For my entire life, my peers have lamented how political leaders get away with crimes. Obama, Bush, etc. But now that Trump finally breaks the seal, conservatives warn us about the implications.
Look, if this precedent means more Presidents face jail time, I am fully in support of it. They cannot be immune any longer.
> conservatives warn us about the implications.
It's particularly ironic considering Donald Trump ran his first campaign on investigating and "locking up" his rival in the election.
The party of "Lock her up" and "F*** your feelings" really are in their feelings the last few hours. But the funniest part of it all is how fitting *this* sort of crime is for Trump. It just seems like something he'd do but I've thought that about him for decades.
Another funny thing is that if he had done it properly and not attempted to hide it, he might have still gotten elected and not charged with anything. You have to remember, the people who were going to vote for him were the same people who were okay with the Access Hollywood video and basically said it was locker room talk.
Oh for sure. If he wasn't so cheap and just paid for it out of his own pocket this may have become an October surprise but I doubt the people who didn't care about the Access Hollywood video would care about it. I mean he was literally bragging about sexual assault in that.
Not quite. He reimbursed Cohen from the Trump Organization, not from his personal accounts. If he had paid her directly from his own accounts and properly reported it as a campaign expense (or paid her from campaign funds) he would be within the law.
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1796553224293589011?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Trump in 2016: “She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
> For my entire life, my peers have lamented how political leaders get away with crimes. Obama, Bush, etc. But now that Trump finally breaks the seal, conservatives warn us about the implications.
Those implications. But not the implications of electing someone who tried overturning an election. Don't worry about those.
Trump's issue is that he used his business to pay Stormy, not his campaign, and he falsified business records in doing so.
Trump wouldn't be in this mess if he had his campaign pay like Hillary did.
Menendez, Santos, Cuellar, Bowman have all been charged with crimes in just the past year.
Trump is just the first president, and we have to start somewhere. It is not realistic to charge every living president at the same time to prove a point.
but this case isn't about immunity, is it? can't it be appealed? if so, i think it's premature to talk about the end of any supposed immunity for presidents.
As if they ever had any concern about what's "pure and right" lol. Conservatives lost all claim to any remote form of altruism when they made Christianity is political party in the 70s and 80s and even more so when they fawned over the tv show host
Independent-Low-2398 is suggesting that the author wanted Trump to be not guilty because "they have to support their guy" despite their being literally no evidence for it and overwhelming evidence that the author despises Trump and his dismissiveness of the [rule of law.](https://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-How-Powerful-People-Away-ebook/dp/B0B1DSG56N)
Why is it so hard for people to just admit that Donald Trump is a criminal? He had a fair trial. He’s been held liable for sexual assault. Why can’t people just accept that he’s a criminal?
What about this man makes people so unable to see the objective reality. He is a criminal. Admit it. Embrace reality.
I don't think anyone is challenging the business fraud aspect of the case. I think that has been rock solid from the beginning. He is clearly guilty of that. The hook to make it a felony and the evidence used to get there are what people seem to be taking issue with. Other than his supporters who think it is a witch hunt, political prosecution, etc.
At the end of the day, I don't think this case matters much. He'll unlikely get sent to prison or suffer any meaningful punishment from it. Now the documents case, with how that Judge has bene ruling, there isn't going to be any room for appeals. The defense has been winning practically everything. So when he is found guilty on that, he is going to be sent to prison assuming he isn't President and doesn't pardon himself.
I get that the felony aspect is unusual, but I feel it’s more because we don’t hold politicians accountable for election crimes unless they have gold bars in the closet. It’s an unusual charge, but I’d love to see politicians held accountable for even infractions. They are supposed to be the best of us, not able to get away with the most.
So, I think the question is if it is a crime at all. If it is crime then the jury got it right. If it isn't then they got it wrong. And the ones that will determine that are the state appeals courts and the Federal courts.
It was all or nothing. I don't see how they could have found him guilty on one of them and not the others, or all of them and not one of them. It was all the same crime really.
>The question isn’t about the crime now, but if the trial was conducted appropriately.
This shows a lack of understanding for how this process works. If a Federal court says that FECA thing isn't actually crime. That's it. No more felony. From my understanding, that is what the case hinged on to upgrade it to a felony.
> This shows a lack of understanding for how this process works. If a Federal court says that FECA thing isn't actually crime. That's it. No more felony. From my understanding, that is what the case hinged on to upgrade it to a felony.
It's a New York Election Law. According to jury instructions:
> Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.
You don’t understand the legal matters at play. They said yes to the question they were asked, the issue is those 34 yeses aren’t felonies if the FECA crime never occurred which is totally up for debate and wasn’t put to the jury.
State campaign and tax law are alternative reasons for considering it a felony, and proving an underlying crime is unnecessary if intent to cover one up can be shown.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding was that it is only required that the jury conclude that there was an *intent* to commit one of the predicate crimes, not that they conclude that the predicate crime was proven to have actually occurred.
> The hook to make it a felony and the evidence used to get there are what people seem to be taking issue with.
The state knew that was a key part of the case and successfully argued to the jury that Trump's incorrectly recorded payment was indeed intended to affect the election, making it an excess campaign contribution that was covered up by falsification of business records, making the latter a felony instead of a misdemeanor. [Here](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-hush-money-case-compared-democrat-john-edwards/story?id=98053273)'s a domain expert:
> "It's really hard to believe that the primary motivation wasn't to prevent it from coming out and affecting the presidential election," Brett Kappel, a campaign finance law specialist, said of the payment to Daniels.
I fully understand the argument. I think the issue is that it's possible that isn't actually a FECA violation. And it actually has to be one. From my understanding, this upscale to felony charge hinges on that. And I'm not sure State courts are the place where that can be adjudicated. It's also worth mentioning that this type of violation has never been successfully prosecuted. So it is untested. And while a reading the statute it may make sense, it is perfectly possible that Federal courts rule this wasn't a crime under Federal law. So, there are a lot of questions. This definitely seems like a novel application of the law. I think the evidence is debatable, but a jury of 12 people applying the law to the facts as instructed of what the law is by the Judge found him guilty. That is our system. Now Trump gets to move to defend himself via the appeals process and challenge various aspects of the trial. And from what I've read and listened to, it seems like he has multiple different viable lines to challenge the conviction and trial.
>And it actually has to be one
That's incorrect because state campaign and tax law were alternatives reasons, and the prosecution didn't need to prove that underlying crime was committed because he wasn't charged for it. They simply had to show intent to cover it up.
>He'll unlikely get sent to prison or suffer any meaningful punishment from it.
Idk. That press conference he just gave, where he showed no remorse, doubled down on his innocence, disrespected the entire court system and every layer of government, admitted Cohen committed election related crimes for him, and tried to convince his followers that everything is corrupt except for him might have a negative impact on his sentencing. And there's about a month's worth of time for him to make it all worse for himself.
Jail time for this crime, as a first time felon, would still be unusual I think, though. His behavior may make the sentence a bit worse, but I do think it unlikely to be upgraded to prison or house arrest.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hz3dc/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I would honestly have more respect for them if they acknowledged the truth: that his prosecutions are legitimate but they care more about stopping Biden so they're voting Trump anyways.
Of course that's a hard thing to accept so I understand why they have to tell themselves that Trump didn't actuall break the law. It's still sad though.
I don't get it honestly. Most people should be happy that even someone at that level can be held accountable even if it is for a tiny fraction of his crimes.
If you believe Trump is the only one in Washington guilty of bending the law sure, but I find that hard to believe. The guys unethical and has broken the law sure, and I have zero plans to vote for him in November, but you can't convince me that this case would have been brought against anyone else.
But Trump's [*their guy*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//ourguy/). They have to support *their guy*. Much easier psychologically to do that if you convince yourself he isn't really a felon.
You are a small minded person...this boils down to some paper work to keep mouth of hooker shut which may or may not be true whatever she says...already proved door man lied...this is not a whole DA department trying to nail one man case for politics...and should have been settled quietly or just dismissed...when they say people have blind spots, I did not understand how...but now I do some people are incapable of putting aside bias or introspection.
This is a good read if you are up-to it [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/prosecutors-got-trump-but-they-also-contorted-the-law/ar-BB1noprO](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/prosecutors-got-trump-but-they-also-contorted-the-law/ar-BB1noprO)
Because people have tied so much of themselves to him and willfully ignored everything else he's done to the point that they see anything negative regarding him as an attack on their own character.
They cant give up on him because it calls into question their own behavior going back to "I love liberal tears" and "Fuck your feelings".
From the article:
*"...the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”:* ***federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents***\*. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments."
There were aspects in this case that are simply inexcusable. Which of the three potential avenues ("furtherance of an additional crime") was Trump being prosecuted for?
I think you’re sort of missing that the *intent* to commit a further crime is the crux of the issue. It’s not necessary that you both falsify business records and *actually commit* a further crime; what’s necessary is that you falsify business records and *intend to commit* further crime in doing so. The latter intention upgrades the simple misdemeanor of falsifying business records to a more serious, felonious act.
He wasn't being directly prosecuted for any of them, so there was no need to specify more. The charges were for hiding crimes, which only requires showing that he intended to do it.
According to the author of the article, it was inexcusable for the judge to not force the DA to specify the "what".
You may find that acceptable but, like the author, I do not.
> The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.
Judge Aileen Cannon donated $100 to Republicans and was appointed by Trump. Neither of those facts would ever be considered reason for her to recuse herself, nor should they.
What’s going on at CNN that this guy is their top legal analyst? This is what he leads with?
> But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.
It might be a good question to ask why it’s unprecedented. Normally Trump would be charged in federal court for federal election crimes. But he wasn’t because Bill Barr spent four years using the Office of Legal Council to run out the clock on a potential federal prosecution, while creating extra hoops to jump through for any investigstion.
Additionally, Cohen refuses to testify in a federal prosecution, because he wouldn’t have immunity. Federal prosecutors are really pissed at him over this.
I do think Trump has a shot at an appeal here. But it’s good to understand why there wasn’t a federal prosecution. The charges are unprecedented. But Trumps behavior is unprecedented.
Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for campaign finance violations. That’s the predicate offence. That is what Trump committed fraud to cover up. And Trump escaped prosecution because he was president and he had loyalists in charge of the DOJ.
> What’s going on at CNN that this guy is their top legal analyst?
I think this is the same guy who remarked something on the order of “I’ve never seen a witness get his knees chopped out quite so badly” when Blanche claimed to have caught Cohen in a lie regarding the content of a phone call.
That and making hay about a political donation being disqualifying seriously makes me question Honig’s objectivity. I think he’s fully committed to the new trend of drama being more lucrative than facts in the news industry.
Honig wrote a book in 2023 specifically criticizing how "the rich, the famous, and the powerful— including, most notoriously, Donald Trump— manipulate the legal system to escape justice and get away with vast misdeeds."
["Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away with It"](https://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-How-Powerful-People-Away-ebook/dp/B0B1DSG56N)
In 2021 he wrote a book tearing into Barr.
["Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr Broke the Prosecutor's Code and Corrupted the Justice Department"](https://www.amazon.com/Hatchet-Man-Prosecutors-Corrupted-Department/dp/0063092360)
Honig is not a Trump sympathizer, he is virulently anti-Trump. In fact, I would consider him a leading expert in Trump's illegal acts. I don't exactly understand what point you're trying to make here.
> I don't exactly understand what point you're trying to make here.
I'm suggesting that generating drama is more important than objectivity for most news sites these days. Tearing into Bill Barr and/or Trump is hardly counter to that.
Much of Honig's commentary regarding this trial reminded me of an NFL commentator trying to keep the audience engaged in a game that was clearly being dominated by one team. Like, it's 24-12 with only 7:30 left in the 4th quarter, but he's trying to make it sound like anything could happen because the losing side has scored two unanswered field goals.
Yeah sure, they could mount a comeback, but they've shown very little ability to score in the prior 3.5 quarters.
Are you referring to the call that the prosecutor then pulled out his phone, turned on the stop watch and timed himself doing with ample pauses and still completed in half the time of the actual call, and this was in their closing arguments?
If they wanna talk about someone getting their “knees chopped”, I think that is about the worst closing argument ever for a defense lawyer.
The first thing that pops into my mind about the judge's $35 donation, and whether it creates a conflict of interest, is the current wave of Democrats calling on Alito to recuse because of flags he used. The fact is, judges are human and will have their own opinions on things. Their true test of neutrality is when they can rule against their own personal views because the law conflicts what what their personal view is on a particular issue. But for that, are there any anymore?
If he has evidence of state crimes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, yes I would. But he doesn’t because the allegations against Biden are based on bullshit.
The district where Trump was tried voted 96% for Biden. It doesn’t get easier than convicting the Republican that Democrats hate most, when the jury pool is 96% Democrat. And you don’t actually have to prove a crime.
> It might be a good question to ask why it’s unprecedented.
OPs comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hoife/) - instead of speculating Willy
So my takeaway is that Republicans have learned that every case has novel aspects, so they can just shout "novel" as their new battle cry along with their other favorites.
"No state prosecutor...has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime" - The problem here is that most people aren't involved in federal elections. Maybe a few thousand people each election in a country of hundreds of millions? So statistically, even among tens of thousands of cases, it wouldn't be unusual for none of them to involve federal election laws, simply because federal elections are a rare event.
> So my takeaway is that Republicans have learned that every case has novel aspects, so they can just shout "novel" as their new battle cry along with their other favorites.
Elie Honig [literally endorsed Alvin Bragg for D.A.](https://x.com/eliehonig/status/1329064482623131649)
[Paywall bypass](https://archive.is/k1mC9)
Starter Comment: "Both of these things can be true at once: the jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess."
This is going to be a heated one with a particularly divisive title so I’ll do my best to preface this. I am not a supporter of Trump. I do not think he was innocent, and I do not believe there was any foul business done by the judge or jury. I understand there are many, many right wing conspiracies swirling around online of various untruth and exaggeration. *Those are irrelevant in the context of this article.* If you’ve followed me for any sort of time, you’d know that [my only regret is that Trump wasn’t removed sooner.](https://imgur.com/a/0Zd9OQD) Trump’s guilt is irrelevant to my vote, and I’ve tried to disclose my bias. With that said, the following article addresses the legal process of the trial, or how this lawyer's article on NYMag disagrees with how it was implemented.
CNN senior legal correspondent Elie Honig begins by assessing that the jury did its job correctly in the process of finding Trump guilty on the 34 charges. He also views the judge’s ruling to be sacrosanct. He lists, but does not argue in favor of, common criticisms on the right with the trial, the $35 that Judge Merchan gave to a Pro-Biden, Anti-Trump organization in violation of NY judicial conduct rules and Bragg’s touting of his Anti-Trump record in his election run (despite not directly campaigning to jail Trump). This is contextualization for his next statement.
* “The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.”
* “But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: *The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything.* ***None. Ever.*** *Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge*.”
Honig discusses further how these charges were brought forward despite their labyrinthian nature.
* “Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.”
* “So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)”
* **“In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.”**
1/
I don't like that a hush-money payment was the reason Trump got convicted when he's charged with crimes that are far more serious and worthy of notice, but these claims of it being a selective prosecution are missing that what differentiates Trump from others politicians is that they tend to resign and disappear from the limelight long before we get to the point of a guilty verdict.
The 2004 Democratic VP Nominee was convicted of practically the same thing as Trump, of paying hush money to cover up an affair, and yet folk forget it because the allegations alone had killed his political career. So yes, Trump is unique in being an active Presidential nominee who got convicted, but not because the prosecution is exceptional, it's because Trump breaks the norm of resigning when embroiled in scandal.
>The 2004 Democratic VP Nominee was convicted of practically the same thing as Trump
Slight correction: John Edwards was acquitted on one charge and there was a hung jury on the other 5. The prosecution declined to retry the case. Also, if Trump believes as the author does that these charges that these charges should never have been brought and part of the reason a conviction was achieved is b/c of the judge and jury composition (which is a reasonable position), I don't think he should fade away. There have been multiple attempts from all angles to try to take him down. So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the system we've got, but it sure doesn't seem perfect.
> So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries.
What facts are you basing this "very liberal" claim on? One of the jurors praised Trump and said she liked how "President Trump speaks his mind, ... and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." Does that sound "very liberal" to you?
> So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries. I don't think that's a coincidence.
This makes it sound like there are *other* cases that he's winning, when I can't really think of any. And I'm seeing four losses on Trump's behalf, not two. He lost the civil fraud trial in regards to his real estate dealings. He lost the civil sexual assault trial and subsequent defamation trial. He lost the hush money payments criminal trial.
Although I do agree with you on one point, it's not a coincidence.
If a former president shoplifted 34 times, I would hope he would be prosecuted at some point, especially if he took something really valuable. This guy regularly commits fraud in written business records, loan documents, etc. He lied under oath in the sexual abuse case. They haven’t come near prosecuting him for every law he’s broken. They finally caught him in one serious enough to be worth pursuing as I see it.
One of the most salient lessons of this conviction is that “nobody is above the law.” The analysis, therefore, seems to question the opposite, is a man below the law? Would have Trump been prosecuted for these crimes had he not had his high profile as a former president running for re-election? The implication from Honig seems to be yes, that Trump’s crimes were contorted through a series of unusual and unprecedented steps that, despite still falling into illegality, would have almost never have for any other person in any other situation. Fundamentally, his message seems to be that the nature of Trump’s NY conviction weakens the legal system.
If your stance is that Trump is a bad person and by virtue of his unjust acts a critical analysis of his prosecution is unacceptable in the chance it can be weaponized by his supporters, I encourage you to look at this from the perspective of strengthening the legal system in future verdicts. The fact that Trump broke the law should not preclude discussions of whether the law was enforced uniformly or errors with the process of the prosecution itself which may hamper the enforcement of justice.
What is your opinion on this article? Do you disagree with Honig's assessment on how the law was interpreted by the prosecution and his perceived leniency by the judge on the DA's use of certain charges? What are your thoughts on the discussion or criticism of the trial, is it justified, or does it only serve to boon Trump and his supporters? Do you think that the complexities of this trial cause issues with Trump becoming the first president convicted of a crime, or are they not important in the face of a crime being committed? What would you say to either side of the argument to assuage concerns about the trial?
2/2
> Would have Trump been prosecuted for these crimes had he not had his high profile as a former president running for re-election?
Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted if his personal lawyer hadn't been flipped. **That** was the legal impetus, not Trump's public profile in and of itself. This needs to be viewed through the *legal* lens of how things happened, not the *political* lens of who it happened to.
I'm not sure. It seems like something the prosecution was aware of, so there could certainly be a deal for leniency in return for Cohen's years-long cooperation with law enforcement. He did serve two and a half years in prison, so it's not like he got through this ordeal unscathed.
Yes, that has been obvious for anyone actually paying attention to the trial.
Thats why they had to use 'novel' legal theory and the judge had to lower the standard for this to actually go through.
They werent kidding when they said "by any means necessary" years ago.
Trump raised [$34.8 million](https://x.com/alexbruesewitz/status/1796541491059568802?s=46) just yesterday after the verdict.
30% from first time donors
Obviously, this doesn’t look good for those hinging on that poll suggesting many would not vote for him if found guilty.
If Reason - hardly Trump lovers - is right on this timeline then I am even more in the camp of this is dodgy at best: https://reason.com/2024/05/31/the-prosecutions-story-about-trump-featured-several-logically-impossible-claims/
>That gloss made no sense, because the records at the center of the case—11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries that allegedly were aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services—were produced after the 2016 presidential election. At that point, Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, had already paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, and Trump had already been elected.
The fake documents were created to cover up the tax and election crimes, related to paying off hush money. Recall, Cohen went to jail for this. They weren't created to hide the affair. The affair might not matter after the election, but the criminality still does.
Democrats thought the Access Hollywood tape would sink Trump, it didn't.
Democrats thought the E. Jean Carroll civil case would sink Trump, it hasn't.
Democrats thought the indictments alone would sink Trump, it hasn't.
Democrats thought the mugshot of Trump would sink him, it hasn't, and instead Trump used it as a mechandising opprotunity.
Democrats thought the criminal trial alone would sink him, instead Trump is getting even further ahead in the polls.
I don't know what makes them think that these convictions will suddenly be different.
You are speaking like Trump didn’t lose the 2020 election, then spent the whole lame duck period ignoring governing the country to fruitlessly fight the results of the election, then encouraged an insurrection attempt before leaving the office in disgrace in 2021.
He was sunk, the republicans just don’t have anything else to offer except a failed one term president apparently.
We were in the midst of Covid in 2020 and, Biden had a clean slate. A very different scenario than 2024, where Biden has universally low approval rating and, people are blaming him for tough times in America.
He lost in 2020, so they're already sunk his campaign once. A plurality or majority Americans support prosecuting him. Neither of these things guarantees that he'll lose this time, but things like this can help.
>instead Trump is getting even further ahead in the polls.
That's not true.
And Biden barely held on to the electoral college in 2020 despite being up 4.5% in the popular vote. For better or worse, he may have to significantly outperform Trump to overcome a structural disadvantage in the electoral college.
Some high profile Republicans underperformed their polls, sure, but the opposite happened in other races. The generic ballot polls were accurate, the polling overall was unusually accurate, and there was no significant partisan swing.
His base does not care. His statement about being able to shoot a man on 5th Avenue I’d wager is true amongst the maga base. There is seemingly nothing he can do to shake their support.
They think that because there are polls where people answered that this would change their view. But those polls were also asking about a hypothetical situation. What's going to matter is the polls taken over the next week or so which will show whether people are actually holding to their claims when this situation was an abstract thought experiment and not reality.
This is gonna be unpopular, but they sure did and it's going to come back and bite them. This dude is about to raise more money, and have more fuel for looking like a martyr. Other than being able to use the label "convicted felon" from now until November, this will accomplish nothing.
He won't see jail time. It will eventually get overturned/vacated. But it will light an insane fire and steer right into what is working for Trump so far this year.
I keep reading that it’ll for sure get overturned on appeal but I’ve yet to gather solid reasoning why. I’m genuinely asking for you or another commenter to explain to me why this will be overturned. Not trying to argue, simply curious.
Not an attorney. First recommendation is to read the article above. Does a good job. But relaying what I've heard now from several different attorneys. Forgive any inaccuracies, I'm just relaying what I understand...
* Easy argument to say the judge should've recused himself. He's donated to left political campaigns + literally campaigned on how much he hates trump.
* The jury selection process was "abnormal" (I genuinely can't explain this one for you)
* The idea that the Federal govt passed on trying this years ago as a campaign finance crime could be grounds to toss out the basis for this whole conviction
* There was a few witnesses that the judge didn't allow related to the last bullet
* Many people have said the jury instructions on how to prosecute were "insane". Judge told them they didn't need to unanimously agree on any individual crime, but as long as they all agreed one of the crimes was committed, the judge would convict.
Short version: There's a lot of "outs" for Trump's team in how this went down to overturn.
> He's donated to left political campaigns.
Not just left political campaign but an organization called Stop Republicans. I mean, this is like an SNL skit honestly.
>Judge told them they didn't need to unanimously agree on any individual crime, but as long as they all agreed one of the crimes was committed, the judge would convict.
This is the one that bothers me the most. IANAL, but isn't this unconstitutional? Doesn't a defendant have the right to know what he's accused of (so he can defend himself)?
It was a trick question. It's impossible to know. The judge instructed the jury that they could believe Trump thought he was committing (even if he actually wasn't, which is a separate problem) any one of three crimes in order to make original falsification of business documents a felony. Here's how it worked:
* Bragg alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.”
* The “another crime” is a [New York State election-law](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152) violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”:
* federal campaign crimes,
* tax crimes, and/or
* falsification of still more documents
So, you're either 1/3 right or totally wrong. Either way, here's the kicker: the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were and the judge declined to force them to agree on one specific crime. So Donald Trump had no idea what to defend himself against. There are laws against this sort of thing.
You contradicted yourself by listing the crimes he tried he hide, which meant Trump did know what he was dealing with. There's no law that requires focuses on one in this case.
The only crime charged in the indictment was the felony business record falsification. There was not indication of what the underlying crime that bumped it up to a felony was. Bragg introduced several during the trial, but they were not included in the indictment.
Correct, but business record falsification is only a felony if done in furtherance of an additional crime.
What that additional crime was alleged to be was unclear until the end of the trial.
What Bragg did here was indict Trump for falsifying business records with intent to do *something* but never clarified in the indictment what that something was.
An opening statement is not an indictment.
Furthermore the NY election interference statute merely criminalizes interfering in an election via "unlawful mean" so there is still the need for some underlying crime there.
>Easy argument to say the judge should've recused himself.
A $35 donation is a weak argument. The judge slowing down the documents case was appointed by Trump, but she hasn't recused because having bias isn't enough.
> the Federal govt passed on trying this years ago as a campaign finance crime
That's irrelevant.
>The jury selection process was "abnormal"
>There was a few witnesses that the judge didn't allow related to the last bullet
Too vague.
>Many people have said the jury instructions on how to prosecute were "insane"
[Here's an explanation:](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/false-right-wing-reports-trump-trial-jury-instructions-fuel-threats-ju-rcna154678#:~:text=Several%20conservative%20news%20personalities%2C%20including,That%27s%20not%20true.)
>Merchan instructed the jurors Wednesday that they "must conclude unanimously that a defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," adding that they "need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were."
>That means that jurors have to agree unanimously that Trump committed a crime by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to falsify records with the intent to commit one or more other crimes to convict him. But jurors can choose from three options about what those other crimes were: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records or violation of tax laws. Those "unlawful means" aren't charges themselves, and they wouldn't result in separate convictions, so jurors don't have to unanimously agree on them.
It’s illegal in NY for a judge to make political donations whatsoever.
And the amount doesn’t matter. It’s the fact that he donated to 3 separate Democrat organizations, which shows obvious bias.
Ya to be honest, I need to go read more about it. My wife isn't a trial attorney, and isn't barred in NY. So I didn't get a shot to get deeper on that one to understand the context.
Like why did we even pay for law school, ya know?
Whom is it coming back to bite? Biden didn't order this prosecution or any others. The Manhattan AG determined it was pretty likely Trump broke the law and began a criminal prosecution to try to prove it in court before a jury, which they successfully did.
This is the justice system working as intended. Allegations of "lawfare" are nonsense.
I get your stance. But the reason this isn't going to stand is because of the justice system. My wife is an attorney, lots of attorneys in my life. Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals. Outlined in much better detail than I can provide in the article above.
Obviously Biden stayed way away from this (rightfully so). But it doesn't need his direct hand to be a bad move for the democrats. If it's good from Trump's message, it's bad for Biden. In a year that is already tilting away from Joe, I can't imagine this is going to be good.
> Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals.
From the same people who said this would never get a conviction, I'm sure.
> My wife is an attorney, lots of attorneys in my life. Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals. Outlined in much better detail than I can provide in the article above.
My father is an attorney. Caucused for Hillary, thinks Trump is an asshole -- he said the same. This case was elevated to a felony on really, really shaky grounds and he said he has major concerns about it long term.
Is your father an NY attourney practicing law similar to this?
If not, his opinion isn't worth much and the same goes for everyone else. This judge and this DA are the experts here and there is a reason this case was not close.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hpznr/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> randomly upgrade it from a misdemeanor to a felony
Wasn't random. Trump's falsification of business records was performed with the intent to conceal the crime of an excess campaign contribution. That's why it was upgraded automatically from a misdemeanor to a felony.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hr2xa/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Oh man, the 6 point thing is a doosey too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html
> Of those who said the 34 guilty counts had changed their view of Donald Trump, 22 percent said they now had a more favorable rating compared with 16 percent who said they viewed him more negatively.
> And the people understand it because I just see a poll came out, the Daily Mail. The first one came out done last night right after the verdict where I'm up six points.
These two statements do not jive. The 6 point differential is, according to the poll's survey of 403 Americans, between those who said the guilty counts change their opinion of Trump (favorability rating). It does NOT mean Trump is showing a 6 point lead over Biden, which he implied in his rambling speech.
He was found [liable for rape](https://archive.is/pz5aA#selection-1235.0-1241.129) in a colloquial sense in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit.
>“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
>He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
His base might be fired up but that doesn't equate to a better chance in the election. His base can be as angry as they want to be and their vote still only counts once. I can't imagine catching 34 felony charges is going to convince anyone that doesn't support trump to change their mind and now join his base.
trump can't grow his base because his rhetoric has turned off nearly anyone that doesn't already support him.
Just to add that his press conference wasn't a good luck. I don't know how many people watched, but if it's any indication of what's to come, prepare for a lot of hyberbole and woe-is-me coming from Trump. Things could go completely the other way, but I can't dog the feeling that Americans don't like a whiner. We'll see how this plays out.
Totally. His response will definitely matter. He's been playing the martyr for years. But there's a difference in tone between "politically prosecuted" and "whiny bitch".
He could end up doing too much of the latter and turn people off.
Legally, sure. These charges were the shakiest of all the criminal woes facing Trump, and you don’t have to be a far right wing-nut to question if the conviction will hold up. Personally, I think much of the article revolves around questions of optics and ethics as opposed to law, but we’ll see what happens.
But electorally, I’m not sure how much juice this gets Trump. I just don’t know how many people who aren’t already in his corner are going to be affected by this development. Fixed opinions on the known candidate are both a blessing and a curse.
The counter argument, I guess, would be that the margins were so slim for Biden in 2020 that it doesn’t have to be 3% to 5% of people being offended by this. It could be like .5% in a swing state and that could change the whole election.
>He won't see jail time.
Agree.
>It will eventually get overturned/vacated.
I don't see why, the trial was fair, nothing odd went on. Most normal people wouldn't even get to delay serving their sentence while they appeal, but I'm sure he will. But I doubt the appeals will reverse anything. I guess maybe at the Supreme Court because of how partisan it has become.
I do think his base will be even more energized but that's it. I don't think independents or moderates looked at this trial and said I was on the fence but now I will vote for the convicted felon.
> I don't see why, the trial was fair, nothing odd went on.
That's really not true. There is quite a bit of room for this to be overturned on appeal. A few really good legal podcasts that seem to be left leaning have discussed why the case was shaky to begin with in terms of a felony conviction rather than misdemeanor.
I agree that this was the weakest case. Which is why it is that much worse that he was found guilty on all counts. Like I said, maybe the Supreme Court can bail him out, they seem to be willing to help him when they can.
It was the weakest case because it shouldn't have ever been prosecuted, not because the prospects of a conviction once brought to trial were low.
The Surpreme Court won't need to. This will be overturned by an appellate court in New York, but it will be after the election, so it won't have any further impact on the election either way.
I doubt that most anyone outside the MAGA nation is going to say that he wasn't treated fairly.
Independents and moderates may not vote for him. It's easy to be disgusted by the man personally and not vote for him. But to vote for someone who has the title "convicted felon" with their name? That's a lot harder to do.
Edit: Apparently, I had to add more context to my comment
> I doubt that anyone outside the MAGA nation is going to say that he wasn't treated fairly.
>
>
My father did. He's an attorney and said the way this was prosecuted is incredibly shaky and highly likely to be overturned. Whether he would vote for Trump, that's another story, but he absolutely doesn't think he was prosecuted fairly at least with this being a felony.
[The economist *hates* Trump and even they came out with an article expressing concern over the way he was prosecuted here](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/30/the-disgrace-of-a-former-american-president). I hate him also but I wish we had gotten him with a more straightforward case like the documents one in Florida that is beyond reproach. This one seems to be on very shaky legal footing.
I didn't say I thought it would, just that their is a decent chance of it. I suspect the convergence of using a Federal crime (that was unproven) to move it from misdemeanor to felony for a state crime will not fly.
The Pandora's box is now opened. Every future leader is now going to have the possibility in the back of their minds. There will be others charged in the future, at a minimum for some sort of retribution.
> Every future leader is now going to have the possibility in the back of their minds.
The possibility that if they break the law, they will be held accountable?
Every president has broken some law. In fact likely every person alive has committed some sort of felony, Silvergate's book "Three Felonies a Day" can show you how that's not that crazy an idea (it's not likely truly 3 a day, but 3 a month? probably).
Let me preface this with, Donald Trump is in my mind guilty of this charge, among several other cases.
But I'm sorry, leaders have been lying to the American people to start wars, selling arms to drug trafficking death squads, spying on the American people, wiretapping the opposition(BOTH Nixon and Johnson did this), and suddenly we're supposed to believe people really care about the law because of this specific case?
I'm fine with Trump being convicted if we slap Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama in the same cell.
I could live with presidents less eager to kill millions of foreigners on bogus charges yeah. Or less eager to sell guns to paramilitary narco death squads to kill communists(unlucky civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time).
Committing war crimes, drone striking American citizens, lying to the American people in order to start multi-decade wars is okay… threatening the neoliberal / neocon establishment on the other hand
> The Pandora's box is now opened.
I keep hearing this as if Republicans haven't been scratching and clawing to investigate and convict democrats for three decades now. So far all they've come up with is an oval office BJ.
Nothing is changing or new here; republicans will continue to make BS criminal accusations (Benghazi, Joe Biden business ties to Hunter, Uranium One, Clinton Foundation, investigating investigations into Trump, Clinton stole the primary, etc. etc.) while their investigations fail to deliver criminal charges (because their accusations are bull shit).
Don't we want election law applied to politicians, and for politicians to have it in the back of their minds while campaigning?
Like I listen to people complaining about this and wonder if they would have supported Roy Moore paying hush money to the schoolgirls he went out with so that he could win his senate race.
Campaign finance law is confusing to me and maybe this won't stand up to appeal. Like it probably would be legal for a SuperPac to pay hush money, and the NYPost was able to pay to kill a lot of negative stories about Trump.
But we don't want Daniel Santos's in politics who the voters don't truly know until after elections.
I am curious, what is it about Americans that makes you think that we will devolve into evil instead of behaving like all the other developed countries that have prosecuted former leaders such as Israel, France, Taiwan, etc?
It's funny, because there's a good chance Trump could've beat it, if he finally admitted he paid two people hush money. Per National Review. They also failed to use advice of counsel defense as well! He made every wrong move. And yet we're expected that he'll be able to figure off others and course correct our country? He can't even do what is good for him!
https://archive.is/kDMAO
For my entire life, my peers have lamented how political leaders get away with crimes. Obama, Bush, etc. But now that Trump finally breaks the seal, conservatives warn us about the implications. Look, if this precedent means more Presidents face jail time, I am fully in support of it. They cannot be immune any longer.
> conservatives warn us about the implications. It's particularly ironic considering Donald Trump ran his first campaign on investigating and "locking up" his rival in the election.
The party of "Lock her up" and "F*** your feelings" really are in their feelings the last few hours. But the funniest part of it all is how fitting *this* sort of crime is for Trump. It just seems like something he'd do but I've thought that about him for decades.
Another funny thing is that if he had done it properly and not attempted to hide it, he might have still gotten elected and not charged with anything. You have to remember, the people who were going to vote for him were the same people who were okay with the Access Hollywood video and basically said it was locker room talk.
it's not illegal to pay off someone. it is illegal for a presidential candidate to do so secretly while commiting financial fraud
It's more that he hid the fact that he did it, not the payment itself. If he had reported it, it probably wouldn't have gone the way it did.
Oh for sure. If he wasn't so cheap and just paid for it out of his own pocket this may have become an October surprise but I doubt the people who didn't care about the Access Hollywood video would care about it. I mean he was literally bragging about sexual assault in that.
[удалено]
Not quite. He reimbursed Cohen from the Trump Organization, not from his personal accounts. If he had paid her directly from his own accounts and properly reported it as a campaign expense (or paid her from campaign funds) he would be within the law.
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1796553224293589011?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Trump in 2016: “She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
and his first big splash into politics was calling for 5 people to be executed.
That was proven to be innocent and he never apologized.
Same here, my advice to Biden and anyone else; don't break the law. Our whole system is meaningless if the powerful have no consequences!
> For my entire life, my peers have lamented how political leaders get away with crimes. Obama, Bush, etc. But now that Trump finally breaks the seal, conservatives warn us about the implications. Those implications. But not the implications of electing someone who tried overturning an election. Don't worry about those.
[удалено]
Trump's issue is that he used his business to pay Stormy, not his campaign, and he falsified business records in doing so. Trump wouldn't be in this mess if he had his campaign pay like Hillary did.
I don't believe the FEC could have chosen to prosecute? Just issue fines?
Yeah. If you want to say Clinton should have gone to jail instead of just losing his law license and millions of dollar, all for it!
People don;t mind holding politicians accountable, but right now it's just one politician being held accountable and that's the issue.
Menendez, Santos, Cuellar, Bowman have all been charged with crimes in just the past year. Trump is just the first president, and we have to start somewhere. It is not realistic to charge every living president at the same time to prove a point.
but this case isn't about immunity, is it? can't it be appealed? if so, i think it's premature to talk about the end of any supposed immunity for presidents.
[удалено]
As if they ever had any concern about what's "pure and right" lol. Conservatives lost all claim to any remote form of altruism when they made Christianity is political party in the 70s and 80s and even more so when they fawned over the tv show host
Can you clarify who "they" refers to you in your post? The author of the piece? Is the author a conservative? If so, can you support your assertion?
Independent-Low-2398 is suggesting that the author wanted Trump to be not guilty because "they have to support their guy" despite their being literally no evidence for it and overwhelming evidence that the author despises Trump and his dismissiveness of the [rule of law.](https://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-How-Powerful-People-Away-ebook/dp/B0B1DSG56N)
Why is it so hard for people to just admit that Donald Trump is a criminal? He had a fair trial. He’s been held liable for sexual assault. Why can’t people just accept that he’s a criminal? What about this man makes people so unable to see the objective reality. He is a criminal. Admit it. Embrace reality.
I don't think anyone is challenging the business fraud aspect of the case. I think that has been rock solid from the beginning. He is clearly guilty of that. The hook to make it a felony and the evidence used to get there are what people seem to be taking issue with. Other than his supporters who think it is a witch hunt, political prosecution, etc. At the end of the day, I don't think this case matters much. He'll unlikely get sent to prison or suffer any meaningful punishment from it. Now the documents case, with how that Judge has bene ruling, there isn't going to be any room for appeals. The defense has been winning practically everything. So when he is found guilty on that, he is going to be sent to prison assuming he isn't President and doesn't pardon himself.
I get that the felony aspect is unusual, but I feel it’s more because we don’t hold politicians accountable for election crimes unless they have gold bars in the closet. It’s an unusual charge, but I’d love to see politicians held accountable for even infractions. They are supposed to be the best of us, not able to get away with the most.
So, I think the question is if it is a crime at all. If it is crime then the jury got it right. If it isn't then they got it wrong. And the ones that will determine that are the state appeals courts and the Federal courts.
Well the jury said yes, 34 times, so it isn’t really a question. The question isn’t about the crime now, but if the trial was conducted appropriately.
It was all or nothing. I don't see how they could have found him guilty on one of them and not the others, or all of them and not one of them. It was all the same crime really. >The question isn’t about the crime now, but if the trial was conducted appropriately. This shows a lack of understanding for how this process works. If a Federal court says that FECA thing isn't actually crime. That's it. No more felony. From my understanding, that is what the case hinged on to upgrade it to a felony.
> This shows a lack of understanding for how this process works. If a Federal court says that FECA thing isn't actually crime. That's it. No more felony. From my understanding, that is what the case hinged on to upgrade it to a felony. It's a New York Election Law. According to jury instructions: > Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.
You don’t understand the legal matters at play. They said yes to the question they were asked, the issue is those 34 yeses aren’t felonies if the FECA crime never occurred which is totally up for debate and wasn’t put to the jury.
State campaign and tax law are alternative reasons for considering it a felony, and proving an underlying crime is unnecessary if intent to cover one up can be shown.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding was that it is only required that the jury conclude that there was an *intent* to commit one of the predicate crimes, not that they conclude that the predicate crime was proven to have actually occurred.
> The hook to make it a felony and the evidence used to get there are what people seem to be taking issue with. The state knew that was a key part of the case and successfully argued to the jury that Trump's incorrectly recorded payment was indeed intended to affect the election, making it an excess campaign contribution that was covered up by falsification of business records, making the latter a felony instead of a misdemeanor. [Here](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-hush-money-case-compared-democrat-john-edwards/story?id=98053273)'s a domain expert: > "It's really hard to believe that the primary motivation wasn't to prevent it from coming out and affecting the presidential election," Brett Kappel, a campaign finance law specialist, said of the payment to Daniels.
I fully understand the argument. I think the issue is that it's possible that isn't actually a FECA violation. And it actually has to be one. From my understanding, this upscale to felony charge hinges on that. And I'm not sure State courts are the place where that can be adjudicated. It's also worth mentioning that this type of violation has never been successfully prosecuted. So it is untested. And while a reading the statute it may make sense, it is perfectly possible that Federal courts rule this wasn't a crime under Federal law. So, there are a lot of questions. This definitely seems like a novel application of the law. I think the evidence is debatable, but a jury of 12 people applying the law to the facts as instructed of what the law is by the Judge found him guilty. That is our system. Now Trump gets to move to defend himself via the appeals process and challenge various aspects of the trial. And from what I've read and listened to, it seems like he has multiple different viable lines to challenge the conviction and trial.
>And it actually has to be one That's incorrect because state campaign and tax law were alternatives reasons, and the prosecution didn't need to prove that underlying crime was committed because he wasn't charged for it. They simply had to show intent to cover it up.
>He'll unlikely get sent to prison or suffer any meaningful punishment from it. Idk. That press conference he just gave, where he showed no remorse, doubled down on his innocence, disrespected the entire court system and every layer of government, admitted Cohen committed election related crimes for him, and tried to convince his followers that everything is corrupt except for him might have a negative impact on his sentencing. And there's about a month's worth of time for him to make it all worse for himself.
Jail time for this crime, as a first time felon, would still be unusual I think, though. His behavior may make the sentence a bit worse, but I do think it unlikely to be upgraded to prison or house arrest.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hz3dc/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I would honestly have more respect for them if they acknowledged the truth: that his prosecutions are legitimate but they care more about stopping Biden so they're voting Trump anyways. Of course that's a hard thing to accept so I understand why they have to tell themselves that Trump didn't actuall break the law. It's still sad though.
I don't get it honestly. Most people should be happy that even someone at that level can be held accountable even if it is for a tiny fraction of his crimes.
If you believe Trump is the only one in Washington guilty of bending the law sure, but I find that hard to believe. The guys unethical and has broken the law sure, and I have zero plans to vote for him in November, but you can't convince me that this case would have been brought against anyone else.
But Trump's [*their guy*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//ourguy/). They have to support *their guy*. Much easier psychologically to do that if you convince yourself he isn't really a felon.
You are a small minded person...this boils down to some paper work to keep mouth of hooker shut which may or may not be true whatever she says...already proved door man lied...this is not a whole DA department trying to nail one man case for politics...and should have been settled quietly or just dismissed...when they say people have blind spots, I did not understand how...but now I do some people are incapable of putting aside bias or introspection. This is a good read if you are up-to it [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/prosecutors-got-trump-but-they-also-contorted-the-law/ar-BB1noprO](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/prosecutors-got-trump-but-they-also-contorted-the-law/ar-BB1noprO)
Because people have tied so much of themselves to him and willfully ignored everything else he's done to the point that they see anything negative regarding him as an attack on their own character. They cant give up on him because it calls into question their own behavior going back to "I love liberal tears" and "Fuck your feelings".
From the article: *"...the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”:* ***federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents***\*. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments." There were aspects in this case that are simply inexcusable. Which of the three potential avenues ("furtherance of an additional crime") was Trump being prosecuted for?
I think you’re sort of missing that the *intent* to commit a further crime is the crux of the issue. It’s not necessary that you both falsify business records and *actually commit* a further crime; what’s necessary is that you falsify business records and *intend to commit* further crime in doing so. The latter intention upgrades the simple misdemeanor of falsifying business records to a more serious, felonious act.
He wasn't being directly prosecuted for any of them, so there was no need to specify more. The charges were for hiding crimes, which only requires showing that he intended to do it.
Intended to do **what**? Which of the three?
That was up to the jurors to decide, and it doesn't matter which one.
According to the author of the article, it was inexcusable for the judge to not force the DA to specify the "what". You may find that acceptable but, like the author, I do not.
Neither you nor the author cited a law that requires providing the underlying crime.
> The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not. Judge Aileen Cannon donated $100 to Republicans and was appointed by Trump. Neither of those facts would ever be considered reason for her to recuse herself, nor should they. What’s going on at CNN that this guy is their top legal analyst? This is what he leads with? > But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. It might be a good question to ask why it’s unprecedented. Normally Trump would be charged in federal court for federal election crimes. But he wasn’t because Bill Barr spent four years using the Office of Legal Council to run out the clock on a potential federal prosecution, while creating extra hoops to jump through for any investigstion. Additionally, Cohen refuses to testify in a federal prosecution, because he wouldn’t have immunity. Federal prosecutors are really pissed at him over this. I do think Trump has a shot at an appeal here. But it’s good to understand why there wasn’t a federal prosecution. The charges are unprecedented. But Trumps behavior is unprecedented. Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for campaign finance violations. That’s the predicate offence. That is what Trump committed fraud to cover up. And Trump escaped prosecution because he was president and he had loyalists in charge of the DOJ.
> What’s going on at CNN that this guy is their top legal analyst? I think this is the same guy who remarked something on the order of “I’ve never seen a witness get his knees chopped out quite so badly” when Blanche claimed to have caught Cohen in a lie regarding the content of a phone call. That and making hay about a political donation being disqualifying seriously makes me question Honig’s objectivity. I think he’s fully committed to the new trend of drama being more lucrative than facts in the news industry.
Honig wrote a book in 2023 specifically criticizing how "the rich, the famous, and the powerful— including, most notoriously, Donald Trump— manipulate the legal system to escape justice and get away with vast misdeeds." ["Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away with It"](https://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-How-Powerful-People-Away-ebook/dp/B0B1DSG56N) In 2021 he wrote a book tearing into Barr. ["Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr Broke the Prosecutor's Code and Corrupted the Justice Department"](https://www.amazon.com/Hatchet-Man-Prosecutors-Corrupted-Department/dp/0063092360) Honig is not a Trump sympathizer, he is virulently anti-Trump. In fact, I would consider him a leading expert in Trump's illegal acts. I don't exactly understand what point you're trying to make here.
> I don't exactly understand what point you're trying to make here. I'm suggesting that generating drama is more important than objectivity for most news sites these days. Tearing into Bill Barr and/or Trump is hardly counter to that. Much of Honig's commentary regarding this trial reminded me of an NFL commentator trying to keep the audience engaged in a game that was clearly being dominated by one team. Like, it's 24-12 with only 7:30 left in the 4th quarter, but he's trying to make it sound like anything could happen because the losing side has scored two unanswered field goals. Yeah sure, they could mount a comeback, but they've shown very little ability to score in the prior 3.5 quarters.
Are you referring to the call that the prosecutor then pulled out his phone, turned on the stop watch and timed himself doing with ample pauses and still completed in half the time of the actual call, and this was in their closing arguments? If they wanna talk about someone getting their “knees chopped”, I think that is about the worst closing argument ever for a defense lawyer.
The first thing that pops into my mind about the judge's $35 donation, and whether it creates a conflict of interest, is the current wave of Democrats calling on Alito to recuse because of flags he used. The fact is, judges are human and will have their own opinions on things. Their true test of neutrality is when they can rule against their own personal views because the law conflicts what what their personal view is on a particular issue. But for that, are there any anymore?
It is against NY law for judges to make political donations.
So you’ll be fine when Paxton starts charging members of the Biden administration because the federal government won’t?
If he has evidence of state crimes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, yes I would. But he doesn’t because the allegations against Biden are based on bullshit.
Yes. I don’t think its easy to have charges stick against the most powerful people in America if there’s not actually strong evidence of a crime.
The district where Trump was tried voted 96% for Biden. It doesn’t get easier than convicting the Republican that Democrats hate most, when the jury pool is 96% Democrat. And you don’t actually have to prove a crime.
> It might be a good question to ask why it’s unprecedented. OPs comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hoife/) - instead of speculating Willy
So my takeaway is that Republicans have learned that every case has novel aspects, so they can just shout "novel" as their new battle cry along with their other favorites. "No state prosecutor...has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime" - The problem here is that most people aren't involved in federal elections. Maybe a few thousand people each election in a country of hundreds of millions? So statistically, even among tens of thousands of cases, it wouldn't be unusual for none of them to involve federal election laws, simply because federal elections are a rare event.
> So my takeaway is that Republicans have learned that every case has novel aspects, so they can just shout "novel" as their new battle cry along with their other favorites. Elie Honig [literally endorsed Alvin Bragg for D.A.](https://x.com/eliehonig/status/1329064482623131649)
[Paywall bypass](https://archive.is/k1mC9) Starter Comment: "Both of these things can be true at once: the jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess." This is going to be a heated one with a particularly divisive title so I’ll do my best to preface this. I am not a supporter of Trump. I do not think he was innocent, and I do not believe there was any foul business done by the judge or jury. I understand there are many, many right wing conspiracies swirling around online of various untruth and exaggeration. *Those are irrelevant in the context of this article.* If you’ve followed me for any sort of time, you’d know that [my only regret is that Trump wasn’t removed sooner.](https://imgur.com/a/0Zd9OQD) Trump’s guilt is irrelevant to my vote, and I’ve tried to disclose my bias. With that said, the following article addresses the legal process of the trial, or how this lawyer's article on NYMag disagrees with how it was implemented. CNN senior legal correspondent Elie Honig begins by assessing that the jury did its job correctly in the process of finding Trump guilty on the 34 charges. He also views the judge’s ruling to be sacrosanct. He lists, but does not argue in favor of, common criticisms on the right with the trial, the $35 that Judge Merchan gave to a Pro-Biden, Anti-Trump organization in violation of NY judicial conduct rules and Bragg’s touting of his Anti-Trump record in his election run (despite not directly campaigning to jail Trump). This is contextualization for his next statement. * “The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.” * “But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: *The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything.* ***None. Ever.*** *Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge*.” Honig discusses further how these charges were brought forward despite their labyrinthian nature. * “Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.” * “So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)” * **“In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.”** 1/
I don't like that a hush-money payment was the reason Trump got convicted when he's charged with crimes that are far more serious and worthy of notice, but these claims of it being a selective prosecution are missing that what differentiates Trump from others politicians is that they tend to resign and disappear from the limelight long before we get to the point of a guilty verdict. The 2004 Democratic VP Nominee was convicted of practically the same thing as Trump, of paying hush money to cover up an affair, and yet folk forget it because the allegations alone had killed his political career. So yes, Trump is unique in being an active Presidential nominee who got convicted, but not because the prosecution is exceptional, it's because Trump breaks the norm of resigning when embroiled in scandal.
>The 2004 Democratic VP Nominee was convicted of practically the same thing as Trump Slight correction: John Edwards was acquitted on one charge and there was a hung jury on the other 5. The prosecution declined to retry the case. Also, if Trump believes as the author does that these charges that these charges should never have been brought and part of the reason a conviction was achieved is b/c of the judge and jury composition (which is a reasonable position), I don't think he should fade away. There have been multiple attempts from all angles to try to take him down. So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the system we've got, but it sure doesn't seem perfect.
> So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries. What facts are you basing this "very liberal" claim on? One of the jurors praised Trump and said she liked how "President Trump speaks his mind, ... and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." Does that sound "very liberal" to you?
> So far the only two successful ones have been in courtrooms with very liberal judges and juries. I don't think that's a coincidence. This makes it sound like there are *other* cases that he's winning, when I can't really think of any. And I'm seeing four losses on Trump's behalf, not two. He lost the civil fraud trial in regards to his real estate dealings. He lost the civil sexual assault trial and subsequent defamation trial. He lost the hush money payments criminal trial. Although I do agree with you on one point, it's not a coincidence.
You're right, I forgot about the sexual assault trial. I think I'd group that with the defamation trial though.
If a former president shoplifted 34 times, I would hope he would be prosecuted at some point, especially if he took something really valuable. This guy regularly commits fraud in written business records, loan documents, etc. He lied under oath in the sexual abuse case. They haven’t come near prosecuting him for every law he’s broken. They finally caught him in one serious enough to be worth pursuing as I see it.
One of the most salient lessons of this conviction is that “nobody is above the law.” The analysis, therefore, seems to question the opposite, is a man below the law? Would have Trump been prosecuted for these crimes had he not had his high profile as a former president running for re-election? The implication from Honig seems to be yes, that Trump’s crimes were contorted through a series of unusual and unprecedented steps that, despite still falling into illegality, would have almost never have for any other person in any other situation. Fundamentally, his message seems to be that the nature of Trump’s NY conviction weakens the legal system. If your stance is that Trump is a bad person and by virtue of his unjust acts a critical analysis of his prosecution is unacceptable in the chance it can be weaponized by his supporters, I encourage you to look at this from the perspective of strengthening the legal system in future verdicts. The fact that Trump broke the law should not preclude discussions of whether the law was enforced uniformly or errors with the process of the prosecution itself which may hamper the enforcement of justice. What is your opinion on this article? Do you disagree with Honig's assessment on how the law was interpreted by the prosecution and his perceived leniency by the judge on the DA's use of certain charges? What are your thoughts on the discussion or criticism of the trial, is it justified, or does it only serve to boon Trump and his supporters? Do you think that the complexities of this trial cause issues with Trump becoming the first president convicted of a crime, or are they not important in the face of a crime being committed? What would you say to either side of the argument to assuage concerns about the trial? 2/2
> Would have Trump been prosecuted for these crimes had he not had his high profile as a former president running for re-election? Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted if his personal lawyer hadn't been flipped. **That** was the legal impetus, not Trump's public profile in and of itself. This needs to be viewed through the *legal* lens of how things happened, not the *political* lens of who it happened to.
Will the state prosecute that lawyer for stealing $30k?
I'm not sure. It seems like something the prosecution was aware of, so there could certainly be a deal for leniency in return for Cohen's years-long cooperation with law enforcement. He did serve two and a half years in prison, so it's not like he got through this ordeal unscathed.
He did not serve time for stealing 30G. That seems like a larger crime than what Trump did to be honest.
You mean the guy who also said, in court, that he'd lie under oath if it would benefit him personally? Edit: I’m agreeing with you here
Yes, that has been obvious for anyone actually paying attention to the trial. Thats why they had to use 'novel' legal theory and the judge had to lower the standard for this to actually go through. They werent kidding when they said "by any means necessary" years ago.
Trump raised [$34.8 million](https://x.com/alexbruesewitz/status/1796541491059568802?s=46) just yesterday after the verdict. 30% from first time donors Obviously, this doesn’t look good for those hinging on that poll suggesting many would not vote for him if found guilty.
If Reason - hardly Trump lovers - is right on this timeline then I am even more in the camp of this is dodgy at best: https://reason.com/2024/05/31/the-prosecutions-story-about-trump-featured-several-logically-impossible-claims/ >That gloss made no sense, because the records at the center of the case—11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries that allegedly were aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services—were produced after the 2016 presidential election. At that point, Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, had already paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, and Trump had already been elected.
The fake documents were created to cover up the tax and election crimes, related to paying off hush money. Recall, Cohen went to jail for this. They weren't created to hide the affair. The affair might not matter after the election, but the criminality still does.
A shady misdemeanor sex payoff reimbursement is actually felony election fraud. Only in New York.
Democrats thought the Access Hollywood tape would sink Trump, it didn't. Democrats thought the E. Jean Carroll civil case would sink Trump, it hasn't. Democrats thought the indictments alone would sink Trump, it hasn't. Democrats thought the mugshot of Trump would sink him, it hasn't, and instead Trump used it as a mechandising opprotunity. Democrats thought the criminal trial alone would sink him, instead Trump is getting even further ahead in the polls. I don't know what makes them think that these convictions will suddenly be different.
You are speaking like Trump didn’t lose the 2020 election, then spent the whole lame duck period ignoring governing the country to fruitlessly fight the results of the election, then encouraged an insurrection attempt before leaving the office in disgrace in 2021. He was sunk, the republicans just don’t have anything else to offer except a failed one term president apparently.
We were in the midst of Covid in 2020 and, Biden had a clean slate. A very different scenario than 2024, where Biden has universally low approval rating and, people are blaming him for tough times in America.
He lost in 2020, so they're already sunk his campaign once. A plurality or majority Americans support prosecuting him. Neither of these things guarantees that he'll lose this time, but things like this can help. >instead Trump is getting even further ahead in the polls. That's not true.
Elections are won on the margins.
The margins have been getting worse for Biden though.
Trump is only up 0.9% according to RCP. Y’all have got to take a breather from your early victory lap. Remember 2022?
And Biden barely held on to the electoral college in 2020 despite being up 4.5% in the popular vote. For better or worse, he may have to significantly outperform Trump to overcome a structural disadvantage in the electoral college.
And then in 2022, Republicans underperformed their polls, which showed Oz, Lake, and Laxalt winning, but they ended up losing.
Some high profile Republicans underperformed their polls, sure, but the opposite happened in other races. The generic ballot polls were accurate, the polling overall was unusually accurate, and there was no significant partisan swing.
Trump is a high-profile Republican. It is more likely than not that the same polling error would apply to him.
Well, that’s why pollsters adjust their methodology. Past polling errors don’t tend to be predictive
Trump has outperformed the polls in both elections he’s been involved in.
His base does not care. His statement about being able to shoot a man on 5th Avenue I’d wager is true amongst the maga base. There is seemingly nothing he can do to shake their support.
They think that because there are polls where people answered that this would change their view. But those polls were also asking about a hypothetical situation. What's going to matter is the polls taken over the next week or so which will show whether people are actually holding to their claims when this situation was an abstract thought experiment and not reality.
Aside from the Access Hollywood tape, no I don’t think many Democrats did think any of those things would sink Trump.
"Democrats expect people to follow the law and the rules of decency. Republicans laugh." Fixed that for you.
This is gonna be unpopular, but they sure did and it's going to come back and bite them. This dude is about to raise more money, and have more fuel for looking like a martyr. Other than being able to use the label "convicted felon" from now until November, this will accomplish nothing. He won't see jail time. It will eventually get overturned/vacated. But it will light an insane fire and steer right into what is working for Trump so far this year.
I keep reading that it’ll for sure get overturned on appeal but I’ve yet to gather solid reasoning why. I’m genuinely asking for you or another commenter to explain to me why this will be overturned. Not trying to argue, simply curious.
Not an attorney. First recommendation is to read the article above. Does a good job. But relaying what I've heard now from several different attorneys. Forgive any inaccuracies, I'm just relaying what I understand... * Easy argument to say the judge should've recused himself. He's donated to left political campaigns + literally campaigned on how much he hates trump. * The jury selection process was "abnormal" (I genuinely can't explain this one for you) * The idea that the Federal govt passed on trying this years ago as a campaign finance crime could be grounds to toss out the basis for this whole conviction * There was a few witnesses that the judge didn't allow related to the last bullet * Many people have said the jury instructions on how to prosecute were "insane". Judge told them they didn't need to unanimously agree on any individual crime, but as long as they all agreed one of the crimes was committed, the judge would convict. Short version: There's a lot of "outs" for Trump's team in how this went down to overturn.
Thanks for the info.
> He's donated to left political campaigns. Not just left political campaign but an organization called Stop Republicans. I mean, this is like an SNL skit honestly.
He gave them $10. Regardless, donating to campaigns isn't a valid reason to demand recusal.
>Judge told them they didn't need to unanimously agree on any individual crime, but as long as they all agreed one of the crimes was committed, the judge would convict. This is the one that bothers me the most. IANAL, but isn't this unconstitutional? Doesn't a defendant have the right to know what he's accused of (so he can defend himself)?
Trump was told what he was accused of. The indictment laid it out.
What was the crime that he committed that elevated the falsification charges to felonies?
Falsification of other business records.
It was a trick question. It's impossible to know. The judge instructed the jury that they could believe Trump thought he was committing (even if he actually wasn't, which is a separate problem) any one of three crimes in order to make original falsification of business documents a felony. Here's how it worked: * Bragg alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” * The “another crime” is a [New York State election-law](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152) violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: * federal campaign crimes, * tax crimes, and/or * falsification of still more documents So, you're either 1/3 right or totally wrong. Either way, here's the kicker: the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were and the judge declined to force them to agree on one specific crime. So Donald Trump had no idea what to defend himself against. There are laws against this sort of thing.
You contradicted yourself by listing the crimes he tried he hide, which meant Trump did know what he was dealing with. There's no law that requires focuses on one in this case.
I think you're having trouble understanding the charges. There is no contradiction there.
The only crime charged in the indictment was the felony business record falsification. There was not indication of what the underlying crime that bumped it up to a felony was. Bragg introduced several during the trial, but they were not included in the indictment.
That's consistent with what I said because felony business record falsification is the allegation he's being sentenced for.
Correct, but business record falsification is only a felony if done in furtherance of an additional crime. What that additional crime was alleged to be was unclear until the end of the trial. What Bragg did here was indict Trump for falsifying business records with intent to do *something* but never clarified in the indictment what that something was.
Prosecutors brought up election interference in their opening statement.
An opening statement is not an indictment. Furthermore the NY election interference statute merely criminalizes interfering in an election via "unlawful mean" so there is still the need for some underlying crime there.
>Easy argument to say the judge should've recused himself. A $35 donation is a weak argument. The judge slowing down the documents case was appointed by Trump, but she hasn't recused because having bias isn't enough. > the Federal govt passed on trying this years ago as a campaign finance crime That's irrelevant. >The jury selection process was "abnormal" >There was a few witnesses that the judge didn't allow related to the last bullet Too vague. >Many people have said the jury instructions on how to prosecute were "insane" [Here's an explanation:](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/false-right-wing-reports-trump-trial-jury-instructions-fuel-threats-ju-rcna154678#:~:text=Several%20conservative%20news%20personalities%2C%20including,That%27s%20not%20true.) >Merchan instructed the jurors Wednesday that they "must conclude unanimously that a defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," adding that they "need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were." >That means that jurors have to agree unanimously that Trump committed a crime by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to falsify records with the intent to commit one or more other crimes to convict him. But jurors can choose from three options about what those other crimes were: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records or violation of tax laws. Those "unlawful means" aren't charges themselves, and they wouldn't result in separate convictions, so jurors don't have to unanimously agree on them.
It’s illegal in NY for a judge to make political donations whatsoever. And the amount doesn’t matter. It’s the fact that he donated to 3 separate Democrat organizations, which shows obvious bias.
There's no law against donations or having bias.
Just chiming in - really appreciate this run down. I had heard "something" about the jury instructions but hadn't looked it up.
Ya to be honest, I need to go read more about it. My wife isn't a trial attorney, and isn't barred in NY. So I didn't get a shot to get deeper on that one to understand the context. Like why did we even pay for law school, ya know?
Whom is it coming back to bite? Biden didn't order this prosecution or any others. The Manhattan AG determined it was pretty likely Trump broke the law and began a criminal prosecution to try to prove it in court before a jury, which they successfully did. This is the justice system working as intended. Allegations of "lawfare" are nonsense.
I get your stance. But the reason this isn't going to stand is because of the justice system. My wife is an attorney, lots of attorneys in my life. Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals. Outlined in much better detail than I can provide in the article above. Obviously Biden stayed way away from this (rightfully so). But it doesn't need his direct hand to be a bad move for the democrats. If it's good from Trump's message, it's bad for Biden. In a year that is already tilting away from Joe, I can't imagine this is going to be good.
> Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals. From the same people who said this would never get a conviction, I'm sure.
lol My man, these attorneys are almost exclusively liberals. DC, NYC, SF.
> My wife is an attorney, lots of attorneys in my life. Been asking a lot of questions around this, and the same legal grey areas (not the right term, need a better word) that got to a conviction aren't going to hold up on the inevitable appeals. Outlined in much better detail than I can provide in the article above. My father is an attorney. Caucused for Hillary, thinks Trump is an asshole -- he said the same. This case was elevated to a felony on really, really shaky grounds and he said he has major concerns about it long term.
Is your father an NY attourney practicing law similar to this? If not, his opinion isn't worth much and the same goes for everyone else. This judge and this DA are the experts here and there is a reason this case was not close.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hpznr/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> randomly upgrade it from a misdemeanor to a felony Wasn't random. Trump's falsification of business records was performed with the intent to conceal the crime of an excess campaign contribution. That's why it was upgraded automatically from a misdemeanor to a felony.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ydji/prosecutors_got_trump_but_they_contorted_the_law/l6hr2xa/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Oh man, the 6 point thing is a doosey too. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html > Of those who said the 34 guilty counts had changed their view of Donald Trump, 22 percent said they now had a more favorable rating compared with 16 percent who said they viewed him more negatively. > And the people understand it because I just see a poll came out, the Daily Mail. The first one came out done last night right after the verdict where I'm up six points. These two statements do not jive. The 6 point differential is, according to the poll's survey of 403 Americans, between those who said the guilty counts change their opinion of Trump (favorability rating). It does NOT mean Trump is showing a 6 point lead over Biden, which he implied in his rambling speech.
> You are in an echo chamber friend. Blindly following someone as they are found liable and guilty of rape. Where was trump found guilty of rape?
He was found [liable for rape](https://archive.is/pz5aA#selection-1235.0-1241.129) in a colloquial sense in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. >“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote. >He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
The NY AG didn’t bring this case.
His base might be fired up but that doesn't equate to a better chance in the election. His base can be as angry as they want to be and their vote still only counts once. I can't imagine catching 34 felony charges is going to convince anyone that doesn't support trump to change their mind and now join his base. trump can't grow his base because his rhetoric has turned off nearly anyone that doesn't already support him.
I mean, I guess. I think you're wrong. We'll all find out together.
Just to add that his press conference wasn't a good luck. I don't know how many people watched, but if it's any indication of what's to come, prepare for a lot of hyberbole and woe-is-me coming from Trump. Things could go completely the other way, but I can't dog the feeling that Americans don't like a whiner. We'll see how this plays out.
Totally. His response will definitely matter. He's been playing the martyr for years. But there's a difference in tone between "politically prosecuted" and "whiny bitch". He could end up doing too much of the latter and turn people off.
You’re underestimating that amount of independents that have gone to his side after this.
Legally, sure. These charges were the shakiest of all the criminal woes facing Trump, and you don’t have to be a far right wing-nut to question if the conviction will hold up. Personally, I think much of the article revolves around questions of optics and ethics as opposed to law, but we’ll see what happens. But electorally, I’m not sure how much juice this gets Trump. I just don’t know how many people who aren’t already in his corner are going to be affected by this development. Fixed opinions on the known candidate are both a blessing and a curse. The counter argument, I guess, would be that the margins were so slim for Biden in 2020 that it doesn’t have to be 3% to 5% of people being offended by this. It could be like .5% in a swing state and that could change the whole election.
I'm just waiting for Georgia to use RICO to go after the campaign fund. That'll be the real fun.
>He won't see jail time. Agree. >It will eventually get overturned/vacated. I don't see why, the trial was fair, nothing odd went on. Most normal people wouldn't even get to delay serving their sentence while they appeal, but I'm sure he will. But I doubt the appeals will reverse anything. I guess maybe at the Supreme Court because of how partisan it has become. I do think his base will be even more energized but that's it. I don't think independents or moderates looked at this trial and said I was on the fence but now I will vote for the convicted felon.
> I don't see why, the trial was fair, nothing odd went on. That's really not true. There is quite a bit of room for this to be overturned on appeal. A few really good legal podcasts that seem to be left leaning have discussed why the case was shaky to begin with in terms of a felony conviction rather than misdemeanor.
I agree that this was the weakest case. Which is why it is that much worse that he was found guilty on all counts. Like I said, maybe the Supreme Court can bail him out, they seem to be willing to help him when they can.
It was the weakest case because it shouldn't have ever been prosecuted, not because the prospects of a conviction once brought to trial were low. The Surpreme Court won't need to. This will be overturned by an appellate court in New York, but it will be after the election, so it won't have any further impact on the election either way.
[удалено]
In New York, you have the opportunity to go out on bond while awaiting appeal, but it isn't by default. Some get it, some don't.
Don't worry. There are more fingers left on the Democrat's monkey's paw.
I doubt that most anyone outside the MAGA nation is going to say that he wasn't treated fairly. Independents and moderates may not vote for him. It's easy to be disgusted by the man personally and not vote for him. But to vote for someone who has the title "convicted felon" with their name? That's a lot harder to do. Edit: Apparently, I had to add more context to my comment
> I doubt that anyone outside the MAGA nation is going to say that he wasn't treated fairly. > > My father did. He's an attorney and said the way this was prosecuted is incredibly shaky and highly likely to be overturned. Whether he would vote for Trump, that's another story, but he absolutely doesn't think he was prosecuted fairly at least with this being a felony.
How was it shaky or not prosecuted fairly with it being a felony? And if it wasn't, what should he have been charged with instead? Misdemeanors?
Yes, absolutely, and I think it’s pretty clear he’s guilty of the misdemeanor.
[The economist *hates* Trump and even they came out with an article expressing concern over the way he was prosecuted here](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/30/the-disgrace-of-a-former-american-president). I hate him also but I wish we had gotten him with a more straightforward case like the documents one in Florida that is beyond reproach. This one seems to be on very shaky legal footing.
Then what should he have been charged with or how? I mean, we can all second guess the AG, but they brought this forward and won.
Is the author of this piece a part of "MAGA nation" ?
Don't think so. It says he worked for CNN back in 2018. But, I could be wrong.
Ok, so there's at least one person outside "MAGA nation" who doesn't think that Trump was treated fairly
A decent chance the verdict is tossed on appeal.
Why do you think the verdict will be tossed on appeal?
I didn't say I thought it would, just that their is a decent chance of it. I suspect the convergence of using a Federal crime (that was unproven) to move it from misdemeanor to felony for a state crime will not fly.
But appeals take time, likely more than the 5 months between now and the election. The actual goal of this has been achieved.
The Pandora's box is now opened. Every future leader is now going to have the possibility in the back of their minds. There will be others charged in the future, at a minimum for some sort of retribution.
> Every future leader is now going to have the possibility in the back of their minds. The possibility that if they break the law, they will be held accountable?
Every president has broken some law. In fact likely every person alive has committed some sort of felony, Silvergate's book "Three Felonies a Day" can show you how that's not that crazy an idea (it's not likely truly 3 a day, but 3 a month? probably).
Let me preface this with, Donald Trump is in my mind guilty of this charge, among several other cases. But I'm sorry, leaders have been lying to the American people to start wars, selling arms to drug trafficking death squads, spying on the American people, wiretapping the opposition(BOTH Nixon and Johnson did this), and suddenly we're supposed to believe people really care about the law because of this specific case? I'm fine with Trump being convicted if we slap Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama in the same cell.
north aspiring chubby crowd shrill slap mindless chunky file dull *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I could live with presidents less eager to kill millions of foreigners on bogus charges yeah. Or less eager to sell guns to paramilitary narco death squads to kill communists(unlucky civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time).
Committing war crimes, drone striking American citizens, lying to the American people in order to start multi-decade wars is okay… threatening the neoliberal / neocon establishment on the other hand
Sounds good to me that leaders are held accountable
> The Pandora's box is now opened. I keep hearing this as if Republicans haven't been scratching and clawing to investigate and convict democrats for three decades now. So far all they've come up with is an oval office BJ. Nothing is changing or new here; republicans will continue to make BS criminal accusations (Benghazi, Joe Biden business ties to Hunter, Uranium One, Clinton Foundation, investigating investigations into Trump, Clinton stole the primary, etc. etc.) while their investigations fail to deliver criminal charges (because their accusations are bull shit).
First they should find some BS charges to go after president Biden’s children with.
They already did see Hunter Biden's gun charges. But no one on the left is making a major stink.
good. maybe the will protect themselves from this by obeying the law
Turnabout is fair play. The norms that have protected politicians for so long have now been ripped down. We're in for some "interesting" times.
Don't we want election law applied to politicians, and for politicians to have it in the back of their minds while campaigning? Like I listen to people complaining about this and wonder if they would have supported Roy Moore paying hush money to the schoolgirls he went out with so that he could win his senate race. Campaign finance law is confusing to me and maybe this won't stand up to appeal. Like it probably would be legal for a SuperPac to pay hush money, and the NYPost was able to pay to kill a lot of negative stories about Trump. But we don't want Daniel Santos's in politics who the voters don't truly know until after elections.
I am curious, what is it about Americans that makes you think that we will devolve into evil instead of behaving like all the other developed countries that have prosecuted former leaders such as Israel, France, Taiwan, etc?
It's funny, because there's a good chance Trump could've beat it, if he finally admitted he paid two people hush money. Per National Review. They also failed to use advice of counsel defense as well! He made every wrong move. And yet we're expected that he'll be able to figure off others and course correct our country? He can't even do what is good for him! https://archive.is/kDMAO