ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 On 5/17/2024 at 10:31 PM, B-Man said: . Well then MSNBC is even dumber than people think since the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Well then MSNBC is even dumber than people think since the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read. https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/ Do you have insider knowledge of what the “other crime” is? If so, please publish because there is an absolute sh*tload of legal analysts out there that have no clue. Might put you on the map! his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” So, in addition to proving that the business records were falsified to “defraud” someone, the District Attorney must show that Trump falsified the records to commit “another crime” separate from the fraud. Judge Marshan allowed the District Attorney to proceed with the criminal prosecution without detailing exactly what the “fraud” or “other crime” was. The District Attorney merely suggested that Trump may have committed state tax fraud, or violated the federal election laws, or violated New York election laws, but was not required to spell out the violations, or to pick which of them applied to each of the two separate crimes that must be proven under Section 175.10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 14 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/ Do you have insider knowledge of what the “other crime” is? If so, please publish because there is an absolute sh*tload of legal analysts out there that have no clue. Might put you on the map! his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” So, in addition to proving that the business records were falsified to “defraud” someone, the District Attorney must show that Trump falsified the records to commit “another crime” separate from the fraud. Judge Marshan allowed the District Attorney to proceed with the criminal prosecution without detailing exactly what the “fraud” or “other crime” was. The District Attorney merely suggested that Trump may have committed state tax fraud, or violated the federal election laws, or violated New York election laws, but was not required to spell out the violations, or to pick which of them applied to each of the two separate crimes that must be proven under Section 175.10. Don’t need insider knowledge. It’s all out in the open: ”Specifically, prosecutors contend, the payments to McDougal, Daniels and the doorman violated federal restrictions on corporate and individual campaign contributions and were meant to conceal damaging information from the voting public.” (PBS) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Don’t need insider knowledge. It’s all out in the open: ”Specifically, prosecutors contend, the payments to McDougal, Daniels and the doorman violated federal restrictions on corporate and individual campaign contributions and were meant to conceal damaging information from the voting public.” (PBS) Impressive. You are wasting your talents here at TBD/PPP. Media bigwigs like Dan Abrams and Elie Koenig had no clue what the “other crime” was on the SiriusXM show they hosted Friday. You should call in tomorrow and educate them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 20 Author Share Posted May 20 The King still bringing that high 90's fastball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 8 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Impressive. You are wasting your talents here at TBD/PPP. Media bigwigs like Dan Abrams and Elie Koenig had no clue what the “other crime” was on the SiriusXM show they hosted Friday. You should call in tomorrow and educate them. It’s been pretty well covered. It’s not like it’s a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Don’t need insider knowledge. It’s all out in the open: ”Specifically, prosecutors contend, the payments to McDougal, Daniels and the doorman violated federal restrictions on corporate and individual campaign contributions and were meant to conceal damaging information from the voting public.” (PBS) Who paid these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 5 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Who paid these? AMI: McDougal and the doorman Trump, through the Trump Org: Daniels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s been pretty well covered. It’s not like it’s a secret. Now I’m in a pickle. Do I listen to well-known legal analysts, analysts that are in no way fans of Donald Trump, or to the guy that brought us “everybody’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: AMI: McDougal and the doorman Trump, through the Trump Org: Daniels I believe Cohen did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Pokebball said: I believe Cohen did AMI paid for McDougal and the doorman. It’s why Pe cker, the head of AMI at the time, ended up pleading guilty to campaign finance and tax law violations. 14 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Now I’m in a pickle. Do I listen to well-known legal analysts, analysts that are in no way fans of Donald Trump, or to the guy that brought us “everybody’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking”? You could just listen to a diversity of experts so you aren’t reliant on any one or two to get everything right. Edited May 20 by ChiGoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: AMI paid for McDougal and the doorman. It’s why Pe cker, the head of AMI at the time, ended up pleading guilty to campaign finance and tax law violations. You could just listen to a diversity of experts so you aren’t reliant on any one or two to get everything right. Right. I’m only paying attention to one or two. In this case Honig (Harvard/lead legal analyst CNN*) and Abrams (Columbia/lead legal analyst ABC*). I am not paying attention to any of: G Germain - Syracuse Law Associated Press - Manhattan prosecutors did not specify the other crime in Trump’s indictment and said in subsequent court papers that they “need not prove intent to commit or conceal a particular crime.” Temple Law School website - The charges are for falsification of business records with intent to defraud and conceal another crime (the other crime or crimes are not specified). So on and so forth. You stated earlier that the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read. Do you have any thoughts on how these well-educated folks could be so wrong? * reliable mainstream media Edited May 20 by JDHillFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 20 Author Share Posted May 20 And that darn far right Alan Dershowitz should defer to The King too! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: Right. I’m only paying attention to one or two. In this case Honig (Harvard/lead legal analyst CNN*) and Abrams (Columbia/lead legal analyst ABC*). I am not paying attention to any of: G Germain - Syracuse Law Associated Press - Manhattan prosecutors did not specify the other crime in Trump’s indictment and said in subsequent court papers that they “need not prove intent to commit or conceal a particular crime.” Temple Law School website - The charges are for falsification of business records with intent to defraud and conceal another crime (the other crime or crimes are not specified). So on and so forth. You stated earlier that the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read. Do you have any thoughts on how these well-educated folks could be so wrong? * reliable mainstream media One of the reasons we have so many lawyers is that the law is often not very clear. Especially when a case gets to the point of a trial: if it was obvious, there likely would have been a settlement to avoid trial. I think a lot of the skepticism of this case comes from an unfamiliarity of NYS law and practice. I was originally fairly skeptical of the case, but as it progressed and I learned more about how these charges have traditionally worked (including against politicians), the case seemed stronger to me. Most national law commentators are federal practitioners and would also be unfamiliar with practice in NYS. Importantly, this trial is not being televised. So at best, people are making their opinions based on what other people are reporting. I try to find a mix of beat reporters who live tweet the case with minimal commentary and compare them to each other to get an idea of what is happening. However, even this leaves a glaring hole since I cannot tell how the jury is reacting at any point. This is especially underscored with Cohen's testimony. He's a problematic witness for the prosecution, which is why they tried to buffer his testimony ahead of time through other witnesses and draw the sting before cross. Did it work? I cannot say. I was not there watching the jury's reactions. That also means that commentary about the case is generally based on reports about the case instead of directly from the courtroom. The margin for error there seems pretty large since it's people giving an opinion based on what someone else is saying happened. If anyone is telling you the jury is "definitely" going to do this or that, it's a good sign that you should ignore them. Ultimately, from what I can tell, the prosecution has put on a very strong case for the misdemeanor falsification charges but the step up to felony isn't quite as strong. They've outlined some of the potential violations of law and motives, but I think they'll need to have a very good closing statement to tie everything together neatly. And even then, it depends on how the jury viewed the witnesses. There are clear laws we can point to that would support the step up, but I do not know if the prosecution has brought the jury along on them. tl;dr: These cases are rarely very clear and very few of us are working with direct knowledge and experience with the practice in Manhattan. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: One of the reasons we have so many lawyers is that the law is often not very clear. Especially when a case gets to the point of a trial: if it was obvious, there likely would have been a settlement to avoid trial. I think a lot of the skepticism of this case comes from an unfamiliarity of NYS law and practice. I was originally fairly skeptical of the case, but as it progressed and I learned more about how these charges have traditionally worked (including against politicians), the case seemed stronger to me. Most national law commentators are federal practitioners and would also be unfamiliar with practice in NYS. Importantly, this trial is not being televised. So at best, people are making their opinions based on what other people are reporting. I try to find a mix of beat reporters who live tweet the case with minimal commentary and compare them to each other to get an idea of what is happening. However, even this leaves a glaring hole since I cannot tell how the jury is reacting at any point. This is especially underscored with Cohen's testimony. He's a problematic witness for the prosecution, which is why they tried to buffer his testimony ahead of time through other witnesses and draw the sting before cross. Did it work? I cannot say. I was not there watching the jury's reactions. That also means that commentary about the case is generally based on reports about the case instead of directly from the courtroom. The margin for error there seems pretty large since it's people giving an opinion based on what someone else is saying happened. If anyone is telling you the jury is "definitely" going to do this or that, it's a good sign that you should ignore them. Ultimately, from what I can tell, the prosecution has put on a very strong case for the misdemeanor falsification charges but the step up to felony isn't quite as strong. They've outlined some of the potential violations of law and motives, but I think they'll need to have a very good closing statement to tie everything together neatly. And even then, it depends on how the jury viewed the witnesses. There are clear laws we can point to that would support the step up, but I do not know if the prosecution has brought the jury along on them. tl;dr: These cases are rarely very clear and very few of us are working with direct knowledge and experience with the practice in Manhattan. I notice you avoided my question altogether in favor of rambling on about the trial. You stated earlier that the crimes are in the charging documents for all to see. I listed but a few examples of accomplished people saying the “other crime” is not specified in the charges. There are many more examples. Even assuming you now know more about NY law than some of these people🙄 tell me why they are wrong and you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 (edited) 45 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I notice you avoided my question altogether in favor of rambling on about the trial. You stated earlier that the crimes are in the charging documents for all to see. I listed but a few examples of accomplished people saying the “other crime” is not specified in the charges. There are many more examples. Even assuming you now know more about NY law than some of these people🙄 tell me why they are wrong and you are right. Trump was charged with falsification of business records. That was stepped up from a misdemeanor to a felony based on the idea that it was committed to conceal another crime. Reading through the charging documents, it seems fairly clear they are looking at federal election crimes, state election crimes, and tax crimes. The people you are quoting are very focused on the state election crimes. I think they are pointing out a valid weakness in one of the particular state election laws. To me, it’s been very clear that the easiest hurdle for the step up is federal election law. They got Pxcker to take a deal to avoid prosecution on federal election laws for almost the same facts. The tax law violation is also pretty clear (Pxcker also plead to this) but I don’t think it’d really fly with a jury because it resulted in overpaying taxes. Edited May 21 by ChiGoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Trump was charged with falsification of business records. That was stepped up from a misdemeanor to a felony based on the idea that it was committed to conceal another crime. Reading through the charging documents, it seems fairly clear they are looking at federal election crimes, state election crimes, and tax crimes. The people you are quoting are very focused on the state election crimes. I think they are pointing out a valid weakness in one of the particular state election laws. To me, it’s been very clear that the easiest hurdle for the step up is federal election law. They got Pxcker to take a deal to avoid prosecution on federal election laws for almost the same facts. The tax law violation is also pretty clear (Pxcker also plead to this) but I don’t think it’d really fly with a jury because it resulted in overpaying taxes. In short, despite your earlier contention of being spelled out for all to see, the “other crime” is not specified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 29 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: In short, despite your earlier contention of being spelled out for all to see, the “other crime” is not specified. The charges are literally spelled out. The elements of the step up crimes are also included the charging documents. What you’re focusing on is an interpretation of one of the potential step up charges. To say that we don’t know what Trump is charged with requires one to either ignore the charging documents or to ignore all of the potential step up crimes in favor of a specific interpretation of just one of the charges despite the fact that proof of attempt of literally *any* other crime is sufficient for the step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The charges are literally spelled out. The elements of the step up crimes are also included the charging documents. What you’re focusing on is an interpretation of one of the potential step up charges. To say that we don’t know what Trump is charged with requires one to either ignore the charging documents or to ignore all of the potential step up crimes in favor of a specific interpretation of just one of the charges despite the fact that proof of attempt of literally *any* other crime is sufficient for the step up. And this reasoning is why you, posting on a message board read by 12 people that are ostensibly Buffalo Bills fans, are right and so many others of prominence are wrong. That’s all you had to say. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/05/gaping-hole-trump-indictment-00090701 This is where Bragg’s indictment has done a disservice to the public and to Trump himself. Beyond a general reference to a violation of “election laws” and a passing reference to taxes, the indictment and statement of facts do not specify what “other crimes” Trump allegedly intended to commit. Another guy who is not up to your level of legal analysis. Edited May 21 by JDHillFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts