Page 32 of 67 FirstFirst ... 3031323334 ... LastLast
Results 373 to 384 of 793

Thread: Trump Trials

  1. #373

    Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    It's clear the money was paid because the Trump team feared that the emergence of her story just before the 2016 election would torpedo Trump's chance of becoming president. That makes the payment a campaign contribution – and the Trump campaign's failure to disclose it to the Federal Election Commission illegal.The $130,000 Trump and Cohen paid to silence Daniels is not actually illegal in itself. In Trump’s case, he’s not being charged with making the payment itself or reimbursing it, but has only been indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, based on the fact that his reimbursement payments to Cohen were allegedly disguised as legal payments.


    Jim was right, if you dont understand this simple fact then you simply arent listening to whats going on and just want to stick up for your guy. You dont even know the basics of the case.


    The basics of the case are a joke.

    It’s not in any way, shape or form a campaign contribution. Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so.

    Does McDonalds now count as a campaign contribution because it allowed his continued breathing? Surely he spent more on Nuggets than the campaign contribution limit and now we are pretending that someone receiving money from a candidate’s business is the same as contributing to their campaign….

    He already said he didn’t want his family to find out. So it wasn’t campaign related and he paid his lawyer, who then paid the payment. Sounds like a cut and dry legal defense to me. Save the witch-hunt for something with legs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jonboy79; 05-26-2024 at 09:23 PM.





  2. #374
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    Trump gag orders in criminal proceedings


    Quote Originally Posted by balbomb View Post
    If you think the gag order is justified, and not only justified but to the point it's silly to question it, you are being disingenuous about your own biases.
    Now you're being intentionally dumb.

    Do you know how the gag orders came about in the two criminal cases? Shuh: you probably assumed the judges just decided spontaneously. Well, that's not what happened. Here is what happened.

    Let's start with Chutkan in WashDC. I'll follow up with Merchan in New York in a separate post (length restrictions).


    Chutkan in WashDC

    Jack Smith's team filed a motion on Sept 15:
    (The history of motions is viewable on the CourtListener listing of the docket, here.)

    GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

    You can read the motion here:

    They state that "Defendant Has a History of Inflammatory and Misleading Statements That He Knew or Should Have Known Would Cause Others to Harass and Harm Perceived Critics or Adversaries" – which we all know is true.

    They list seven specific examples of people (names reacted in the publicly-available version) who experienced threats of violence after the defendant issued public posts about them.
    They mention "Local Criminal Rule 57.7" which authorizes a judge to issue gag orders.

    On Sept 25 Trump's attorney's filed their opposition to the motion. You can read that here:

    "Blah blah blah I'm a special snowflake who is not bound by any of the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant." (I'm paraphrasing a little.)

    The govt replied on Sept 29, viewable here:

    Same day, Chutkan issued an order scheduling a hearing on the motion for Oct 16.

    The transcript of the hearing is here:

    Chutkan issued her ruling the next day, viewable here:

    Quote:
    Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment.
    ...
    The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored its order to meet the force of those threats. Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings.

    Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that...

    So the prosecution had to ASK for the gag order (make a motion); they had to SHOW that an order was necessary (the history of people getting threatened with violence after Trump targeted them in a social media post); the defense had to get an opportunity to respond; in this case the judge ordered a hearing; and THEN the gag order was issued. The gag order didn't just fall out of the sky.

    Team Trump appealed the gag order, and the appeals court upheld it (they pared it back very slightly: there was an area where in the hearing Chutkan said "we know it when we see it", the appeals court nailed that down more explicitly).



    I "think" (I would use the word know) the DC gag order was justified, and not only justified but to the point it's silly to question it, because the prosecution had to show the gag order was justified. They met that burden very, very easily – as anyone who took a moment to look up the procedural history would be aware. The judge granted the order on the basis of the evidence presented and the law. And then the appeals court agreed with the judge.

    You ignoring that history is just exposing your own bias. Do a little bit of fucking research.





  3. #375
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    Trump gag orders in criminal proceedings

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by balbomb View Post
    If you think the gag order is justified, and not only justified but to the point it's silly to question it, you are being disingenuous about your own biases.
    Now you're being intentionally dumb.

    Do you know how the gag orders came about in the two criminal cases? Shuh: you probably assumed the judges just decided spontaneously. Well, that's not what happened. Here is what happened.

    ...I'll follow up with Merchan in New York in a separate post (length restrictions).

    Merchan in New York

    Very similar outline of events in this trial as in DC.

    On Feb 24 Bragg's time filed a "NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER RESTRICTING EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS."

    https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-cont...b.-22-2024.pdf
    This thing runs for no joke 330 pages!

    Excerpts:
    Defendant has a longstanding and perhaps singular history of using social media, speeches, rallies, and other public statements to attack individuals that he considers to be adversaries, including “courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.”

    Defendant’s attacks online and in other public statements have singled out several prosecutors in the District Attorney’s Office, and have also targeted the District Attorney’s family.

    Defendant’s social media posts have often used ominous language and violent rhetoric to describe this prosecution:
    ...[Several examples]
    ...
    • “District Attorney Bragg is a danger to our Country, and should be removed immediately . . . .”

    • “We must stop them cold!”

    One of defendant’s social media posts included a picture of defendant holding a baseball bat and wielding it at the back of the District Attorney’s head.
    Another post quoted an article asserting that defendant had been indicted “because they want to provoke violence.”

    Defendant’s statements have resulted in credible threats of violence, harassment, and intimidation directed at the District Attorney, his staff, and the District Attorney’s Office.

    For example, on August 9, 2023, the federal government filed a criminal complaint charging a Utah resident with transmitting interstate death threats against District Attorney Alvin Bragg through a series of communications that began on March 18, 2023—hours after defendant posted a call on social media for his followers to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

    The District Attorney’s office has also received hundreds of threats in the wake of, and connected to, defendant’s public attacks. Attached to this motion is an affidavit from New York Police Department Sergeant Nicholas Pistilli
    ...
    direct connection between defendant’s public attacks on the District Attorney and threats on this Office ... NYPD’s Threat Assessment & Protection Unit ...
    terroristic mailings ...the Office received a letter addressed to the District Attorney containing a small amount of white powder and a note stating: “Alvin: I’m going to kill you.”
    ...the Office received a[nother] letter addressed to the District Attorney containing a white powder and a note that included images of the District Attorney and Donald Trump and the words “you will be sorry.”
    ...
    Defendant’s advocacy of revenge and retribution against perceived opponents...
    ...
    Defendant has also acknowledged—and reports have confirmed—that his public attacks have incited his supporters to engage in their own misconduct, yet defendant has refused to moderate his comments to prevent such harms. See, e,g., Transcript, CNN Town Hall with Former President Donald Trump, May 11, 2023.
    The motion itself runs for 31 pages. Then there are another 63 pages of exhibits showing threatening posts from Trump. The next couple hundred pages incorporate some precedent about protecting jurors in the Roger Stone case. It finishes up with some stuff from Fulton County (my eyes were glazing over at that point, I dunno what it said).


    Team Trump filed its opposition on March 4:


    "Gag orders require a showing of 'Clear and Present Danger', the People should not be permitted to proceed on a lower standard, the People have not met their burden," etc.

    Merchan issued his order granting the motion three weeks later, on March 26:


    Quote:
    The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and the State's interest in the fair administration of justice are [both] implicated by the relief sought. The baiancing of these interests must come with the highest scrutiny. "Properly applied, the test requires a court to make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance the character of the evil, as well as the likelihood, against the need for free and unfettered expression." (Landmark Communicatins Inc v Virginia, 1978.) The Court has an obligation to prevent outside influences, including extrajudicial speech, from disturbing the integrity of a trial. (Same case; see also Sheppard v Maxwell, 1966.)

    With the standard set forth in Landmark this Court has reviewed the record of prior exrajudicial statements attributed to Defendant as documented in Exhibits 1-16 of the People's Motion for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements. Notably, Defendant does not deny the utterance of any of those extrajudicial statements, or the reported effect those statements had on the targeted paties. Rather, Defendant argues that, as the "presumptive Republican nominee and leading candidate in the 2024 election" he must have unfettered acccss to the voting public to respond to attacks frorn political opponents and to "criticize these public figures." (See Defendant's Opposition to Motion at pgs. 8-9.) Yet these extrajudicial statements went far beyond defending himself against "attacks" by "public figures". Indeed, his statements were threatening, inflammatory, denigrating, and the targets of his statements ranged from local and federal officials, court and court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty.
    ...
    Although this Court did not issue an order restricting Defendant's speech at the inception of this case, choosing instead to issue an admonition, given the nature and impact of the statements made against this Court and a family member thereof, the District Attorney and an Assistant District Attorney [and] the witnesses in this case ... and given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminence of the risk of harm is now paramount.
    ...
    The uncontested record reflecting the Defendant's prior extrajudicial statcmcnts establishes a sufficient risk to the administration of jusuce consistent with the standard set forth in Landmark...

    THEREFORE, it is hereby

    ORDERED, that the People's motion for a restriction on extrajudicial statcments by the Defendant is GRANTED to the extent that...

    So, again the prosecution had to ASK for the gag order (make a motion); they had to SHOW that a gag order was necessary (the history of violent threats following Trump's social media posts); the defense had a chance to respond; and THEN the gag order was issued. Like the DC one, the New York gag order didn't just fall out of the sky. Nor was it a whim on the part of the judge.

    Team Trump appealed, and lost:

    Appeals court upholds Trump gag order in New York hush money trial
    May 14, 2024
    https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/05/...sh-money-trial
    The New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division upheld a gag order Tuesday against former president Donald Trump in a criminal case ...

    In its ruling, the appeals court held that Merchan properly balanced Trump’s right to free speech with the need to protect participants in the trial. ... the New York court reasoned that “courts have a duty to shield witnesses from influences that could affect their testimony and undermine the integrity of the trial process” as well as a duty to protect court staff. Applying this principle, the appeals court held that “Justice Merchan properly determined that petitioner’s public statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case[.]”


    I know the gag orders were justified, and not only justified but to the point it's silly to question them, because I did the homework. I read the procedural history. In both cases the prosecution had to bring evidence to show the gag orders were justified. That was extremely easy. The judges granted the orders on the basis of the evidence presented and the law. And then appeals courts upheld the gag orders, because they were lawful and justified.

    You ignoring that history just exposes your own bias. Try doing some homework yourself.
    Last edited by JimZipCode; 05-27-2024 at 03:01 AM.





  4. #376
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    By the way, the history of the motions in both cases reveals the butt-simple reason Trump received a gag order and Cohen did not:

    • Prosecutors "moved" for a gag order on Trump in both trials, and adduced a ton of evidence why one was needed (more evidence in New York than in DC);

    • Defense attorneys did NOT "move" for a gag order on Cohen.

    It's really that simple. One side (in both cases) asked for one, the other side did not.

    After Cohen testified, Team Trump asked the gag order to be lifted in regard to Cohen (only), so Trump could reply to Cohen's social media blasts. After all, Cohen theoretically wasn't subject to witness intimidation anymore; his testimony was over. Merchan declined – but he also told prosecutors to admonish Cohen to be quiet.

    That to my knowledge is the closest the defense ever came to asking that Cohen be gagged.



    I agree with you guys that Cohen shouldn't have been allowed to issue social media blasts on Trump during the trial. He was a "likely witness" — the most likely witness, an inevitable witness, the witness most central to the prosecution's case. Someone should've filed a motion asking for a gag order on him. I bet one would've been granted.





  5. #377
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    This is funny.

    James Comey managed to pry his head a centimeter or so out of his ass the other day, far enough for some words to be audible:

    Comey: Trump election interference case ‘much stronger than I imagined’
    05/23/24
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...erference-case
    “I wasn’t sure that I would have [brought the case] when I read the indictment, but now having seen the case, I’m not sure — after investigating it — how they wouldn’t bring it,” Comey told NewsNation’s Dan Abrams on Wednesday. “They had a much stronger case than I imagined.”
    I read that headline out loud to my wife, and she snapped "Who gives a fuck what that dickhead thinks??"

    Dickhead went on to say:
    “There’s an overwhelming chance of a conviction, a significant but much smaller chance of a hung jury and zero chance of an acquittal,” Comey said.
    I don't agree with his oddsmaking. "Overwhelming" chance of conviction? I don't see that. Maybe 55%, but I don't see "overwhelming".




    By the way — I hesitate to admit this because it shows just how ignorant of trials I am, and how much learning I've been trying to do on-the-fly over the past year — but:

    I didn't realize a not-guilty verdict had to be unanimous! I knew a guilty verdict had to be unanimous. But I didn't realize a not-guilty verdict also had to be unanimous.

    I did know there was such a thing as a "hung jury". I guess I never really thought about what the difference is between a hung jury and a not-guilty verdict. To the extent I ever thought about it at all, I sort of assumed that not-guilty could be reached by simple majority. Like:

    Guilty = unanimous
    Not-guilty = majority
    Hung jury = anything else

    Well, that's wrong. I guess everyone else probably already knew that. Both Guilty and Not-guilty verdicts have to be reached unanimously. Welcome to 8th-grade social studies. Anything less than unanimous is a hung jury.

    Given that (new to me) piece of (fundamental!) information, I would disagree with Comey about about the likelihoods. I'd say a hung jury is the most likely outcome; maybe around 45%? Guilty the second most likely; maybe 40%? And acquittal least likely, maybe around 15%.

    That's just thumb in the wind guesstimating, of course. It might even be biased too high toward the prosecution; hung jury might be more like 60%, I don't know.





  6. #378
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    I thought it was a campaign expense, which was ridiculous in and of itself.

    To consider it a contribution is so far beyond ridiculous I can’t believe this case ever saw the inside of the court room.

    You actually, legitimately find this to be even remotely conceptually viable?
    I was literally just answering a question about what the charge is.

    But:

    You may consider it ridiculous, but you face a real thorny logic conundrum if you maintain that the hush-money payment to Stormy couldn't possibly be a campaign contribution. The hurdle is that Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation over that exact payment back in 2018.

    That means:

    • the DOJ thought it was a campaign contribution: they charged the crime
    • Cohen thought it was a campaign contribution: he pled to the crime
    • Cohen's attorney thought it was a campaign contribution: he allowed his client to plea to it
    • the judge in that case thought it was a campaign contribution: he accepted the plea

    Just on the basis of that alone, it's much more than "remotely conceptually viable" that the hush-money payment to Stormy could be a campaign contribution. It was legally established six years ago that it WAS a campaign contribution. That battle's over.

    Doesn't prove that Trump committed the falsification crime of course; or did the falsification to conceal the contribution. The New York prosecutors bear the burden of proof on that, and they may have met it or not. But the ship has sailed on whether the payment was a campaign contribution; and it sailed years ago.



    So, yeah, I do find it "conceptually viable". I follow the logic. It's clear enough. Again, the prosecution may have failed to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; but I definitely find the concept viable.





  7. Re: Trump Trials

    Meanwhile.....back at the ranch.....

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...it-1998-983371

    We'll do Hillary next.....





  8. #380

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    I was literally just answering a question about what the charge is.

    But:

    You may consider it ridiculous, but you face a real thorny logic conundrum if you maintain that the hush-money payment to Stormy couldn't possibly be a campaign contribution. The hurdle is that Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation over that exact payment back in 2018.

    That means:

    • the DOJ thought it was a campaign contribution: they charged the crime
    • Cohen thought it was a campaign contribution: he pled to the crime
    • Cohen's attorney thought it was a campaign contribution: he allowed his client to plea to it
    • the judge in that case thought it was a campaign contribution: he accepted the plea

    Just on the basis of that alone, it's much more than "remotely conceptually viable" that the hush-money payment to Stormy could be a campaign contribution. It was legally established six years ago that it WAS a campaign contribution. That battle's over.

    Doesn't prove that Trump committed the falsification crime of course; or did the falsification to conceal the contribution. The New York prosecutors bear the burden of proof on that, and they may have met it or not. But the ship has sailed on whether the payment was a campaign contribution; and it sailed years ago.



    So, yeah, I do find it "conceptually viable". I follow the logic. It's clear enough. Again, the prosecution may have failed to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; but I definitely find the concept viable.
    Do you know what effect, if any, Cohen's plea on a campaign contribution had on the deal he made?

    For instance, I can imagine a scenario where prosecutors doubt they are able to prove the action was a crime; and, Cohen suspects just as much. But Cohen knows the evidence in the other charges is tougher to defend. So, he'll give up on the campaign charge, not because he's guilty, but because he'll get better terms elsewhere. Put another way, if the campaign crime was the only crime charged does Cohen plea or does he defend? The fact that he pled guilty might be evidence not of a crime but of a negotiating tactic prompted by overcharging.

    The hurdle or conundrum you mention is leapt over by somethings called res judicata and collateral estoppel (not to mention due process). Some times issues resolved in a case needn’t be relitigated in a subsequent case. That's if, among other things, the issue was actually litigated. A plea deal is not actual litigation.

    A judge motivated to protect a defendant from a bad deal is not the same as a judge finding that a defendant actually committed a crime. It's certainly not a finding that people not in the courtroom are likewise guilty. After all, one defendants propensity to fight might greatly exceed another's.





  9. #381
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    Do you know what effect, if any, Cohen's plea on a campaign contribution had on the deal he made?
    ...
    The fact that he pled guilty might be evidence not of a crime but of a negotiating tactic prompted by overcharging.
    None of those parties included me in their deliberations, so no.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    A judge motivated to protect a defendant from a bad deal is not the same as a judge finding that a defendant actually committed a crime.
    Perhaps.

    But you've significantly escalated the, uh, burden here. JonBoy was asserting that it was inconceivable – he used the phrase "conceptually unviable" – that the hush money paid to Stormy could possibly be construed as a campaign contribution. Whether Cohen was guilty of that or not, it was certainly WAY above any threshold of "conceivable viability" that the hush money could be so construed.

    We can't justify a presumption that ALL of the four parties around that plea agreement – prosecutors, defendant, defense attorney, judge – were bamboozled into swallowing an inconceivable theory.

    The same theory about the payment to Stormy was accepted by a grand jury here (in the case in front of Merchan), survived motions to dismiss, apparently survived a motion for directed verdict after the prosecution rested, and seems to be about to go to the jury on ~Wednesday.

    JonBoy may find the theory ridiculous, but it's certainly been viable enough. Like how a flu virus can survive on a counter surface after a sneeze; this theory has been lying exposed on a couple metaphorical countertops (Cohen's case, this case) and is still going.

    That doesn't mean Alvin Bragg & co have proved their case. But it does mean I'm not an idiot for understanding the prosecution's theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    It's certainly not a finding that people not in the courtroom are likewise guilty.
    Of course not.

    There's language in one or two of Merchan's pretrial rulings that if Cohen's guilty plea to FECA violations is brought up in court, the jury must be instructed that it isn't in any way probabtive that THIS defendant is guilty of that.

    In the end I think both sides avoided it. They mentioned other convictions from that specific plea agreement (tax evasion) but not the election crime.





  10. #382

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    I was literally just answering a question about what the charge is.

    But:

    You may consider it ridiculous, but you face a real thorny logic conundrum if you maintain that the hush-money payment to Stormy couldn't possibly be a campaign contribution. The hurdle is that Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation over that exact payment back in 2018.

    That means:

    • the DOJ thought it was a campaign contribution: they charged the crime
    • Cohen thought it was a campaign contribution: he pled to the crime
    • Cohen's attorney thought it was a campaign contribution: he allowed his client to plea to it
    • the judge in that case thought it was a campaign contribution: he accepted the plea

    Just on the basis of that alone, it's much more than "remotely conceptually viable" that the hush-money payment to Stormy could be a campaign contribution. It was legally established six years ago that it WAS a campaign contribution. That battle's over.

    Doesn't prove that Trump committed the falsification crime of course; or did the falsification to conceal the contribution. The New York prosecutors bear the burden of proof on that, and they may have met it or not. But the ship has sailed on whether the payment was a campaign contribution; and it sailed years ago.



    So, yeah, I do find it "conceptually viable". I follow the logic. It's clear enough. Again, the prosecution may have failed to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; but I definitely find the concept viable.
    Lol at what the DOJ or a judge thinks or says about a case. There is zero objectivity there. Even you should recognize that by now.





  11. #383

    Re: Trump Trials

    Well, the "conception" argument is based on the idea that a campaign contribution is determined by the category of the act and not by the motive of the actor. Buying the services of pollster is a campaign contribution because the category of act is such that it would only be used for a campaign. Paying off a mistress or extortionist (or your lawyer to shoo away the mistress or extortionist) is done irrespective of a campaign. To avoid traps of illegality, to avoid prosecutorial snooping, and let political speech run free -- we try to create rules that are bright and easy to follow, usually categorical rules.

    As for the judge, prosecutors, and Cohen being bamboozled, well, "bamboozled" denotes deception. That's too strong a word. Rather, the people involved may have had not had the incentive or the sufficient resources to dispute the matter. The big fish needing frying was tax evasion, after all, not a tack-on crime.

    It's not uncommon to threaten more and more fanciful charges to exhaust a defendant, hoping he relents on the main charge. For a defendant, "Winning" on a fanciful charge looks like losing because it's an inconspicuous victory, coming disguised in the form of favorable plea terms on the main charge. It doesn't prove the crime. It resolves a dispute.





  12. #384
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    Lol at what the DOJ or a judge thinks or says about a case. There is zero objectivity there.
    I was talking about the judge in the Cohen case of 2018.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    As for the judge, prosecutors, and Cohen being bamboozled, well, "bamboozled" denotes deception.
    Wasn't going for deception. I was trying for an implication like dazzled, confused, unable to focus because of too much input (all the charges).


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    Paying off a mistress or extortionist (or your lawyer to shoo away the mistress or extortionist) is done irrespective of a campaign.
    Or not done. We heard before the case that there was a conversation about getting Stormy to agree to take payment after election day – so they could stiff her, because after the election it wouldn't matter.

    I don't know if that evidence made it into trial. I don't remember hearing about it in news reports; and I think we would have, it's got some smoking-gun qualities. Reporters would likely have been breathless to tell us about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    To avoid traps of illegality, to avoid prosecutorial snooping, and let political speech run free -- we try to create rules that are bright and easy to follow, usually categorical rules.
    I prefer crimes where you don't have to divine intent to find the crime.

    If I go to the hardware store to buy an axe, a prosecutor could argue that I bought it because I intended to chop up my wife to dispose of her body. I say I bought it to clear the small trees that are overgrowing the garden path in our back yard. I only wound up using the axe on my wife's body after I killed her because it's what I had handy; that's not what I bought it for.

    As a general rule, I dont like the idea of axe-buying getting bundled into the list of charges brought over the stuff in the above paragraph. It's kind of a shitty example because there's no crime of axe-buying; but maybe there's some crime like "prepping for murder". Or obstruction of investigation might fit better. Whatever: an act that isn't a crime by itself, but becomes one because of what you're intending.

    That's not my favorite kind of charge. As a citizen I don't love the idea of being criminalized due to thoughts in my head. As a potential juror I don't like the idea being in the position of having to decide what was in someone else's head (and that guy goes to jail or not based on my decision). As a prosecutor (I'm not one) I don't like the extra burden of proof from having to show intent; more work, more pitfalls.

    But there are such crimes. If I pay my gardener an extra thousand because I just love the work he does, that's no crime. If I pay him the extra grand to bury the pieces of my wife around the yard, that is a crime. The gardener might protest that he just did the burying because the body parts were unsightly, lying around like that: he wanted the yard nice & tidy. He thought the extra grand was just a tip for doing a good job. Both guys are free to make the argument; but we wouldn't be offended if the prosecution leveled a charge over the payment. We wouldn't be shocked if a jury convicted on the charge.

    I don't think a criminal code can manage not to have ANY such crimes: that is, acts that are transformed into crimes by intent. They're not my fave, but I don't think we can do without them completely. Conspirators and mob bosses etc can build in too much "plausible deniability" by mixing in legal with corrupt acts.

    Prosecutors have a narrow path on charges like that, as they damn well should. But it's reasonable to have some charges like that on the books.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    ... a fanciful charge looks like losing because it's an inconspicuous victory, coming disguised in the form of favorable plea terms on the main charge. It doesn't prove the crime. It resolves a dispute.
    i think I get what you're saying.

    But 6 years later we have that guilty verdict on that crime. It can't be used in court as proof against another defendant – prosecution in another trial can't weasel their way out of the burden of proof.

    But for random dude on an internet discussion board, I think it shifts the burden of argument. The guy claiming it WASN'T a crime has to bear the weight of showing it. Because it's already been "found" true.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->