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

[Chomsky]

I'm not sure who the texts were to, but one of the texts National Enquirer Dylan Howard sent reads: "At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud."

From the CNN live updates, it might be from the email exchange between he & David Pecker.

 

[Rumblefish]

There's this from moments ago, too:

Live updates: David Pecker testifies in Trump hush money trial

Witness testimony continues Thursday in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial. Follow here for the latest live news updates from court, analysis and more.

www.cnn.com

Although, I have to chuckle a bit, right??

National Enquirer has no problems putting front-page stories about aliens, mistresses, etc. in Walmarts......but porn stars?? Well, that's a bridge too far!!!

 

[Chomsky]

The jury will have written instructions....which instructions should reflect what is in evidence. And we haven't heard all of the evidence yet.

The "elevation" to a felony will be set forth to the jury in the written instruction they receive as one -- or all -- of the following:

1. Intent to violate FECA; or

2. Intent to violate NY election law Section 17-152 - a conspiracy to criminally defraud/deceive the voting pubic by action or by omission;

3. Intent to violate NY income tax laws - "grossing up" Cohen's payments which overstated Cohen's income for federal and state income taxes.

I agree.

This appears to be a smart jury, and they may get it right. But, it's still a jury - not a computing machine.

 

[Chomsky]

The state has the authority to enforce it's laws including falsification of state documents related to federal election contributions.

Quite honestly, the States run the elections - Federal or not. This is accordingly with the process of Federalism.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, yes. But that is our justice system. It's not without problems, but it is what we have and it is as fair as a process as can be expected (I think). I really don't think anyone is going to commit jury tapering. But if a juror did not find the evidence convincing "beyond a reasonable doubt," I can live with it. It is what it is.

Of course. My point is we can see the legal elements, but will all twelve jurors have the clarity & resolve we do? In a system highly skewed to protect the defendants? As it should be?

 

[triharder]

Of course. My point is we can see the legal elements, but will all twelve jurors have the clarity & resolve we do? In a system highly skewed to protect the defendants? As it should be?

I get it. First crack that I've read - Pecker said that in the conversations he had with Cohen and Trump about these stories, Trump's family was not mentioned. "So I made the assumption" the concern was the campaign, Pecker says.

The defense is going to use that for sure, as they should. In my view, that's what the defense needs to focus on (family vs. campaign) in order to prevent this from securing the felony charges. But...this is just one "chink." All the other evidence including the timing kind of makes this statement pretty small, in my view.

 

[Athanasius68]

And falsification of state documents also breaks the state law.

No it doesn't.
It violates state law if there is an attempt to defraud.

You just try to ignore it by claiming that the state law is related to a federal crime, but such claim can also be used to falsification of state documents about citizenship.

I am sure there are state laws about falsifying IDs
What is the point?

So you are inconsistent if you do not see any problem with falsifying state documents to mislead about citizenship but you have an issue with falsifying state documents to mislead about federal campaign contributions.

 

[Athanasius68]

The state has the authority to enforce it's laws

including falsification of state documents related to federal election contributions.

However, the state law require an intent to defraud.
If the campaign donation is lawful (which the relevant authorities have not said or proved otherwise) then there is not an intent to defraud or conceal another crime.

 

[triharder]

Pecker recalled a conversation that he and Cohen had about letters from the Federal Election Commission in 2018. Pecker said, "We committed a campaign violation." He testified that he was worried, but Cohen said he was not, telling Pecker: "Jeff Sessions is the attorney general and Donald Trump has him in his pocket."

 

[Athanasius68]

The "unlawful" action would be (a) defrauding the voting public via active concealment of relevant information -- i.e., deception;

There is no legal obligation for a candidate to divulge negative information about himself or herself.

Moreover, federal law does not require immediate and instantaneous reporting of campaign donations.
Had Mr. Trump used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, there would have been no requirement to report until 2017.

No deception.
No fraud.

(b) violation of FECA contribution limits; or (c) violation of FECA reporting requirements.

Those are all federal crimes for which Mr. Bragg lacks authority to prosecute.

And those statutes have their own requirements and standards for conviction.

Notably, the prosecution doesn't have to PROVE that the unlawful action was actually committed. That is, prosecutors don't have to prove that Trump was actually able to (a) defraud/deceive voters; or (b) violate FECA contribution limits; or (c) FECA reporting requirements.

They only have to PROVE that Trump *intended* to: (a) defraud/deceive the voting public; (b) violate Federal campaign limits; or (c) violate Federal campaign reporting requirements.

We already knocked out the first one (self flagellation is not required for any candidate) and there was no legal obligation to release campaign donations until 2017.
So no fraud.

As for the others, as above. Federal campaign finance law doesn't just say if the intent is for the betterment of the campaign, it's considered a campaign donation.

FECA does not preempt -- this is not solely in the exclusive jurisdiction of federal prosecutors -- because:

1. FECA does NOT proscribe defrauding/deceiving the voting public; and/or

No. But since in this instance the FEC took no action, the state can't say Trumps actions were really fraudulent

2. Because the state prosecutors do not have to actually prove FECA violation(s) actually occurred - they only have to prove an intent to violate....something that FECA does not independently address.

Which means Bragg has to prosecute depending upon the standards of that law.

IF NY election law 17-152 required that the prosecutors PROVE that FECA was actually violated you might have a preemption argument.

But 17-752 does NOT so require....so you don't have any argument.

And, EVEN IF the FECA violations were preempted - they are not, but assuming they are for the sake of argument - the prosecutors still have the state law criminal offense of defrauding/deceiving the voting public.

Defrauding how?

 

[Callen]

Private

There is no legal obligation for a candidate to divulge negative information about himself or herself.

Moreover, federal law does not require immediate and instantaneous reporting of campaign donations.
Had Mr. Trump used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, there would have been no requirement to report until 2017.

No deception.
No fraud.

Those are all federal crimes for which Mr. Bragg lacks authority to prosecute.

And those statutes have their own requirements and standards for conviction.

We already knocked out the first one (self flagellation is not required for any candidate) and there was no legal obligation to release campaign donations until 2017.
So no fraud.

As for the others, as above. Federal campaign finance law doesn't just say if the intent is for the betterment of the campaign, it's considered a campaign donation.

No. But since in this instance the FEC took no action, the state can't say Trumps actions were really fraudulent

Which means Bragg has to prosecute depending upon the standards of that law.

Defrauding how?

So why aren't Trump's attorneys as smart as you and haven't argued for dismissal based on the things you argue in this thread and others ?

 

[Chomsky]

David Pecker appears to be a really good witness!

13 min ago
Trump is watching David Pecker
Trump seems to be watching Pecker as he sings Trump's praises.

"I still consider him close — even though we haven't spoken. I still consider him a friend," Pecker testifies.

14 min ago
Pecker says he doesn't have any ill will toward Trump
Steinglass is asking if Pecker has an ill will toward Trump.

"On the contrary," Pecker says. "I talked about, I think it was on Monday: I felt that Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me throughout my career."

Live updates: David Pecker testifies in Trump hush money trial

Witness testimony continues Thursday in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial. Follow here for the latest live news updates from court, analysis and more.

www.cnn.com

 

[Callen]

He sure isn't coming across as a guy with a bone to pick. Don't see how this helps the defense.

 

[Chomsky]

Pecker recalled a conversation that he and Cohen had about letters from the Federal Election Commission in 2018. Pecker said, "We committed a campaign violation." He testified that he was worried, but Cohen said he was not, telling Pecker: "Jeff Sessions is the attorney general and Donald Trump has him in his pocket."

What will win this case is witness after witness testifying to the same effect, with documentation corroborating the testimonies.

Even if some witnesses like Michael Cohen may have baggage, when witness after witness says the same thing the jury tends to except it as truthful.

Though all this is predicated upon the witnesses & evidence holding-up upon cross!

Remember defense goes second, which is quite advantageous.

 

[Chomsky]

He sure isn't coming across as a guy with a bone to pick. Don't see how this helps the defense.

At this point, David Pecker appears to me to be an excellent prosecutorial witness.

However, we need to see how he hold-up under cross. The calorically challenged female has yet to croon!

 

[Rumblefish]

There is no legal obligation for a candidate to divulge negative information about himself or herself.

Moreover, federal law does not require immediate and instantaneous reporting of campaign donations.
Had Mr. Trump used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, there would have been no requirement to report until 2017.

No deception.
No fraud.


Those are all federal crimes for which Mr. Bragg lacks authority to prosecute.

And those statutes have their own requirements and standards for conviction.




We already knocked out the first one (self flagellation is not required for any candidate) and there was no legal obligation to release campaign donations until 2017.
So no fraud.

As for the others, as above. Federal campaign finance law doesn't just say if the intent is for the betterment of the campaign, it's considered a campaign donation.




No. But since in this instance the FEC took no action, the state can't say Trumps actions were really fraudulent


Which means Bragg has to prosecute depending upon the standards of that law.





Defrauding how?

§ 17-152. 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.

You seem to labor under the belief that "unlawful" - as used in this statute - must mean criminally illegal.

Not so.

"Unlawful" - as used here - means "contrary to or in defiance of the law.....While necessarily NOT implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it [i.e., criminality]." Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition).

Breaching a contract is "unlawful"..... but it is not a criminal act (having criminality; illegal).

So, as used in 17-152, a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office using UNLAWFUL - but not necessarily criminal - means and which conspiracy is acted on by one or more parties thereto is a misdemeanor.

Fraud - even in its civil form - is "unlawful."

Thus, under 17-152....a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office using FRAUD (or fraudulent means) and which conspiracy is acted on by one or more parties thereto is a misdemeanor.

Trump....if he has an affair....has no duty to disclose it as a private, non-candidate for office. He wants to lock it away in his brain and never talk about it, so be it.

BUT, once he became a candidate for office in NY, Trump cannot CONSPIRE with one or more others to promote his election using FRAUD - i.e., using an intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of having the voters rely on it- in the State of New York.

And, again, the prosecutors don't have to PROVE that Trump DID, in fact, commit fraud on the voters....they only need prove that he INTENDED to commit fraud on the voters.

 

[Chomsky]

Trump's defense team:

(Blanche is the guy I worry about - he got Manafort's NY case dismissed)

• Necheles represented Trump’s business at its tax fraud trial in 2022. The company was convicted.

• Blanche has worked as a prosecutor and defense attorney at two large law firms, according to his website. He says, during his career as a defense attorney, he got the criminal indictment against Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort dismissed prior to trial and achieved an “unexpectedly positive result in the politically charged prosecution by the SDNY against Igor Fruman, an associate of Rudy Giuliani.” Fruman was sentenced to one year and one day in prison for his role in a scheme to funnel Russian money into US elections.

• Bove was the co-chief of the national security unit at the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York. In a statement to CNN in September 2023, Blanche said that Bove is “an expert in white collar and CIPA-related litigation.”

• Kendra Wharton, a white collar defense lawyer who has experience practicing in Washington, DC, was also added to the former president’s legal team. She is a “brilliant lawyer and clients have trusted her for years,” Blanche said in the 2023 statement.

 

[triharder]

What will win this case is witness after witness testifying to the same effect, with documentation corroborating the testimonies.

Even if some witnesses like Michael Cohen may have baggage, when witness after witness says the same thing the jury tends to except it as truthful.

Though all this is predicated upon the witnesses & evidence holding-up upon cross!

Remember defense goes second, which is quite advantageous.

Defense is starting, but they are just saying this is done with other celebrities and this has been done for awhile. What they are NOT mentioning (understandably so) is that is PERFECTLY fine when you are a citizen of the United States. When you are running for any office and do the same thing (including coordinating the FAKE articles about your fellow candidates), those same rules do NOT apply.

 

[Chomsky]

Defense is starting, but they are just saying this is done with other celebrities and this has been done for awhile. What they are NOT mentioning (understandably so) is that is PERFECTLY fine when you are a citizen of the United States. When you are running for any office and do the same thing (including coordinating the FAKE articles about your fellow candidates), those same rules do NOT apply.

What will be extremely important will be the demeanor of the witnesses under cross.

Are they composed & direct? Or, fretful & evasive?

 

[Athanasius68]

§ 17-152. 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.

You seem to labor under the belief that "unlawful" - as used in this statute - must mean criminally illegal.

Not so.

"Unlawful" - as used here - means "contrary to or in defiance of the law.....While necessarily NOT implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it [i.e., criminality]." Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition).

Breaching a contract is "unlawful"..... but it is not a criminal act (having criminality; illegal).

So, as used in 17-152, a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office using UNLAWFUL - but not necessarily criminal - means and which conspiracy is acted on by one or more parties thereto is a misdemeanor.

Fraud - even in its civil form - is "unlawful."

Thus, under 17-152....a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office using FRAUD (or fraudulent means) and which conspiracy is acted on by one or more parties thereto is a misdemeanor.

Trump....if he has an affair....has no duty to disclose it as a private, non-candidate for office. He wants to lock it away in his brain and never talk about it, so be it.

BUT, once he became a candidate for office in NY, Trump cannot CONSPIRE with one or more others to promote his election using FRAUD - i.e., using an intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of having the voters rely on it- in the State of New York.

And, again, the prosecutors don't have to PROVE that Trump DID, in fact, commit fraud on the voters....they only need prove that he INTENDED to commit fraud on the voters.

In general, You are still trying to argue there is requirement that candidates for office divulge negative information about themselves.

Also fraud requires some sort of damage.
Mr. Trump did not win New York state or even New York County.
Where is the damage?

 

[Rumblefish]

In general, You are still trying to argue there is requirement that candidates for office divulge negative information about themselves.

Also fraud requires some sort of damage.
Mr. Trump did not win New York state or even New York County.
Where is the damage?

No, you've missed the point entirely.

17-152 says Trump cannot conspire with others to use FRAUD to promote his election to office. Like I said....Trump wants to lock up an "affair" in his brain and never address it as a candidate, that's fine. His only move, really, is "invoke his right to remain silent" about

But, once he starts conspiring to commit fraud on the voters - such as by buying up stories about the affair as part of a campaign strategy, etc. -- well now, that's different.

Where's the damage??

Two responses:

#1. Who cares??

Again, "damage" may be important IF prosecutors had to prove - as part of 17-152 - that Trump completed the conspiracy to promote his election by fraud.

That he didn't actually COMPLETE the fraud is irrelevant under 17-152. So, they don't have to show or prove any "damages." They only need show intent to conspire to use an unlawful means (i.e., fraud).

#2. 17-152 only requires that the conspiracy PROMOTE a candidate's election by unlawful means....it does not require the candidate to have been successful in the pursuit of that office by using those unlawful means. Put differently, 17-152 doesn't JUST apply to winning candidates....it applies to ALL candidates.

 

[gbg3]

This trial is simply bizarre. We seem to have a local DA trying to enforce federal law in a way which is inconsistent with the federal agencies who do have the correct jurisdiction. Then, the Mcdougal and National Enquirer stuff doesn't fit into the national crime Bragg is trying to argue Trump supposedly committed. It's like Bragg wants to fit puzzle pieces from one puzzle into a completely different puzzle. And, meanwhile, there was no violation of federal law. There is still no crime.

The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of disconnects and all the happenings/transactions being brought up aren't related to anything illegal. And then going backwards to the proper jurisdiction, the Federal government declined to bring any charges against Trump.

This is crazy stuff.

 

[Callen]

This trial is simply bizarre. We seem to have a local DA trying to enforce federal law in a way which is inconsistent with the federal agencies who do have the correct jurisdiction. Then, the Mcdougal and National Enquirer stuff doesn't fit into the national crime Bragg is trying to argue Trump supposedly committed. It's like Bragg wants to fit puzzle pieces from one puzzle into a completely different puzzle. And, meanwhile, there was no violation of federal law. There is still no crime.

The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of disconnects and all the happenings/transactions being brought up aren't related to anything illegal. And then going backwards to the proper jurisdiction, the Federal government declined to bring any charges against Trump.

This is crazy stuff.

Nothing I have seen is arguing a federal law but rather election interference under NY State law. Did you come to that conclusion on
your own?

 

[triharder]

This trial is simply bizarre. We seem to have a local DA trying to enforce federal law in a way which is inconsistent with the federal agencies who do have the correct jurisdiction. Then, the Mcdougal and National Enquirer stuff doesn't fit into the national crime Bragg is trying to argue Trump supposedly committed. It's like Bragg wants to fit puzzle pieces from one puzzle into a completely different puzzle. And, meanwhile, there was no violation of federal law. There is still no crime.

The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of disconnects and all the happenings/transactions being brought up aren't related to anything illegal. And then going backwards to the proper jurisdiction, the Federal government declined to bring any charges against Trump.

This is crazy stuff.

It’s all under state laws. It’s not rocket science.

 

[triharder]

This trial is simply bizarre. We seem to have a local DA trying to enforce federal law in a way which is inconsistent with the federal agencies who do have the correct jurisdiction. Then, the Mcdougal and National Enquirer stuff doesn't fit into the national crime Bragg is trying to argue Trump supposedly committed. It's like Bragg wants to fit puzzle pieces from one puzzle into a completely different puzzle. And, meanwhile, there was no violation of federal law. There is still no crime.

The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of disconnects and all the happenings/transactions being brought up aren't related to anything illegal. And then going backwards to the proper jurisdiction, the Federal government declined to bring any charges against Trump.

This is crazy stuff.

Falsifying business records (misdemeanor) + the intent to conspire to illegally influence the election (misdemeanor) = felony. That is the case under NY law. Nothing federal about this.