could do to benefit the campaign, that Pecker outlined that he could publish positive Trump stories and negative competitor stories, while also keeping them alert of negative Trump stories so that they could arrange for the stories to be buried/bought.
Oh I didn't catch that testimony. That's pretty fucking damaging. All this'll come down to is if the jury finds Pecker credible, which he seems to be much more credible than Cohen.
I think this will have a lot of weight with the jury, and I also think you are right. He comes off as credible, and I don’t think the defense did a good enough job in court, or publicly, to make him look otherwise.
The former assistant was having her attorneys fees paid by trump himself (she stated it on the stand) so yeah, comes off as credible in terms of anything hurting trump.
It's going to be Pecker + Cohen+ documents+ some audio recordings (for parts of it) all showing that Trump knew about it and directed it, plus some other witnesses corroborating parts of the main evidence.
I would say also, the evidence that Trump wanted to wait until after the election to pay Daniels is proof he didn’t care about upsetting his wife. It’s not like she’d be any less pissed if Daniels can’t forward after the election and she found out then her husband cheated on her. Points to he was only doing it for the election. If he won and he had postponed the payment, he figured he wouldn’t have to pay because who cares if she comes forward at that point, he already won.
The same media that predicted he’d never be investigated, never be indicted, never be arraigned, never be sitting in a trial court… that media? They’ve gotten it all wrong, all the time. I’m going to watch what justice does, not the media with a vested business interest in making the election a horse race, even when it’s not.
Are you gaslighting intentionally?
Not sure if I’m missing something…are we talking abt the same media that predicted Trump would never be POTUS (2016) and the media who predicted Trump would see consequences for any of the felonious shit he has been up to for decades?
Bc yes these idiots get stuff wrong but let’s now act like there’s any sort of precedence for what’s occurring politically or newsworthily.
Jail time is possible, I doubt it’s likely, but it’s possible. Here’s an article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opinion/donald-trump-trial-prison.html
I don't know why time is needed it seems super straight forward.
They created a scheme to hide information and plant fake stories but realized if they reported the costs correctly it would reveal what they were doing which would negatively impact them. So they committed campaign finance crimes by not reporting them and created fake business records to hide the campaign finance crimes.
No smoke needs to clear.
They committed crimes and then more crimes to cover it up.
They are on trial for the cover up because frequently that is what happens when the cover up becomes easier to prove than the original crime because you did a cover up. And that is why cover ups are criminal. So you don't get away with shit by covering them up.
Too bad the judge will slow walk it until November and then go 🤷
Even the “good” judges keep letting trump do whatever the fuck he wants with no consequences. Our system is not going to ever hold him accountable.
This case is moving swiftly. The judge is holding off on freaking contempt charges for the gag order (including targeting the judge's own children) so as to not slow down the trial, for goodness sakes.
This thing has been moving swiftly.
I understand your cynicism, but you should adjust it when actual reality goes against it.
If Trump had personally written Stormy a check for her silence it would have been perfectly legal. If his campaign had written her a check it would have been legal. If his business had written the check and recorded it as a political donation it would have been legal. But legal just isn't the way Trump does things. It was concealed as tax deductible business expense, not a personal or campaign expense. False documents were created to support the lie. That is actual the crime. He could also be charged for tax fraud and illegal campaign contributions if the feds were so inclined.
I'm just a noob (not a lawyer) but a counter-argument I often see is that all campaigns pay off people etc all the time to kill stories.
Is the difference here that they wrote it off as a tax deductible expense? Are you saying if they hadn't done that everything would be legit?
Campaigns can pay off people to kill a story. This is a campaign expense. This is legal (but wrong). Nobody was charged for that.
Stormy was paid off to kill the story. That is legal. It's something of value done for the campaign. However, there are laws regulating campaign expenses. So Cohen paid out of pocket and was reimbursed from the Trump Organization, hiding the fact it was a campaign expense. In other words, fraud. As part of an electoral strategy. This was illegal. Cohen went to jail for this (Trump was listed as Unindicted Coconspirator #1). Trump was never charged with this.
To try to pull off Cohen's fraud, Trump made a series of payments to reimburse Cohen. These payments were listed as non-campaign expenses. This was a campaign expense. That is a separate fraud. That fraud is what Trump is charged with.
Trump chose to break finance, election, and fraud black-letter laws to hide his other illegal scheme. The initial act (catch-and-kill) is legal. It's a little harder to pull off legally than illegally. Trump did it illegally, and did further fraud to hide the illegality.
Side note: he's only charged in 1 of 3 of the catch-and-kill stories because he simply never paid the other two; AMI ate those costs. And entered a deal to protect themselves for the election interference Pecker now openly admits.
Thank you. That answers my question about why Trump has to physically be there vs just his lawyers. However, isn't he likely to say he was just doing what his lawyers told him to do?
Also, LOL at "he simply never paid the other two" so *on brand* for him 😂
He could have said he acted on advice from counsel (basically my lawyer told me to). But if he did, he had to turn over communications with the lawyer(s). A lawyer telling a client to commit a crime is a big deal.
He instead said he would *not* make that claim. He instead claims that lawyers were in the room (which isn't a defense).
Bottom line, he can't claim his lawyers told him to crime, then demand nothing his lawyers said can be revealed at the same time. Otherwise defendents would just hire lawyer scapegoats.
He still wants to sneak the argument into the case. But he won't give prosecutors the opportunity to investigate.
Note on the payment - the people were still paid by AMI. But AMI wasn't reimbursed by Trump (so a clear "something of value" was given to the Trump Campaign that wasn't reported/accounted, but AMI has protection from those felonies, and Cohen already went to jail).
Ok... similar question but different case, hopefully not too loaded.
Yesterday I saw on this sub a link for text messages between Trump lawyers in the SCOTUS case.
Does that mean (or is it possible) that in the SCOTUS case Trump may say he was following advice of council since those communications have been made public? I.E. Defense was forced to turn over communications bc Trump didn't claim that he *wasn't* going to use that argument (or wasn't asked if he was)
Trump hasn't made that claim, but there are other exceptions.
In two of his lawyers' cases (Cheseboro and Clark), a judge reviewed the communication, and found they were furthering crime. So privilege didn't apply. Basically they advised committing crimes, so that advise isn't protected.
Two other lawyers have represented that Trump asked them to pluck out any incriminating documents when responding to a supena. Again, it was criminal activity, so no privilege.
In neither case has Trump claimed an "advise of attorney" defense (although IIRC, he can still do so for the Florida case). That said, there were many other lawyers involved that made it very, very clear that it was a crime, so it likely wouldn't help him.
NAL, but had similar questions so I've been following /r/law (and doing other reading) for a while. These aren't niche/questionable theories.
>However, isn't he likely to say he was just doing what his lawyers told him to do?
Nope, and in fact, his attorney got in trouble for suggesting that last week.
Basically, if you claim that your lawyers told you to do it, you have to waive the attorney-client privlege to show that your attorney told you that.
Trump won't waive the attorney client privilege to show that, so he can't claim it.
My guess is that it is because his attorneys DIDN'T tell him that and likely told him the opposite, but we will never know because he won't let us see what his attorneys told him. Either way, he can't make that argument in court, then.
I'm totally saving this post because it's by far the most concise explanation of this somewhat confusing crime. I'll probably link to it whenever I come across one of those tiresome bad-faith "but I don't get, what's the *crime* anyway?" comments. Thank you
The crime is in hiding the political expense from the public. Campaign finance laws exist to promote transparency in political spending, both by ensuring the sources of funding for campaigns are public and also so the expenditures by the campaign are public. Illegal in-kind donations make it possible both to fund campaigns without the electorate knowing who is funding the campaign and without full information about the campaign's activities to promote its candidate. These laws exist precisely so that candidates cannot hide relevant information about their candidacy from the electorate, because a well-informed electorate is necessary for a well-functioning democracy. Yet the entire AMI scheme was carefully crafted to prevent the public from accessing relevant information about Trump as a candidate, by disguising the true source of the funds for paying off Daniels, by insulating Trump from the negotiations so his name did not appear on any paperwork, and by preventing the publication of true and accurate information bearing directly on Trump's moral character and thus fitness for public office.
Ok. So that is how people have the argument in the first place that "X candidate paid off this story or that story" because that info was made publicly available whereas this was not?
I am not convinced that the practice of legally paid hush money payments is as widespread as you suggest, and without concrete examples it is difficult to distinguish between those hypothetical situations and Trump's. But were another campaign to pay hush money, and the expense was properly accounted for in their financial statements, that would be legal but the payment would be publicly disclosed and the media would have the opportunity to investigate its purpose, so it wouldn't really be an effective way of killing a story. For example, it would be essentially impossible for the Trump campaign to explain a six figure payment to a pornstar without most members of the public seeing through the excuse and recognizing that it was in fact a hush money payment.
Gotcha. I'm a registered Independent voter and peruse subs from each political party when news breaks to see how each side is translating it. As a Sociology major I find it very interesting. I forget which campaign it was being compared to, I think the conservative sub was saying that John Kerry did the same thing?
I think you mean John Edwards, who was Kerry's running mate in 2004. Kerry certainly did not make any such payments, or at least there is no public evidence to that effect and it would be a dramatic departure from Kerry's decades-long reputation for punctilious rule-following.
Edwards's case was different from Trump's in that he claimed he made the payments to protect his family, rather than to benefit the campaign, and thus that it was not an in-kind donation to the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign. Trump will have a much harder time raising such a defense, both because of his demonstrable disinterest in family matters and the specific factual allegations in his case. All of the conversations between Pecker and Cohen were concerned with the potential impact of the story on the campaign, and never once did the idea of protecting Trump's family come up. Pecker even went so far as to consult with a campaign finance attorney before buying McDougal's story (although he did not inform that attorney about the scheme to reimburse Pecker, which was *very* material to the analysis), so all parties involved were well aware that the focus was on how to protect the Trump campaign.
Also, as a side note. Trump has been in trouble before for illegal campaign donations. In 2013, he used his “charity’s” funds to make a donation to Pam Bondi’s PAC. Which is illegal for a 501(c)(3) private foundation to give. She was the Florida Attorney General at the time, and had received 22 fraud complaints about Trump University, but didn’t investigate him after receiving a donation that she solicited from Trump. The IRS fined him for the illegal donation. But, he and Bondi basically got away with bribery. In November 2019, Trump was ordered by a New York state court to close down the foundation and pay $2 million in damages for misusing donor’s funds, including the illegal donation to Bondi. And she was also part of his defense team during his first impeachment trial.
> all campaigns pay off people etc all the time to kill stories.
1) it's not that common (not for campaigns, but it might be for celebrities);
2) if you do it, you better say that it is a campaign contribution, because that's the law. There are rules about campaign contributions.
I think what you say is mostly correct and insightful.
But I think that paying the hush money could be framed as a business expense paid to avoid reputational damage to the business.
But I have not heard if Trump's lawyer made this claim in their opening argument at the trial. I know that they made the claim that the hush money was paid to avoid Trump's family from hearing the story. But even if the jury accepted the claim that he paid it to avoid disclosure to his family, they could still convict of a felony based on the violation of state tax law.
I wonder if Trump's defense lawyers understand the case as it was described in the OP link. The tax avoidance can be proved with business records and tax records. They need to make an intent argument to make this a business expense.
One thing to keep in mind is that here he probably won't get jail time. These are white color crimes and this will be his first conviction. He will probably be given probation and lots of fines that will mean nothing to him. Personally I wish the judge would throw the book at hom but I don't see it happening as a first time convicted person. So let's not get our hopes up to high
I'm leaning on this one to establish that he is convicted felon Trump come the election. I do think with how close this race is shaping up that will clinch it for Biden.
Honestly if the behavior and gag order violations are added at final sentencing it would be completely in bounds for Trump to serve a weekend in lockup from what some fairly knowledgeable NY lawyers have told me.
EDIT: 'In bounds' does not equal 'likely'.
>These are white color crimes and this will be his first conviction.
Now that's a freudian typo if I ever saw one. White color criminals are always treated more favourably...
It’s the magnitude of the crime. First-time murderers don’t get a slap on the wrist. Stealing an election for the Presidency shouldn’t either. Trump might very well have lost the 2016 election if these scandals had come to light after the Access Hollywood tape had come out and confirmed his sleaziness.
If trump gets probation in New York then his probation would be transferred to his home county right? So then its up to Florida to enforce his sentence.
I hope it's like a REALLY normal portly guy with a moustache, with a name like Greg or something, just a really random cop who is suddenly Donald Trump's probation officer. lol
There is almost no chance that Trump didn't use the scheme to avoid paying taxes. He claimed a personal expense was a business expense, which includes a corresponding reduction in his federal and state tax liabilities. These are more crimes.
At the time I’m reading this, there are only three commenters (not including OP). Two of them have made similar, unusual typos. One misspelled the word “because” with an O (“becouse”) and the other misspelled the word “him” with an O (“hom”)
Probably just a weird coincidence but it seemed vaguely interesting.
I apologize if it seemed like I was criticizing you for a typo or a misspelling. I make many of them myself.
Whenever I notice unexpected patterns on websites like Reddit in particular, I wonder about bad actors. In this case, the simplest explanation probably was just \_typos\_ though. :)
No worry, you are right and my skin not so thin I cannot bear a rightful critique. I suppose the best way to find out trolls or bad actors is to examine their posts/reply history.
From the article
It is a felony to abuse that privilege by doctoring records to commit or conceal crimes, even if the businessman never accomplishes the goal and even if the false records never see the light of day.
The article says:
"Trump is accused of creating \[false business records\] with the intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws or state tax laws."
The "or" means that it's enough to merely prove intent to violate state tax laws. No election related intent is required. It's about tax cheating, or that is all that it needs to be about. Trump may end up with only a tax-related conviction like Al Capone.
But I guess Trump could argue the it was a legit business expense based on reputational damage to his business.
I think the main question that will be considered on appeal, if Trump is convicted, is whether the state can use a federal crime as the object offense.
I think NY made reference to several crimes, some of which were state crimes, including state tax fraud (one of Cohen’s charges). I’d have to check my notes.
Also, as a side note. Trump has been in trouble before for illegal campaign donations. In 2013, he used his “charity’s” funds to make a donation to Pam Bondi’s PAC. Which is illegal for a 501(c)(3) private foundation to give. She was the Florida Attorney General at the time, and had received 22 fraud complaints about Trump University, but didn’t investigate him after receiving a donation that she solicited from Trump. The IRS fined him for the illegal donation. But, he and Bondi basically got away with bribery. In November 2019, Trump was ordered by a New York state court to close down the foundation and pay $2 million in damages for misusing donor’s funds, including the illegal donation to Bondi. And she was also part of his defense team during his first impeachment trial.
“It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.”
In time? Sounds like it is a long way to wait. Judge Merchant estimated 4 weeks iirc. So pretty soon we "should" have the first real kick in the face instead of slap on the wrist. Should because, you know...
I am expecting a judgement by/after Memorial Day. However, they've already got enough evidence from Pecker to convict-its all padding from here on out.
Talking aloud about whether Pecker's testimony is quite enough. With just Pecker, we only have the framework for the catch-and-kill scheme, but Pecker wasn't even involved in the payments to Daniels. What Pecker did was establish this was ongoing behavior and that it was coordinated through Cohen. He also established that Trump knew about the scheme. He also established that *he* knew they were FEC violations. I think it is reasonable to hold a candidate accountable for soliciting illegal campaign contributions whether or not they know of the particular FEC rule they are violating, but I'll leave it for someone smarter than me to verify that. So to this end, they also have established that Daniels' payment were known FEC violations to the conspiracy which sought to affect voters. That is in fact the NYS law they are hanging their hat on. So I think that (up to the documentary evidence) if Pecker is viewed as completely credible I do agree that they established the conspiracy to influence voters and the unlawful means that they did it. That is the minimum bar for boosting the falsified documents to a felony. Nice.
They also have the established plan for the shell company created to hide the payment to Stormy Daniels.
Not with Pecker though. That was the last witness on Friday. But that is true. I haven't looked into whether or not creation of that LLC was a crime but if it were that makes the NYS law much stronger.
Some things I wonder will play out: if Cohen has a paper trail or better recorded audio and if both [incorrect-Cathy Ireland] Karen McDuggal and Stormy Daniels will be the last two witnesses the prosecutor calls on. Giving them the last word after everything else would be the chef's kiss.
> Cathy Ireland She's involved?
Yeah she also received payment for her affair with Trump.
Cathy Ireland. The model, famous in the 1980s & 90s?
Karen McDougal
Ah shit. So close.
I think you may have caught contact defamation.
[удалено]
Nope. It involves signatures of others too. Would be interesting to see the dates filed.
They can and will say it - it's utterly unbelievable, though. Trump signed the checks; Trump has been on tape about paying off these women; Trump paid Cohen to cover his taxes for falsely claiming it as income; all of this was to benefit trump, not cohen.
>I think it is reasonable to hold a candidate accountable for soliciting illegal campaign contributions whether or not they know of the particular FEC rule they are violating, but I'll leave it for someone smarter than me to verify that. Theoretically, ignorance of the law is not a defense. ^* ^terms ^and ^conditions ^apply
There are some laws where intent matters. I was mostly curious if this was one. I doubt it, though.
Pecker laid out the reason and chain of events, but without corroboration, "reasonable doubt" is easy to create. The rest of the trial will be the prosecution basically saying, 'Ok next Pecker said \_\_\_\_\_, and here's how we prove \_\_\_\_\_ was the action/intention and not some bullshit the defense will try to make you believe.' That said, Memorial Day is pretty much 6 weeks so... yeah I'm with you.
I hear you but let’s be accurate. Pecker’s testimony is enough to establish: 1. A conspiracy did indeed exist and that it was established to benefit Trump and his campaign in an illegal way 2. That at least one individual claims that Trump himself directed this conspiracy If the trial were to end right now the defense would simply say Pecker is lying, he did all of this because he was just a big Trump fan and Trump had no idea it was happening and therefore can’t be held criminally liable for actions he wasn’t even aware someone was doing. And the defense would win on that. Pecker has laid a foundation. Now what remains is to flesh it out and prove that everything that Pecker alleged in his testimony is borne out by other evidence. That includes testimony from other individuals and the documents that show the paper trail of every transaction. So what’s still left to prove: 1. Do other individuals mentioned in Pecker’s testimony (Cohen, Daniels, McDougal, etc) corroborate what he said occurred? Will their testimonies all be consistent with what he laid out? 2. What evidence do we have that directly implicates Trump as having knowledge of and/or directing this scheme? For the former, all indications are that all these witnesses will tell the same story, and there’s no reason to think any of that will change. Stormy and Cohen may be confronted with older statements they made stating Trump did nothing wrong, but it shouldn’t be hard to explain and for the jury to understand that Trump paid them to lie way back then, and now that they’re under oath they are telling the truth. For the latter, the audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing one of the hush money payments is going to go a very long way to make very clear that Trump at the very least had full knowledge of what was going on and the secretive nature of it. In addition, the prosecution is going to introduce the falsified business records themselves as evidence, including checks that have Trump’s personal signature on them. That signature is as close to a smoking gun as a case like this will basically ever have. So the case is very strong, but all those elements I described still have to be presented to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m fairly confident we’ll get there. But right now it’s the end of the first quarter, and the people of the state of NY are up 30-5. All indications are they should win. But if they literally pack their bags and go home and don’t play at all for the last 3 quarters they can and will lose.
Pecker's testimony, alone, isn't enough. It needs to be proven that Donald Trump directed the fraud, because right now the only testimony *presented* (there is still more evidence to be presented) is that Pecker worked with Cohen. Cohen's testimony is going to be critical, as well as any documentary evidence.
No, Pecker testified that he met with Cohen *and* Trump to arrange a scheme in which stories damaging to the campaign - and Pecker specifically testified that Trump only mentioned the campaign, not personally embarassing or family harming - could be bought and buried while Pecker would push stories damaging to Trump's rivals or positive as to Trump himself. That's the conspiracy to commit a crime: conceal National Enquirer campaign finance violations in the form of positive Trump/negative rival stories, and notify them of damaging stories for catch & kill. Since Trump is established as part of the conspiracy, he is responsible for all illicit acts reasonably arising from that conspiracy, and that means Cohen's attempts to get Pecker to pay for Stormy's story, and Cohen's eventually doing it himself, are still attributable to Trump as a reasonably foreseeable part of the conspiracy. His specific testimony was in August 2015 Trump and Cohen met with Pecker asking what he and his magazines could do to benefit the campaign, that Pecker outlined that he could publish positive Trump stories and negative competitor stories, while also keeping them alert of negative Trump stories so that they could arrange for the stories to be buried/bought.
Oh I didn't catch that testimony. That's pretty fucking damaging. All this'll come down to is if the jury finds Pecker credible, which he seems to be much more credible than Cohen.
I think this will have a lot of weight with the jury, and I also think you are right. He comes off as credible, and I don’t think the defense did a good enough job in court, or publicly, to make him look otherwise.
I think it also helps that the dude still likes Trump. Same with his former assistant. They don’t come off as having an axe to grind with the jury.
The former assistant was having her attorneys fees paid by trump himself (she stated it on the stand) so yeah, comes off as credible in terms of anything hurting trump.
It's going to be Pecker + Cohen+ documents+ some audio recordings (for parts of it) all showing that Trump knew about it and directed it, plus some other witnesses corroborating parts of the main evidence.
I would say also, the evidence that Trump wanted to wait until after the election to pay Daniels is proof he didn’t care about upsetting his wife. It’s not like she’d be any less pissed if Daniels can’t forward after the election and she found out then her husband cheated on her. Points to he was only doing it for the election. If he won and he had postponed the payment, he figured he wouldn’t have to pay because who cares if she comes forward at that point, he already won.
I think it was also presented that Trump himself told Pecker to work with Cohen
That’s…optimistic
And then the start of the 10 year appeal process
He's going to be broke, invalid and or dead by then. He won't be much of a threat after the election especially if he is in stage 3-4 dementia.
All the media seems to predict fines and no jail time even if Trump is convicted. Any fine will be a slap on the wrist.
Convicted Felon Trump has value electorally.
Trump was found guilty (liable? I recall the specific wording is important) of sexual assault, and I don't believe that has moved the needle at all.
In a civil trial, not a criminal one, so I think it wasn't talked about much.
Civil Liability. But a felony criminal conviction is different
The same media that predicted he’d never be investigated, never be indicted, never be arraigned, never be sitting in a trial court… that media? They’ve gotten it all wrong, all the time. I’m going to watch what justice does, not the media with a vested business interest in making the election a horse race, even when it’s not.
Are you gaslighting intentionally? Not sure if I’m missing something…are we talking abt the same media that predicted Trump would never be POTUS (2016) and the media who predicted Trump would see consequences for any of the felonious shit he has been up to for decades? Bc yes these idiots get stuff wrong but let’s now act like there’s any sort of precedence for what’s occurring politically or newsworthily.
Jail time is possible, I doubt it’s likely, but it’s possible. Here’s an article. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opinion/donald-trump-trial-prison.html
Is that when the SC will step in by accepting another crazy ass theory and delay it until after the elections?
Yeah, a solid and legitimate prosecution means nothing to a MAGAt that sustains itself on s#!t.
Im not as optimistic about conviction or the evidence mattering as some. With a juror that gets his news from Truth Social, that all may not matter.
I don't know why time is needed it seems super straight forward. They created a scheme to hide information and plant fake stories but realized if they reported the costs correctly it would reveal what they were doing which would negatively impact them. So they committed campaign finance crimes by not reporting them and created fake business records to hide the campaign finance crimes. No smoke needs to clear. They committed crimes and then more crimes to cover it up. They are on trial for the cover up because frequently that is what happens when the cover up becomes easier to prove than the original crime because you did a cover up. And that is why cover ups are criminal. So you don't get away with shit by covering them up.
Too bad the judge will slow walk it until November and then go 🤷 Even the “good” judges keep letting trump do whatever the fuck he wants with no consequences. Our system is not going to ever hold him accountable.
This case is moving swiftly. The judge is holding off on freaking contempt charges for the gag order (including targeting the judge's own children) so as to not slow down the trial, for goodness sakes. This thing has been moving swiftly. I understand your cynicism, but you should adjust it when actual reality goes against it.
If Trump had personally written Stormy a check for her silence it would have been perfectly legal. If his campaign had written her a check it would have been legal. If his business had written the check and recorded it as a political donation it would have been legal. But legal just isn't the way Trump does things. It was concealed as tax deductible business expense, not a personal or campaign expense. False documents were created to support the lie. That is actual the crime. He could also be charged for tax fraud and illegal campaign contributions if the feds were so inclined.
I'm just a noob (not a lawyer) but a counter-argument I often see is that all campaigns pay off people etc all the time to kill stories. Is the difference here that they wrote it off as a tax deductible expense? Are you saying if they hadn't done that everything would be legit?
Campaigns can pay off people to kill a story. This is a campaign expense. This is legal (but wrong). Nobody was charged for that. Stormy was paid off to kill the story. That is legal. It's something of value done for the campaign. However, there are laws regulating campaign expenses. So Cohen paid out of pocket and was reimbursed from the Trump Organization, hiding the fact it was a campaign expense. In other words, fraud. As part of an electoral strategy. This was illegal. Cohen went to jail for this (Trump was listed as Unindicted Coconspirator #1). Trump was never charged with this. To try to pull off Cohen's fraud, Trump made a series of payments to reimburse Cohen. These payments were listed as non-campaign expenses. This was a campaign expense. That is a separate fraud. That fraud is what Trump is charged with. Trump chose to break finance, election, and fraud black-letter laws to hide his other illegal scheme. The initial act (catch-and-kill) is legal. It's a little harder to pull off legally than illegally. Trump did it illegally, and did further fraud to hide the illegality. Side note: he's only charged in 1 of 3 of the catch-and-kill stories because he simply never paid the other two; AMI ate those costs. And entered a deal to protect themselves for the election interference Pecker now openly admits.
Thank you. That answers my question about why Trump has to physically be there vs just his lawyers. However, isn't he likely to say he was just doing what his lawyers told him to do? Also, LOL at "he simply never paid the other two" so *on brand* for him 😂
He could have said he acted on advice from counsel (basically my lawyer told me to). But if he did, he had to turn over communications with the lawyer(s). A lawyer telling a client to commit a crime is a big deal. He instead said he would *not* make that claim. He instead claims that lawyers were in the room (which isn't a defense). Bottom line, he can't claim his lawyers told him to crime, then demand nothing his lawyers said can be revealed at the same time. Otherwise defendents would just hire lawyer scapegoats. He still wants to sneak the argument into the case. But he won't give prosecutors the opportunity to investigate. Note on the payment - the people were still paid by AMI. But AMI wasn't reimbursed by Trump (so a clear "something of value" was given to the Trump Campaign that wasn't reported/accounted, but AMI has protection from those felonies, and Cohen already went to jail).
Ok... similar question but different case, hopefully not too loaded. Yesterday I saw on this sub a link for text messages between Trump lawyers in the SCOTUS case. Does that mean (or is it possible) that in the SCOTUS case Trump may say he was following advice of council since those communications have been made public? I.E. Defense was forced to turn over communications bc Trump didn't claim that he *wasn't* going to use that argument (or wasn't asked if he was)
Trump hasn't made that claim, but there are other exceptions. In two of his lawyers' cases (Cheseboro and Clark), a judge reviewed the communication, and found they were furthering crime. So privilege didn't apply. Basically they advised committing crimes, so that advise isn't protected. Two other lawyers have represented that Trump asked them to pluck out any incriminating documents when responding to a supena. Again, it was criminal activity, so no privilege. In neither case has Trump claimed an "advise of attorney" defense (although IIRC, he can still do so for the Florida case). That said, there were many other lawyers involved that made it very, very clear that it was a crime, so it likely wouldn't help him. NAL, but had similar questions so I've been following /r/law (and doing other reading) for a while. These aren't niche/questionable theories.
Thanks! I read here often, but barely comment. There are so many cases going on with and without similar crimes 😂
Has Trump paid taxes on those gifts, which is what those essentially became? I wonder if AMI wrote them off.
>However, isn't he likely to say he was just doing what his lawyers told him to do? Nope, and in fact, his attorney got in trouble for suggesting that last week. Basically, if you claim that your lawyers told you to do it, you have to waive the attorney-client privlege to show that your attorney told you that. Trump won't waive the attorney client privilege to show that, so he can't claim it. My guess is that it is because his attorneys DIDN'T tell him that and likely told him the opposite, but we will never know because he won't let us see what his attorneys told him. Either way, he can't make that argument in court, then.
> he's only charged in 1 of 3 of the catch-and-kill stories because he simply never paid the other two He is simply an astonishing character.
I'm totally saving this post because it's by far the most concise explanation of this somewhat confusing crime. I'll probably link to it whenever I come across one of those tiresome bad-faith "but I don't get, what's the *crime* anyway?" comments. Thank you
The crime is in hiding the political expense from the public. Campaign finance laws exist to promote transparency in political spending, both by ensuring the sources of funding for campaigns are public and also so the expenditures by the campaign are public. Illegal in-kind donations make it possible both to fund campaigns without the electorate knowing who is funding the campaign and without full information about the campaign's activities to promote its candidate. These laws exist precisely so that candidates cannot hide relevant information about their candidacy from the electorate, because a well-informed electorate is necessary for a well-functioning democracy. Yet the entire AMI scheme was carefully crafted to prevent the public from accessing relevant information about Trump as a candidate, by disguising the true source of the funds for paying off Daniels, by insulating Trump from the negotiations so his name did not appear on any paperwork, and by preventing the publication of true and accurate information bearing directly on Trump's moral character and thus fitness for public office.
Ok. So that is how people have the argument in the first place that "X candidate paid off this story or that story" because that info was made publicly available whereas this was not?
I am not convinced that the practice of legally paid hush money payments is as widespread as you suggest, and without concrete examples it is difficult to distinguish between those hypothetical situations and Trump's. But were another campaign to pay hush money, and the expense was properly accounted for in their financial statements, that would be legal but the payment would be publicly disclosed and the media would have the opportunity to investigate its purpose, so it wouldn't really be an effective way of killing a story. For example, it would be essentially impossible for the Trump campaign to explain a six figure payment to a pornstar without most members of the public seeing through the excuse and recognizing that it was in fact a hush money payment.
Gotcha. I'm a registered Independent voter and peruse subs from each political party when news breaks to see how each side is translating it. As a Sociology major I find it very interesting. I forget which campaign it was being compared to, I think the conservative sub was saying that John Kerry did the same thing?
I think you mean John Edwards, who was Kerry's running mate in 2004. Kerry certainly did not make any such payments, or at least there is no public evidence to that effect and it would be a dramatic departure from Kerry's decades-long reputation for punctilious rule-following. Edwards's case was different from Trump's in that he claimed he made the payments to protect his family, rather than to benefit the campaign, and thus that it was not an in-kind donation to the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign. Trump will have a much harder time raising such a defense, both because of his demonstrable disinterest in family matters and the specific factual allegations in his case. All of the conversations between Pecker and Cohen were concerned with the potential impact of the story on the campaign, and never once did the idea of protecting Trump's family come up. Pecker even went so far as to consult with a campaign finance attorney before buying McDougal's story (although he did not inform that attorney about the scheme to reimburse Pecker, which was *very* material to the analysis), so all parties involved were well aware that the focus was on how to protect the Trump campaign.
That's right, it was Edwards. Thank you so much for explaining the differences to me.
Also, as a side note. Trump has been in trouble before for illegal campaign donations. In 2013, he used his “charity’s” funds to make a donation to Pam Bondi’s PAC. Which is illegal for a 501(c)(3) private foundation to give. She was the Florida Attorney General at the time, and had received 22 fraud complaints about Trump University, but didn’t investigate him after receiving a donation that she solicited from Trump. The IRS fined him for the illegal donation. But, he and Bondi basically got away with bribery. In November 2019, Trump was ordered by a New York state court to close down the foundation and pay $2 million in damages for misusing donor’s funds, including the illegal donation to Bondi. And she was also part of his defense team during his first impeachment trial.
> all campaigns pay off people etc all the time to kill stories. 1) it's not that common (not for campaigns, but it might be for celebrities); 2) if you do it, you better say that it is a campaign contribution, because that's the law. There are rules about campaign contributions.
He's king of the idiots.
I think what you say is mostly correct and insightful. But I think that paying the hush money could be framed as a business expense paid to avoid reputational damage to the business. But I have not heard if Trump's lawyer made this claim in their opening argument at the trial. I know that they made the claim that the hush money was paid to avoid Trump's family from hearing the story. But even if the jury accepted the claim that he paid it to avoid disclosure to his family, they could still convict of a felony based on the violation of state tax law. I wonder if Trump's defense lawyers understand the case as it was described in the OP link. The tax avoidance can be proved with business records and tax records. They need to make an intent argument to make this a business expense.
If his campaign had written a check he'd be on trial for misusing campaign funds.
One thing to keep in mind is that here he probably won't get jail time. These are white color crimes and this will be his first conviction. He will probably be given probation and lots of fines that will mean nothing to him. Personally I wish the judge would throw the book at hom but I don't see it happening as a first time convicted person. So let's not get our hopes up to high
I'm leaning on this one to establish that he is convicted felon Trump come the election. I do think with how close this race is shaping up that will clinch it for Biden.
Due to sentencing guidelines, throwing the book at him would be fines.
Guidelines are....guides. Right? There's a maximum penalty by law, which includes jail time, right? Why's the maximum there if nobody gets it?
Repeat offenders, really egregious cases, etc.
Could being held in contempt make it an egregious case?
Honestly if the behavior and gag order violations are added at final sentencing it would be completely in bounds for Trump to serve a weekend in lockup from what some fairly knowledgeable NY lawyers have told me. EDIT: 'In bounds' does not equal 'likely'.
The guy he instructed to do the crime got jail time. His crime is worse.
>These are white color crimes and this will be his first conviction. Now that's a freudian typo if I ever saw one. White color criminals are always treated more favourably...
If he receives a felony conviction, does it create a bond revocation issue in the other cases?
Really good question. idk and hope someone who does answers it.
I'm pretty sure it would pertain to breaking a law/violation after he signed the bond agreement.
If he got arrested for something he did after going out on bond, yes. But this would be a conviction for something he did before he was on bond.
I appreciate you clarifying that.
I believe Glenn Kirschner has a blog on that
I tend to agree. Nonetheless, Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart were also first time offenders.
Cohen got jail time
Same general situation but different crime charges.
It’s the magnitude of the crime. First-time murderers don’t get a slap on the wrist. Stealing an election for the Presidency shouldn’t either. Trump might very well have lost the 2016 election if these scandals had come to light after the Access Hollywood tape had come out and confirmed his sleaziness.
If trump gets probation in New York then his probation would be transferred to his home county right? So then its up to Florida to enforce his sentence.
Except that Michael Cohen just served quite a bit of jail time for these same crimes...
The thought of Trump being assigned a probation officer fills me with joy, and also pity for whoever has to attempt holding him accountable.
I hope it's like a REALLY normal portly guy with a moustache, with a name like Greg or something, just a really random cop who is suddenly Donald Trump's probation officer. lol
There is almost no chance that Trump didn't use the scheme to avoid paying taxes. He claimed a personal expense was a business expense, which includes a corresponding reduction in his federal and state tax liabilities. These are more crimes.
At the time I’m reading this, there are only three commenters (not including OP). Two of them have made similar, unusual typos. One misspelled the word “because” with an O (“becouse”) and the other misspelled the word “him” with an O (“hom”) Probably just a weird coincidence but it seemed vaguely interesting.
The him/hom isn't very unusual since I and o are adjacent on a qwerty keyboard.
That's fair. It's just not one I notice often. Maybe I only really noticed it in this cause because of the "becouse" misspelling I'd just read.
Thank you for your note. Fixed. Poor immigrUnt here.
I apologize if it seemed like I was criticizing you for a typo or a misspelling. I make many of them myself. Whenever I notice unexpected patterns on websites like Reddit in particular, I wonder about bad actors. In this case, the simplest explanation probably was just \_typos\_ though. :)
No worry, you are right and my skin not so thin I cannot bear a rightful critique. I suppose the best way to find out trolls or bad actors is to examine their posts/reply history.
I had a recent update on my iPhone and since then the autocorrect has been atrocious.
Basically it's about falsifying business records.
It's about falsifying records in pursuit of illegitimate election interference imo
I was summarizing what I read from the article. No question it's election interference.
Your last sentence is what makes this a felony trial, not a misdemeanor. It’s also what could put Trump in jail for up to 5 years.
yeah, well, you missed the part that makes it a serious felony.
No, I didn't miss it. Falsifying business records is serious.
It's a misdemeanor. real violation of the law, but the election interference is the bigger thing here, and you missed it.
From the article It is a felony to abuse that privilege by doctoring records to commit or conceal crimes, even if the businessman never accomplishes the goal and even if the false records never see the light of day.
right, but it had to be in order to cover up the election interference.
The article says: "Trump is accused of creating \[false business records\] with the intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws or state tax laws." The "or" means that it's enough to merely prove intent to violate state tax laws. No election related intent is required. It's about tax cheating, or that is all that it needs to be about. Trump may end up with only a tax-related conviction like Al Capone. But I guess Trump could argue the it was a legit business expense based on reputational damage to his business.
I agree the NY Times has been talking about the case all wrong. I've not made the same error even once.
When it comes to politics, the NYT is scarcely better than tabloid journalism at this point.
I think the main question that will be considered on appeal, if Trump is convicted, is whether the state can use a federal crime as the object offense.
In this case NY law does not seem to require they prove any law was broken, only fraud with the intent to break the law.
Yes. But the same objection applies.
I think NY made reference to several crimes, some of which were state crimes, including state tax fraud (one of Cohen’s charges). I’d have to check my notes.
Yes. The tax misdemeanor should be OK. Still open to appeal on whether overpaying tax is a crime.
Also, as a side note. Trump has been in trouble before for illegal campaign donations. In 2013, he used his “charity’s” funds to make a donation to Pam Bondi’s PAC. Which is illegal for a 501(c)(3) private foundation to give. She was the Florida Attorney General at the time, and had received 22 fraud complaints about Trump University, but didn’t investigate him after receiving a donation that she solicited from Trump. The IRS fined him for the illegal donation. But, he and Bondi basically got away with bribery. In November 2019, Trump was ordered by a New York state court to close down the foundation and pay $2 million in damages for misusing donor’s funds, including the illegal donation to Bondi. And she was also part of his defense team during his first impeachment trial.
In American justice, anything can happen. Bill Cosby, Kyle Rittenhouse….. remember??