Final jurors seated for Trump’s hush money case, with opening statements set for Monday (1 Viewer)

[Rumblefish]

FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over federal campaign matters.

Actually, the FEC doesn't have "exclusive jurisdiction" in federal campaign matters.

Two NY courts - one of them a federal court - have already ruled that FECA does not preempt, NY Election Law Section 17-152 - with which Trump is charged.

17-152 states:
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor.

And remember, the Prosecution only has to prove that Trump *INTENDED* to violate 17-152.....not that the 17-152 violation was actually completed.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is Trump's attorney's claim. Are you part of that defense team, getting paid to spread this position?

Of course politicians try to "influence elections" all the time. Usually they do so legally. But there are certainly ways to influence an election that violate the law. I asked ChatGPT to list some of the illegal ways to influence an election. Here's the response:

"Attempting to influence a U.S. election through illegal means is a violation of both federal and state laws. Some illegal methods of influencing elections include:​

1. Voter fraud: This includes actions such as voting multiple times, voting under false identities, or bribing voters to vote for a particular candidate.
2. Voter intimidation: Intimidating or coercing voters to vote for a specific candidate or to refrain from voting altogether is illegal.
3. Campaign finance violations: Violating campaign finance laws by accepting contributions from prohibited sources, exceeding contribution limits, or failing to disclose campaign expenditures can influence elections illegally.
4. Tampering with voting machines or ballots: Altering or tampering with voting machines or ballots to change the outcome of an election is illegal.
5. Hacking or cyberattacks: Unauthorized access to election infrastructure, such as voter registration databases or election systems, with the intent to disrupt or manipulate election results is illegal.
6. False information dissemination: Spreading false information about candidates or election procedures with the intent to deceive voters is illegal, although the line between free speech and illegal activity can be complex and context-dependent.

"It's important to uphold the integrity of elections by adhering to legal and ethical standards and reporting any suspected illegal activity to the appropriate authorities."​

​

I thought Number 6 was particularly interesting.

​

​

Only #3 is relelevant.
And you did not highlight the word "can."

 

[Athanasius68]

Not reasonable poster has claimed that funds were drawn from campaign accounts to pay the doorman, McDougal, or Daniels.

WW

Then I guess you are stuck.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not when the payment is 11-days before the election and they have evidence showing that the ONLY time that mattered were those 11-days and they didn't mind the story coming out after election day.

WW

Had Mr. Trump used campaign funds to pay Clifford, there would have been no lawful requirement to report until 2017.

There is no legal obligation for a candidate to report 'negative' information about himself.

No fraud.

 

[Rumblefish]

Had Mr. Trump used campaign funds to pay Clifford, there would have been no lawful requirement to report until 2017.

There is no legal obligation for a candidate to report 'negative' information about himself.

No fraud.

If cows had penises and testicles, they'd be bulls.

But, they don't.

Why don't you deal with the known facts? (rhetorical, I know why....because you can't deal with them straight on).

 

[snakestretcher]

The Jury found Trump liable for Sexual Assault! How the hey is this "Lawfare"?

Trust me, if it was Biden who had faced the same charges they would be cheering to the rafters, praising the legal system for convicting a sex offender.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yep. Exactly. As I have understand everything that has already been posted on this topic ad nauseam, falsifying business records (in New York) is a misdemeanor but can be elevated to a felony if the act is committed with the intention of committing, aiding or concealing a second crime. Bragg said that the scheme was a bid to conceal violations of New York’s election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate.

But the legal theory behind the elevation from misdemeanor to felony charges is "untested."

So it's against the law to break another law.
It isn't an untested legal theory at all.
It's been tested for well over a 1000 years.

Now, it seems pretty straightforward to me, even if "untested." First part of the equation is to show the jury that there was - beyond a reasonable doubt - an orchestrated effort to conspire to illegally promote a candidate.

so what constitutes illegally promoting a candidate?
what does the statute say?

Second part is to then say that that "coordinated effort" (payments, buying of information, promoting FALSE stories of other candidates, etc.) was done to conceal the second crime (again the New York election laws).

I don't see how anyone comes to the conclusion of anything different than the payments, the buying and burying of information, etc. etc. etc. was NOT done with the election in mind. I haven't even heard the defense try to make that argument, which is what John Edward's team did, and was successful with (though I didn't buy it).

Even if the money had come on the level from his personal accounts (without the false labelling), I would presume that there is still a strong case that it would be elevated to a felony because the intent was to commit a second crime (illegally promoting a candidate). The fact that he committed fraud with his business expenses is just some little icing on the cake.

But....the jury will decide. Given how Trump's lawyers didn't even come prepared on the gag order to give a direct statement or quote or post to point to that Trump was responding to, I can only surmise that they will be completely unprepared to defend him in every other aspect. I mean, what defense are they going with???? Like I said earlier, they are simply trying to keep this "line-itemed" so as to confuse people and make them think there is no crime. But it's pretty damn obvious. It is a felony in New York to illegally promote a candidate, and that's what Trump was doing during the election with the payments, buying of the information, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Rumblefish]

And, for the record, here are some of the salient facts from numerous testimonies and documents:

1. Cohen used money from a HELOC on his personal home to pay $130,000 to Stormy.

2. Trump reimbursed Cohen for this payment, but did so by "cooking the books." People v. Trump, Case No. 23 Civ. 3773 (AKH) (USDC NY. July 19, 2023: "The defense [Trump] also called Alan Garten, Chief Legal Officer ("CLO") of the Trump Organization, as a witness. Garten testified that the Trump Organization was advised that Trump had to be separated from his businesses once he took office and that he (Garten) implemented corporate policies to create that separation. Garten stated that Cohen separated himself from the Trump Organization in January 2017 to serve as a personal attorney to Trump.Garten stated that Cohen received twelve payments of $35,000 in 2017 "to reimburse him for the payment that he had made as part of the Clifford settlement agreement and also to compensate him for the work that ~ this role that he was playing as counsel [to Trump]." (Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 41, at 54:17-20.) He also testified that "when matters came in [to the Trump Organization] that were not company related, but related to the President or the First Lady,. . . those matters would be referred to Mr. Cohen. I don't know how many there were." (Id. at 57:12-15.)

2.a. Again from People v. Trump: "On cross-examination, Garten testified that the Trump Organization would typically execute written retainer agreements when attorneys were retained to work either for Trump personally or for the Trump Organization, that those attorneys would generally submit invoices with details of their work, and that the vast majority of ledger entries for payments to those attorneys included descriptions of their work. (Id. at 59-64.) He testified that he was not aware of any retainer agreement with Cohen, that Cohen's invoices did not contain descriptions of the work he did, and that the ledger entries for Cohen similarly did not describe his work. (Id. at 61:13-62:1, 65:1-4.)"

 

[triharder]

Actually, the FEC doesn't have "exclusive jurisdiction" in federal campaign matters.

Two NY courts - one of them a federal court - have already ruled that FECA does not preempt, NY Election Law Section 17-152 - with which Trump is charged.

17-152 states:
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor.

And remember, the Prosecution only has to prove that Trump *INTENDED* to violate 17-152.....not that the 17-152 violation was actually completed.

Ugh. I'm really trying hard to understand all the laws. Do I have this correct? Falsifying business records (on it's own) is a misdemeanor in New York. Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.... is also (on it's own) a misdemeanor. But...falsifying records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime.

I think the "intent to defraud" is a no brainer. But....it has to include an intent to "commit another crime or aid or conceal another crime." Since the conspiracy to promote or prevent election... is a misdemeanor, how does this get elevated to a felony? Is it the money "hidden" (for perhaps lack of a better word) as a campaign finance violation under NY law???

 

[Rumblefish]

There are two ways I can withdraw money from my bank:

1. I can fill out a withdrawal slip and present it to a teller; OR

2. I can go in with a gun and say "give me $1,000."

The fact that there is a LEGAL way -- method #1 -- to get money from my bank does not make method #2 suddenly legal and lawful.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not hard at all! It depends on why you pay the person who had this one night stand with the candidate. If you pay her for assisting the candidate's campaign, then this is a campaign expense. Do not pretend that the request was to have a one night stand with the candidate. You know very well that this was not the case.

Federal campaign law doesn't say the intent of the expense automatically transmogrifies the expense into a campaign expense.

What also matters is what the expenditure is actually for.
And the law says the expenditure is covered if it exists only because of the campaign.

 

[Rumblefish]

Ugh. I'm really trying hard to understand all the laws. Do I have this correct? Falsifying business records (on it's own) is a misdemeanor in New York. Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.... is also (on it's own) a misdemeanor. But...falsifying records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime.

I think the "intent to defraud" is a no brainer. But....it has to include an intent to "commit another crime or aid or conceal another crime." Since the conspiracy to promote or prevent election... is a misdemeanor, how does this get elevated to a felony?

Section 17-152 alone and by itself is a misdemeanor, true.

But it is still "another crime" for purposes of 175.10. So, falsifying business records with the intent to commit the election fraud in violation of NY state law (17-152) becomes a felony. Think of it this way --- the commission of one misdemeanor with the intent to commit another misdemeanor is a felony in NY state.

 

[Athanasius68]

If cows had penises and testicles, they'd be bulls.

But, they don't.

Why don't you deal with the known facts? (rhetorical, I know why....because you can't deal with them straight on).

The facts seem to be the inability to describe a crime, much less describe to commit one.

 

[Athanasius68]

There are two ways I can withdraw money from my bank:

1. I can fill out a withdrawal slip and present it to a teller; OR

2. I can go in with a gun and say "give me $1,000."

The fact that there is a LEGAL way -- method #1 -- to get money from my bank does not make method #2 suddenly legal and lawful.

This would be because there is an actual statute that says a person cannot withdraw money from a bank using method #2.

 

[triharder]

Section 17-152 alone and by itself is a misdemeanor, true.

But it is still "another crime" for purposes of 175.10. So, falsifying business records with the intent to commit the election fraud in violation of NY state law (17-152) becomes a felony. Think of it this way --- the commission of one misdemeanor with the intent to commit another misdemeanor is a felony in NY state.

Thanks. Two misdemeanors don't make a right. They make a wrong. Makes sense. Today I am a bit more informed. Thanks!

 

[Athanasius68]

Ugh. I'm really trying hard to understand all the laws. Do I have this correct? Falsifying business records (on it's own) is a misdemeanor in New York.

with an intent to defraud.

Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.... is also (on it's own) a misdemeanor.

promoting a candidate is a crime in New York state?
i don't think so.
In 2016, both candidates were residents of New York.

But...falsifying records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime.

The "defraud" isn't to commit another crime. The purpose of falsifying the documents is to commit some sort of fraud.

Bragg doesn't have it.

I think the "intent to defraud" is a no brainer. But....it has to include an intent to "commit another crime or aid or conceal another crime."

That is what makes it a felony.
Defrauding someone may be a felony in and of itself, and then that allegee fraud would be the more serious crime.

But Bragg doesn't have a fraud.

Since the conspiracy to promote or prevent election... is a misdemeanor, how does this get elevated to a felony? Is it the money "hidden" (for perhaps lack of a better word) as a campaign finance violation under NY law???

 

[Rumblefish]

Your mistake appears to be that YOU interpret 175.10 as requiring an intent to defraud a specific person or group of persons....that is not required by 175.10. It does NOT say, for example, with an intent to defraud shareholders or owners or lenders. It's a much for generalized intent to defraud and mislead.

Example: I write $1,796.58 in my business books....when I should have written $1,769.58. I didn't *intend* for my books to reflect the wrong amount and Intended for my books to be "true and accurate"-- so it's a mistake, not fraud.

But, if I intentionally write $1,796.58 in my business books....when I know the true amount should be $1,769.58...and I intentionally want my business books to be "off," well....that is an intent to defraud under NY law.

And Bragg has that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Federal campaign law doesn't say the intent of the expense automatically transmogrifies the expense into a campaign expense.

What also matters is what the expenditure is actually for.
And the law says the expenditure is covered if it exists only because of the campaign.

And when the plan was to delay payment until election day and then stiff the recipient meaning the story could come out after the polls close.

Then of course your have testimony on Tuesday by AMI CEO David Pecker that in fact the scheme was devised specifically to protect the campaign. With more to come.

Both good evidence that the intent was specifically for the campaign.

So what would this "other reason" be?

• Melania? Why "protect" her only for the 11-days before the election but not after?
• Trump Brand? Why "protect" the brand only for the 11-days before the election but not after?

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

The defense had the same opportunity and time as the prosecution to question or remove a juror.

The defense exhausted its preemptory challenges. Not a surprise in a 90% plus Biden district. The same judge that gagged the leading candidate for the Presidency and forced him to sit in the courtroom instead of campaigning wasn't going to grant defense motions to strike prejudiced jurors.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The defense exhausted its preemptory challenges.

Correct, which means at least 10 of the jurors are on the panel because FPOTUS#45's attorney approved them.

Not a surprise in a 90% plus Biden district.

And yet the prosecution also exercised all 10 of the preemptory challenges.

The same judge that gagged the leading candidate for the Presidency

There is no gag order on FPOTUS#45 as a Presidential Candidate.

There is a gag order against a crimininal defendant ONLY to the point of talking about witnesses, jurors, court staff and family members. He is free to talk about the judge and the process..

and forced him to sit in the courtroom instead of campaigning wasn't going to grant defense motions to strike prejudiced jurors.

The judge isn't "forcing him", New York State law is the requirement for him to be present.

Did you now that FPOTUS#45 can submit a filing under New York State law not to be present while the court proceeds, but has to waive his right to appeal on the issue of not being present. FPOTUS#45 has not submitted such a request. (No whether it would be approved is a different question.)

WW

 

[triharder]

The defense exhausted its preemptory challenges. Not a surprise in a 90% plus Biden district. The same judge that gagged the leading candidate for the Presidency and forced him to sit in the courtroom instead of campaigning wasn't going to grant defense motions to strike prejudiced jurors.

"forced him to sit in the courtroom." LOL. Yeah...welcome to America and a criminal case. I bet you are just as empathetic for EVERY American going through the SAME fate who is "forced to sit in the courtroom" instead of providing food for themselves (and their family) through work.

Trump should have "forced" himself to conduct himself differently. He's a big boy that needs to pick up his big boy pants now.

 

[triharder]

Did you now that FPOTUS#45 can submit a filing under New York State law not to be present while the court proceeds, but has to waive his right to appeal on the issue of not being present. FPOTUS#45 has not submitted such a request.

WW

Interesting. I was not aware of that one. But...if you take away the "complain" from a Narcissist, what else do they have? It's what they were born to do.

 

[uptower]

The state of New York doesn't even say there was a conspiracy...

It says there was a crime. 34 crimes in fact. Nitpicking over her choice of words is a lame attempt to muddy the waters.

 

[Athanasius68]

Your mistake appears to be that YOU interpret 175.10 as requiring an intent to defraud a specific person or group of persons....that is not required by 175.10. It does NOT say, for example, with an intent to defraud shareholders or owners or lenders. It's a much for generalized intent to defraud and mislead.

I am interpreting that to mean that the law defines what actions would constitute fraud.
Not what Bragg thinks what actions constitute fraud.

Example: I write $1,796.58 in my business books....when I should have written $1,769.58. I didn't *intend* for my books to reflect the wrong amount and Intended for my books to be "true and accurate"-- so it's a mistake, not fraud.

Correct.

But, if I intentionally write $1,796.58 in my business books....when I know the true amount should be $1,769.58...and I intentionally want my business books to be "off," well....that is an intent to defraud under NY law.

When the person doing that, there is a crime somewhere.
Maybe the employee is trying to sabotage the business; maybe embezzlement.

But if there is no statute covering, then what is the fraud?

Bragg doesn't get to make up his own law.

And Bragg has that.

 

[Athanasius68]

It says there was a crime. 34 crimes in fact. Nitpicking over her choice of words is a lame attempt to muddy the waters.

It's sn accurate attempt because 'conspiracy' isn't some idle word.
It's a legal term.
It describes an an action.