Below is an expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the start of the Trump trial and much awaited explanation of District Attorney Alvin Bragg on the underlying alleged criminal conduct. The curious aspect of the case is that the prosecutors are stressing that they will prove largely uncontested facts. Indeed, if all of these facts of payments, non-disclosure agreements, and affairs are proven many of us (including liberal legal experts) are doubtful that there is any cognizable crime.
Here is the column:
For many of us in the legal community, the case of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former president Donald Trump borders on the legally obscene: an openly political prosecution based on a theory that even some liberal pundits have dismissed. Yet, this week the prosecution seemed like they were actually making a case for obscenity.
No, it was not the gratuitous introduction of an uncharged alleged tryst with a former Playboy bunny or planned details on the relationship with a former porn star. It was the criminal theory itself that seemed crafted around the standard for obscenity famously described by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it] … But I know it when I see it.”
After months of confusion of what crime they were alleging in the indictment, the prosecution offered a new theory that is so ambiguous and undefined that it would have made Justice Stewart blush.
New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that one of the crimes that Trump allegedly committed in listing the payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense” was New York Law 17-152. This law states “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.”
So they are arguing that Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy. He did this by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer with other legal expenses.
Confused? You are not alone.
It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.
Yet, somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is being treated as an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York.
The Trump cases have highlighted a couple of New York’s absurdly ambiguous laws. Under another law, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured an almost half of billion dollar judgment against Trump for loans where the alleged victims not only did not lose a dime but were eager for more business from his company. The law does not actually require any loss to a victim to impose a roughly $500 million penalty against a defendant that James pledged to bag in her campaign for office. While the over and under valuing of assets is common in the real estate area, James singled out Trump.
James declined to explain how this law could be used against other businesses since actual losses or injuries are not viewed as necessary. Businesses would just have to trust her and her judgment. In other words, the law could have sweeping applications, but we will know a violation under the civil law when we see it.
As with James, Bragg saw it in Trump. His predecessor did not see it. He declined charging on this basis. Bragg did to. He stopped the investigation. However, after a pressure campaign, Bragg might not be able to see the crime but he certainly saw the political consequences of not charging Trump.
In New York, prosecutors are expected to have extreme legal myopia: they can see no farther than Trump to the exclusion of any implication for the legal system or legal ethics.
Of course, neither he nor his office has never seen this type of criminal case in any other defendant. Ever.
We have never seen a case like this one where a dead misdemeanor from 2016 could be revived as a felony just before any election in 2024.
The misdemeanors in this case, including falsifying these payments, expired with the passage of the statute of limitations. But Bragg (with the help of Matthew Colangelo, a former top official in the Biden Justice Department) zapped it back into life by alleging a federal election crime that the Justice Department itself rejected as a basis for any criminal charge.
So now there is a second crime that is hard for most of us to see, at least outside of New York. Trump is accused of conspiring to promote his own candidacy by mislabeling this payment, even though it was part of a larger legal payment to his former counsel, Michael Cohen.
They do not see a crime in analogous mislabeling of payments by Democratic candidates. Take Hillary Clinton who served as senator from New York and ran for president against Trump. For months before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims. That was untrue. When reporters tried to report on the funding story, one journalist said Elias that “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’”
It was later discovered that the funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding.). Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias even went with John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, in speaking with congressional investigators and Podesta denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS.
While the funds were part of the campaign budget, they were listed as legal expenses and the Clinton people continued to insist that such payments to a former intelligence figure to put together the dossier was a legal expenditure.
It is not clear if Trump even knew how this money was characterized on ledgers or records. He paid the money to his lawyer, who had put together this settlement over the nondisclosure agreement. Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.
In addition to running for president, Trump was a married host of a hit television show. There were ample reasons to secure a NDA to bury the story. Even if money was paid to bury these stories with the election in mind, it is not unusual or illegal. There was generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because they were not a campaign contribution in the view of the federal government.
It is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records. What if the Trump employee put “legal settlement in personal matter” or “nuisance payment”? Would those words be the difference
Again, it is not clear. But that does not appear to matter in New York. The crime may not be clear or even comprehensible. However, the identity of the defendant could not be more clear and the prosecutors are hoping that the jury, like themselves, will look no further.
Professor Turley is wrong. No less a legal authority than Loren Merchan, daughter of Judge Merchan, has declared Trump guilty and that should be good enouogh evidence. Mrs. Merchan is clearly qualified to render this sound, impartial decision based on her extensive experiences as President of Authentic Campaigns, a firm that does digital campaign work like online fundraising, mobile messaging and web design for Democratic political candidates, including some of Trump’s most outspoken opponents. And anyone who disagrees with this position should prosecuted for election interference.
When will the NY Ethics Committee disbar Bragg AND Merchan? Abuse of Process is staring them in the face!
Elias first
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
What rights were deprived?
Biden makes the Sign of the Cross at an abortion rally in Florida.
If you thought Biden could not insult Hispanics and Catholics more, he just did.
Perhaps he’s transitioning to Satanism. It might not be too long before we hear him reading “Hail Santa” off the teleprompter.
Just when you thought we were having a bad dream. It won’t be too much longer and he will be standing in judgement (as we all will be). He is at the jumping off place. He will have to give an account for his actions.
There is treacherous nature to Irish blood, there is no way of avoiding it.
Of course Turdley’s analysis is completely silent on the fact that the Trump DOJ prosecuted Michael Cohen for the same acts and on the same set of facts. At the time of Cohen’s conviction the US Attorney at SDNY, Geoffrey Berman (a Trump appointee), was actively investigating Trump, otherwise known as “Individual 1” in the Cohen indictment.
Bill Barr corruptly, and perhaps illegally, ordered Berman to stop his investigation of Trump. When Berman refused, Barr ordered the lower level DOJ investigators under Berman to stop their work, and issued a directive that any investigative activities of Trump would require his personal permission to proceed.
Barr then falsely announced that Berman had resigned and the investigation of Trump was closed. Berman loudly and publicly proclaimed that he had not resigned and had absolutely no intention of doing so. He added that if Barr wanted him off the case he would have to be fired. Subsequently Barr did in fact fire Berman because this was the only way he could stop the investigation.
So, in summary, the only reason Trump was not investigated as a co-conspirator at the time of the Cohen indictment was because Barr corruptly interfered to stop the investigation.
No the DOJ did not prosecute Cohen for the same facts. They prosecuted him for real crimes. They agreed to a guilty plea for several minor charges including a making an illegal campaign contribution.
That plea as a matter of LAW precludes the entire bragg prosecution. Because it Requires that it was Cohen’s not Trump’s money that was used to pay Daniels.
Regardless none of this alters in the slightest that Bragg/Coangello and therefore the WH/Biden/Democrats are criminalizing legal activity that would ensnare every politician that ever was.
The NY election stature criminalizes EVERYTHING about an election. Running an Ad for a candidate would promote a candidate.
Biden had a Fundraiser with Obama in NYC before this Trial – that would be a conspiracy to promote the election of a candidate.
As to the Federal claim – the FEC has been consistent for 40 years. This is not a crime
Johnathon edwards used the money of a millionaire donor, to pay off a campaign aide he got pregnant, while his wife was in the hospital dying of cancer. The FEC at that time said this did not violate the law. None other than Jack Smith went full speed ahead anyway and LOST in court.
But the Trump claim is far weaker. It is for claims that occured long before the election – Edwards was hiding conduct as a candidate.
Edwards was hiding conduct unarguably True – there eventually was a child and Edwards is the father.
We still do not know if the Daniels claim is true, or if she was just after money.
According to Bragg Trump used his own money to pay daniels – not only does the FEC not regulate a candidates personal expenditures,
it constitutionally can’t. The Supreme court correctly decided long ago that the government can not constrain a candidates election spending of their own money.
It does not matter if Trump paid for Legal Services, or Trump paid Daniels directly for her silence.
That is legal five different ways.
Wrong
John Say:
Your statement: They prosecuted him [Cohen] for REAL crimes.
Fine, I agree.
The Cohen indictment implicates “Individual 1” (Trump), as a co-conspirator in those same crimes. Therefore Trump is liable for prosecution for those crimes. Berman was following that line of investigation.
You need to brush up on your understanding of a conspiracy
Absolutely Trump has been investigated up the Wahzoo. He is probably the most investigated man in US history.
We have been told by those like you that he is Tony Soprano. Yet after nearly a decade we get a long list of indictments for non-crimes.
The Biden slip of the tongue perfectly captures reality.
All you have done going after Trump is proven over and over again that YOU can not be trusted.
People are not stupid.
They know it when they see “find me the man and I will show you the crime”
At the very start – the investigations of Trump are unconstitutional – BECAUSE they are investigations of Trump.
In the US and in any country that is not lawless, we investigate Crimes.
We do not investigate persons looking for Crimes. Bragg James willis ran for election promising to Get Trump.
They promised to scour Trump’s life with a fine tooth comb until they found something that he did that they could try to prosecute.
That is quite litterally a crime in the US . When a bank is robbed – we investigate the bank robbery.
We do not investigate people hoping to find that they have committed a crime.
We do not do that – for many reasons, but among them – because particularly with these infinitely broad readings fo the law, ANYONE can then be prosecuted.
But Trump was investigated. He was as you claim investigated by Berman – the SDNY just turned over 70,000 pages of material on that investigation to Trump.
BTW Berman subsequently testified to the house and senate. If as you claim there had been something there – we would have heard it.
If Berman was as you claim pursuing Trump for the Daniels case – then it was proper that he was fired. Just as it is proper that Micheal Coanglello and Bragg be disbarred for bringing a criminal prosecution where there is no actual crime.
Your wet dream that Trump be prosecuted for conduct that is legal does not make doing so legal or ethical.
I would further note that Trump was investigated for this by Mueller – The Mueller team grilled pecker I beleive in 2018 – that is 6 years ago.
This does not even get mentioned in the Mueller report.
Why ? Because it is not a crime.
No one is defending Micheal Cohen – he is clearly a revolting person. If you wish to claim that Trump hiring him as a lawyer reflects badly on Trump – you would be correct.
I know nothing of the merits of the other charges against Cohen – I have no idea whether he was actually guilty of any of them or not.
But I do know two things – that Cohen plead guilty to something that is not a crime. And that even if it was a crime, it is one that if Cohen did commit Trump can not commit.
Two different people at two different times can not fire the gun that kills someone.
If one is guilty the other is not.
And this problems is only worse if you are trying to find two people guilty of a non crime.
John Say:
In your 1:15pm post you state that Cohen was convicted of real crimes.
In this 2:17pm post you state “Cohen plead guilty to something that is not a crime”.
Please make up your mind.
Perhaps your MAGA mind is so addled that you are no longer capable of rational thoughts.
So according to you Barr was corrupt for firing Berman for investigating perfectly legal acts.
Sounds to me like it is Berman that is corrupt and the question is why wasn’t he fired sooner.
You do understand that infringing on someones rights under the color of law is an ACTUAL crime ?
You seem to beleive that the government can pick people and then investigate them until they find a crime – that is the Soviet system.
That is not the rule of law.
But this is even worse.
You are picking people, investigagting them looking for a crime, and when you can not find anything – you bend spindle fold and mutilate the law to pretend there was a crime and then you prosecute them.
Lets presume fo rthe sake of argument that you get a conviction.
That it is upheld – all the way to the supreme court.
And lets presume that Trump is elected president.
What prevents Trump’s DOJ from using this same bizare legal theory to prosecute and convict every democrat on the planet.
The NY law you are citing makes campaigning illegal – atleast as you are reading it.
Why can’t Trump’s DOJ jail Clinton and Marc Elaias and much of Perkin’s Coi and Steele and Danchenko for the federal election law vfelony of paying for the Steele Dossie and then shilling it to the FBI ?
Why can’t a Trump DOJ prosecute numerous members of the Biden campaign for getting Social Media and the Media to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story ?
Bragg, Berman, Mueller, Weisman, Coangello, Smith, Willis, James,
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – U.S. Code -. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress
What’s the statute of limitations on this? Do these charges have to be brought in DC & NYC, or can the venues be in Maryland, Virginia or Staten Island? I would like to see prosecutions like this, and also obstruction of justice charges for DOJ people in the Hunter Biden fiasco, but I want them to go to trial, not be dismissed by a Biden or Obama judge.
What rights were deprived?
“Folks, in a sense, I don’t know why we’re surprised by Trump. How many times does he have to prove we can’t be trusted?”
— Joe Biden
One of Biden’s more lucid moments.
This is a good explanation of the crime.
“Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign-finance charges related to this as well. That plea didn’t depend on arguing that Cohen was an agent of the campaign, though; instead, it argued that Cohen made the contribution — more than $100,000 over the federal limit — “in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign.” A later filing identified that member of the campaign: Trump.”
…”So if Trump was admittedly trying to influence the election by agreeing with Cohen to pay off Daniels, then Cohen — as he admitted in federal court — violated campaign-finance laws. And therefore, if the repayments to Cohen were falsified to obscure their intent — remember, the Cohen-Daniels story didn’t become public until 2018, after the reimbursements had been made — it seems as though that was done to “conceal the commission” of those campaign-finance violations.
Proving Trump actively caused the records to be falsified is the central job of Manhattan prosecutors. Demonstrating that the records were allegedly falsified to obscure this other crime seems a much easier task.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/22/trump-hush-money-trial-charges/#
Cohen had an understanding with Trump that Cohen would be reimbursed. So in substance this was Trump’s payment, not Cohen’s. Cohen’s plea to the campaign finance violation does not mean there actually was such a violation, and it is not admissible in any event in this trial.
Brad Smith, former FEC chairman, argues persuasively that payments of this kind are personal, and that it would in fact be illegal to use campaign funds for them.
So far as I am aware, the prosecution has not yet mentioned campaign finance law in any of its filings or oral statements in court.
Instead, it has mentioned NY Law 17-152, which makes it a misdemeanour to conspire to promote or prevent any person’s election to “public office” by “unlawful means”.
“Public office” is not defined, but “public officer” is defined to mean a state or local official. Even Cy Vance was reported to have concluded that this law does not apply to Federal elections.
Vance also was reported to have doubts about whether there was a campaign law violation, and even if there was, whether a Federal law violation (as opposed to a state law violation) could be the underlying crime in the effort to convert a business records violation from a misdemeanour to a felony.
Even if 17-152 does apply, to Fedrral elections, what are the “unlawful means” if this was a personal expenditure made by Trump with his own funds, albeit indirectly through Cohen?
Daniel,
Again, thank you for that analysis and comment.
George.
While none of us know what a Manhattan Jury will do.
This case is a dead bang loser.
If you have a brain you know that.
The NY stature barring influencing an election is blatantly unconstitutional as it literally bars all campaigning it is so broad.
Coangello lost the case with respect to the 80% of the people in this country who are sane with his opening remarks.
His opening claim is that conspiring to win an election is a crime.
Case over – those of you who buy this are bat schiff crazy.
But lets accept your/bragg/coangello’s ludicrously studid claim.
Please tell me what politician anywhere can not be prosecuted. You are litterally arguing that campaigning is a crime.
Clinton was already fined for her payments to Perkin’s Coi for the steele Dossier.
Can the coming Trump DOJ throw her in Jail ? Paying for a Hoax and foisting it on the FBI to try to F#$K up an opponents campaign is obviously far more serious than paying a porn star for her silence on an affair that may not have even happened.
If conspiring with the media to kill a story is a crime – then isn’t the Biden campaign Guilty – they lobbied Social MEdia extensively to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story – as well as to cancel/silence/ban numerous political speakjers they did not like.
Or what of Conspiring with former members of the intelligence communtiy to lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was russian disinformation,
Isn;t that a giant conspiracy to hide the truth from voters – that would be a far more serious crime under the legal theory that you and Bragg are using.
John Say,
Great comment!
“Can the coming Trump DOJ throw her in Jail ? Paying for a Hoax and foisting it on the FBI to try to F#$K up an opponents campaign is obviously far more serious than paying a porn star for her silence on an affair that may not have even happened.”
Yes Trump CAN prosecute these criminals and make sure they do prison time!
Do not let this go. These criminals MUST be prosecuted and DO PRISON TIME.
Trump 47 admin MUST MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS.
RETRIBUTION is coming. It’s the only way forward. The criminals MUST pay for their criminality and treason.
@john say,
You say the NY statute is blatantly unconstitutional but you believe it is because your gross misinterpretation leads you to believe it is. The charges are complicated, but the reasons for them are not.
He was not conspiring to win an election. He sought to hide an affair by committing a crime of falsifying business records. It’s the intention to falsify that is the problem. That’s what was illegal in NY. The rest of your argument against the case is pure hogwash.
Except that paying hush money as a celebrity is also a personal expense, which make trump not guilty of that crime because for him, it does not qualify as campaign contribution. For cohen it did, if he made the contribution. For trump, it does not.
Get a clue douche.
NY Law 17-152 is the underlying crime Bragg says he is relying on. It makes it a misdemeanour to conspire to promote or prevent any person being elected to “public office” by unlawful means. “Public office” is not defined, but “public officer” is, and that term covers only state and local officers. Cy Vance was reported to have concluded that 17-152 does not apply to Federal elections.
Daniel,
Is it just me, or does this seem like such a long reach, twist of the law that this is the best a Harvard Law grad could come up with? How are they going to prove this?
I agree with you. At every link in this long chain of reasoning there are severe weaknesses. No objective prosecutor would have brought this case. Even Cy Vance decided against doing so.
Alan Derschowitz, on the Derschow reviewed all of this recently and gave Bragg, Coangello, andf MKerchan an F on Criminal law for this.
I do not think there is a combination of facts and more importantly legal interpretations even Following the claims of Bragg and Coangello that does not contradict itself using their OWN interpretation.
Every single element of this case has MULTIPLE factual and legal problems.
And Finally – even threading the needle, Trump was entitled to rely on the 40 years of FEC precident that personal spending does not have to be reported. That payments for NDA’s are not federal election violations.
The courts or FEC can change their mind. But when they do so that does not retroactively make the conduct of those who relied on prior law or FEC opinions magically into criminals after the fact.
John Say,
I can only imagine the mental gymnastics in the coming days for the prosecution to try to make their case. For some reason, I feel there are going to be more than a few head scratching moments, where everyone says, “what?”
It became a felony when the falsification of the records was made to cover another crime. It’s the covering up of the misdemeanor that changed it into a felony. Cohen provided the proof that it was intentional.
What is the proper classification of the disbursement?
Sorry George No. Allegedly covering up a legal act is not a crime. Covering up a legal act does make the act being covered up illegal.
I would attack Cohen as not even close to credible – but this case is so bad that the fact that many of the witnesses are not credible is irrelevant.
You do not have an actual crime if you accept everything Bragg, Coangello, Cohen, Pecker, Daniels say as completely true.
Put simply even if you accept that the testimony of a long string of self serving liars is all true – you still have no crime.
I am going to present the problems in YOUR case – assuming everything YOU claim is true.
Assume Trump intentionally paid Cohen knowing that money was going to daniels.
First – that was a payment from Trump’s personal account – a candidates personal expenditures for his campaign are not subject to campaign finance laws. This is a more than 40 year old supreme court decision.
I think that the claim that Trump knew he was paying Cohen to to kill stories that might harm his campaign is likely correct. Or at the very least Trump Knew that the work he had Cohen doing MIGHT be interpreted as having to do with the campaign.
And that is ONE reason that he paid for it personally – because campaign finance laws do not apply to payments made by a candidate using their own money.
Next, payments to lawyers to secure settlements are not only legal, they are legal fees. Even if you accept that Trump knew part of the money was going to go to daniels – that does not actually change the fact that the payment is “legal fees”.
Next you have that Trump’s checks – written by him to Micheal Cohen do not say “legal fees” – they are just checks to Cohen.
The “legal fees designation was made by a bookeeper over a year later, on the basis that the checks were to Micheal Cohen.
So the legal fees designation is both correct, and not done by Trump.
Next – the payments to Cohen were equal monthly payments adding to 430K, Daniels received 130K from Cohen BEFORE Trump paid Cohen. So atleast 300K of these 430K payments were not for the payment to Daniels by any claim.
If I write a check to my service station and I label it State inspection, but the work performed include inspection, oil change, Antifreeze, and gas – would I have committed fraud by NY law if I listed the payment as for a state inspection ?
The answer is no – for multiple reasons. The first being it is not required that records be broken down to the nut and bolt level.
You can label an expense for business records in a broad category even if the expense crosses categories.
The next problem is that the NY statutue Bragg is using is a FRAUD statute – we dealt with this with EnMoron – who will lose on appeal for this and many other reasons. Fraud requires more than that something is false. Even the infamous 18 US 1001 requires more than a false statement to the FBI, even perjury requires more than a false statement under oath.
There is and can not be any crime of mere falsehood. To be a crime – both as a matter of law, and constitution and even the social contract. REQUIRES several things,
That something is false.
That the falsity is knowing and deliberate.
That there is a duty to be truthful
that the falsity is relied on with resulting harm to those you have a duty to.
Biden just said that his Uncle was eaten by canibles. He said that twice – that is not a crime.
The remark is false, but he had no legal duty to be truthful, and there is no possible harm to people who he owed a legal duty to.
Lying to federal agents is not a crime. Lying to federal agents resulting in misdirecting the investigation is.
18 US 1001 is the same as the British crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
If you lie to the govenrment about what you had for lunch that is not a crime.
In this case calling the payment to Cohen legal fees can not harm the state of NY. There is no crime – not even a misdemeanor, not even if the memo is totally completely false.
So at the most fundimental level – even if everything you claim is correct – and it is not – you still have no crime.
People may not understand the details of the law – but they do understand that this is nonsense. Government can not make it a crime to go left when you can go left or right and there is no difference between going left and going right.
People understand that real Crimes must have real harm.
That is at the lower level – but you have the same fundimental problem at the opposite end of this – which is part of why the FEC has routinely decided that hush money is not a federal election law violation.
We all wish we could know absolutely everything about a political candidate before we vote.
But that wish does not create a requirement.
Candidates paint themselves to the public as they chose.
The media – in a perfect world in an unbiased fashion tries to get under that mask and show us the candidates as they are.
In the real world they are more likely to hide the candidate or to mispaint them as more evil or more good than they are.
Regardless, a free press is allowed to do that.
They are allowed to rant that a candidate is a Putin stooge even when that is false.
The media and Social media is free to bury the Ukraine corruption story – even though they know it is true.
Put simply – candidates can lie to us to get elected.
And the media can lie to us, or hide the truth from us in order to try to elect the candidate of their choice.
All of that is perfectly legal. Whether it is Clinton’s war room trying to contain “bimbo
erruptions” – including likely true claims that Clinton raped Broderic, Or Biden conspiring with the press to kill stories that damage him, or Trump paying a porn star for their silence. These are all perfectly legitmate.
And they happen all the time.
Trying to influence an election is not only legal – it is the entirety of what political campaigns do.
There is only one form of trying to influence elections that is actually illegal – that is when OUR government tries top influence OUR elections.
A baseless prosecution of a political candidate IS a crime.
The FBI/DHS/CIA trying to censor stories unfavorable to a candidate IS a crime.
We get this garbage from those of you on the left.
We get massively broad misreading of the law. Even if you are correct that a law was written broadly – then it is unconstitutional.
We get this abuse of language deliberately intending to deceive.
Ranting about influencing elections. Weather influences elections. Campaign adds influence elections.
Influencing an election is NOT a crime. This is again typical of the left – lots of 1984 NewSpeak.
And here we have in Manhattan the infamous two minutes of hate each day against Emanuel Goldstein – today Donald Trump.
Regardless, what many people are seeing in Manhattan is:
I do not have 100M to pay lawyers to defend me against ludicrous legal claims by corrupt prosecutors who decide to go after me.
Trump will likely lose this case because the case itself is so politically corrupt,
But the rest of us are getting the message LOUD AND CLEAR – challenge those in power and we will Jail you.
And if they can do so to Trump, they most certainly can do so to anyone.
Correction – Covering up a legal act does NOT make the act being covered up illegal.
The problem is that Bragg has not alleged a critical component to that law, “unlawful means.” There was no unlawful means and Bragg has yet to allege these unlawful means.
How does by “unlawful means” apply ? NDA’s are legal.
This lynching of Trump reminds me of the spaghetti westerns where the innocent, but framed hero is about to be hung. In rides SCOTUS in a cloud of horses wild eyed and virile! Dead Eye Dick pulls his .44 out from under his black robe and shoots the rope in two just as the executioner pulls the lever!
We all knew he was innocent. We had the proof, the sheriff was on the take, and so was the judge. We had proof of them plotting with “Big Cattle” to steal our farms. We all began to ask each other “What would have happened if SCOTUS missed? How would we save our town? Do we stand by and lose our freedom and become peasants, or do we start poisoning their cattle.”
Except Trump is no hero
You are making him into one.
Dear Prof Turley,
Your analysis of Trump’s myriad domestic legal disputes is much better than your analysis of Joe Biden’s far-flung foreign policies.
Your right. ‘Hush money’ and NDAs are the economic engine of our ‘raging’ hyper-partisan political divide. American as apple pie. Trump ‘captures the essence of that evolutionary spirit’. A smart savvy billionaire. “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good” .. . but not without risk.
>”Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.”
*following Cohen’s ‘legal advice’ is very risky.
Turley makes an important point that it’s not a crime for a presidential candidate to work with a national media organization to bury a damaging story about himself which could influence the election.
Trump has clearly had the misfortune of hiring attorneys & Chief Financial Officers who become convicted liars like Cohen, Giuliani & Allen Weisselberg. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to providing false testimony at Trump’s civil trial. Giuliani was ordered to pay $146 million for defaming 2 Georgia election workers with numerous false statements.
Turley is clearly right there was absolutely no logical reason for Trump to disguise the payments he made to reimburse Cohen as “a legal expense.”
But he did disguise the payments. That’s the problem. Thats the crime. Cohen was Trump’s fixer and he did exactly what Trump wanted. Trump knew what he was doing. He is well aware of what he wants when he hires people.
Paying a lawyer to negotiate a deal is a LEGAL EXPENSE.
In NY it is a crime. The media organization coordinated with Trump and did it to benefit trumps campaign. That coordination is illegal. The crime is hiding that coordination be claiming them as legal expenses.
How is the coordination illegal? Catch and kill is not illegal. Non-disclosures are not illegal. The statute people are talking about requires coordination be through “illegal means.” catch and kill, or nondisclosure argeements are not “illegal means.”
NDAs are non binding if they are hiding criminal or illegal activities
What is the crime the NDA’s hid?
Beating Hillary.
That would be correct – but there is no claim that Trump asked Daniels to keep silent about illegal conduct.
Neither the agreements that Pecker negotiated nor those That Cohen negotiated hid criminal or illegal activities.
Really ? What part is unlawful ?
Donna Brazzile coordinated with NYT reporters to benefit Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
How is that different ?
The Biden Campaign coordinated with the media to kill the hunter biden laptop story – according to YOUR theory that would be illegal.
Next we are dealing with Federal elections – that is outside the jurisdiction of the state. That is a part of the 9-0 Decision in the ballot removal case.
Payments to lawyers to create, negotiate and impliment contracts are …. Legal Fees.
It is Not a crime, it is not fraud, it is not a lie to label something differently than you would prefer.
Is it a crime for a person born with XY chromosomes to call themselves as women ?
Is it a crime for minority students with a free ride to elite institutions like Harvard to call themselves oppressed ?
The amount to Cohen exceeded the payments substantially. My accounting degree has a lot of dust on it by now, but where do you believe that expense should have been classified?
dwbeez: the payments to Cohen exceeded his payout to Stormy Daniels because Cohen was in the 50% bracket–so he could net out the $130K he borrowed against his home to pay off Daniels. You ought to watch some other channel besides pro-Trump media, where they will explain these things to you.
Gigi. Just like CNN Fact free 100% of the time.
Show your work gigi, nobody is believing your lies
Iowan2,
It is not that Natasha lies.
It is she believes whatever CNN, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, NPR tell her.
She laps it up and then barks like a seal.
These claims are so stupid.
While there is a germ of Truth in this. The reason that Trump had to pay Cohen more than 130K is because the NDA was between Coden and Daniels – not Trump. The NDA was an “asset” of Cohens. Therefore paying for it was NOT an expense and therefore taxable.
This is also why – though it is still dubious SDNY could get Cohen to plead guilty. It was only because Cohen used his own money and because the NDA was between Cohen and Daniels and because if Daniels violated she owed 1.8M to Cohen not trump that
the money was taxable to Cohen and weakly arguably a campaign finance violation by Cohen.
If Trump paid for it – then Cohen has no tax liability, no ownership. it is a pass through and Cohen has not made an illegal campaign contribution – because it was not his money.
But if Cohen paid for it – then it actually is a legal expense for Trump, and Trump’s payments to Cohen are taxable.
Reimbursements are not taxed, Legal fees are.
Gigi – 1+1 = 2 – not 4.
130K*2 = 260K Cohen was paid 430K.
Separately, the payment to Daniels is a legal expense to Cohen, i.e. Not taxable.
Money borrowed whether from your home or otherwise is not taxable.
There is only one way in which the money Cohen paid to Daniels is Taxable, and that is if it is a payment by and for Micheal Cohen and NOT Donald Trump.
In point of fact that is True – Trump is NOT a party to the NDA. When Daniels violated it – she owes COHEN not Trump 1.8M dollars.
The payment to Daniels is only taxable for Cohen because the NDA is between Cohen and Daniels and benefits Cohen not Trump.
This is also why the SDNY had a thin reed to get Cohen to plead guilty.
If Cohen did not make the payment with his own money – it is not taxable, and he is not in violation of campaign finance law.
I would also note that Tax math is far more complex than you – or your nitwits on the MSM are pretending.
In a 50% tax bracket the taxes on 130K are 65K – not 130K – Cohen is NOT in 1 00% tax bracket.
There are just so many problems with this stupid argument.
But the most fundimental it that only Income is taxable.
If Cohen paid Daniels – that money is taxable – To daniels. For Cohen unless he is spending it on himself – it is an EXPENSE – a tax DEDUCTION.
If you claim Cohen was doing it for Trump – Then Cohen borrows 130K – boroowing creates no tax liability.
Then Trump gives him 130K which us uses to pay of the loan. Paying off a loan is tax deductible. Therefor no taxes on the 130K either way.
All you have done is proven that the “experts” you are dealing with on the MSM are morons.
Which si disturbing since most have 6-7 figure incomes and likely have to deal with tax issues like this all the time.
If you borrow money against your home – do YOU owe taxes on that ?
My guess is you have never owned a home to borow against so you do not know.
When you borrow money to buy a car – do you owe taxes on the money you borrow ?
NO you do not.
Trump is a Republican that ran for the office of President. That is his only thing that got him all these legal battles.
Being a Republican presidential candidate isn’t why Trump faced class action lawsuits from Trump University students for using false advertising & high-pressured sales techniques to lure them into spending thousands of dollars on expensive & worthless courses. 3 weeks after the 2016 election, Trump agreed to pay $25 million to the students who were conned by his Trump University business scam.
Like is common in nuisance suits, it is often a decision to just payoff the person bringing the suite. I believe it came with a clause that no admission of guilt can be attached to the payment
iowan2, you have an interesting definition of “nuisance suits.” You obviously believe it’s common practice for someone to agree to pay $25 million to the ones who filed lawsuits against him. Care to list one other example of a decison to make a payoff of $25 million to the person bringing the lawsuit?
$25 million has zero to do with my statement. In the decades of my work experience dozens of nuisance claims get paid every year. Zero liability is admitted. In the end its customer maintenance. Several I desperately wanted to fight because the company had no fingerprint on the event. Management overruled me.
A billionaire running for President, cleaning the decks for 25 million, is extremely normal
iowan2, if it’s extremely normal for a billionaire running for President to clean the decks for $25 million, then why is Trump using $100 million in political donations to cover his legal fees? Why would a billionaire need to send out emails everyday asking for more donations?
Did Trump use political donations to cover the $25 million he used to settle the Trump U class action lawsuits?
Did someone hold a gun to peoples head to get them to attend Trump U ?
The claim that Trump U was worthless and expensive is laughable – when Students at NYU and collumbia are paying 90K/yr to attent struggle sessions and camp. That is an example of a worthless and expensive education.
The most fundimental problem with Trump U is that Trump was selling (cheaply) something that is obvious – the secret to success.
Those “worthless” course at Trump U ? Trump brought in motivational speakers instead of accredited professors.
How many college professors do you know that are multimillionaires ?
The secret to success – is no secret – Work your ass off.
If you are a 15yr old minority kid with little education in a shitty neighborhood – I can give you about a 90% chance of being a millionaire before you are 50 if you are willing to focus entirely on that relentlessly.
There are many ways to do it. They are all hard work. But they do not require great skills.
They require two things – to work your ass off now and to forego pleasures/luxuries in favor of investment for a better future.
The simple version – do not commit any crimes.
Get a job – even a shitty job. Save every penny you can.
Save up enough to invest – a good start would be housing. That is in short supply.
As a first time home buyer without abysmal credit – do not ruin your credit, you can get a 3% down mortage from FHA.
Buy a 100K property – that will cost you about 3500 down. It will take a while to save that much, but you can do it even on an MW if you are frugal. Rent the property. The rent will pay the mortgage and all expenses, plus enough to go to mcdonalds once a week.
Further it will shelter your other income from taxes.
In 10 years you will own 1/2 the building. Likely it will now be worth 200K. Sell or refinance. Now you will have to put 20% down.
So if the building is worth 200K, and you have a 50K mortgage, and you must put 40K down (which comes out of the equity in the proeprty not your cash). You will get 110K from the bank after you refinance. That will allow you to buy another 500K of property (at 20% down). So you now own 20% of 700K in propoerty in 10 more years you will own 50% of what is now likely 1.4M in property.
You are nearly a millionare. If you started at 20, you are only 40. And you now do this again. You have enough equity you can refinance and by 3.5M in property – after which you will own 20% of 4.2M in property, and in 10 more years – at 50 you will own 50% of what is likely 8M in property – you will be worth 4M dollars.
Lets say there is no appreciation over that 30 years – you will STILL own 50% of 2M in property and be worth 1M dollars at age 50.
This is simple. It is very low risk. Anyone can do it. It is also alot of hard work. During the entire time you are building wealth
every dime you spend now – costs you more than $1 in future wealth.
This is why most people do not become millionaires – even though ANYONE can.
Because most of us will not live dirt cheap for 3 decades while we build wealth.
This or some version of it is what Trump U taught.
This is the secret to success.
I will give you another test that works on toddlers to determine WHO will become a millionaire starting at an early age.
Bring a toddler into a room – give them a peice of candy. Tell them they can eat it now.,
But it they leave it for 5 minutes without eating it, they can have TWO.
Those few that wait 5 minutes will be millionaires at 50.
John Say, considering all the benefits you claim Trump U students received, you must think it was absolutely foolish for Trump to shut down Trump U & pay $25 million to the over 600 students who filed the class action fraud lawsuits.
Trump sure taught all those students a valuable lesson about the secrets of success when he agreed to pay them $25 million, right?
Gold Elite classes at Trump U cost $35,000, That might seem cheap to you. You seem quite familiar with Trump U classes. Did you go there?
You’re just jealous that you werent among the 600.
In john says story you live like shit for 30 years, just so you can continue to live like shit but be “worth” one million.
No thanks. Thats not success. I left home at 17 with NOTHING. I am well over 50 but worth well more than $1m. And i never accepted living like shit. I’ve always spent every extra dime i have and some i didnt.
It just required more hard work and sacrifice than johns little investment scheme.
And i refuse to give it to a tyrannical government so they can disburse it to lazy kunts like you. So there’s that.
“You’re just jealous you weren’t among the 600.” A laughable response to “Trump sure taught all those students a valuable lesson about the secrets of success when he agreed to pay them $25 million, right?”
Since you asked so nicely, I am debt free & worth over a million. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my simple basic question: Why would Trump shut down Trump U if it was truly a thriving business which taught valuable secrets of success to its students?
When Trump became president, he signed over control of the Trump Organization to Don Jr. & Eric. If Trump U was a thriving business teaching valuable secrets of success, why did Trump pull the plug? Let me know if you can directly answer that simple, basic question rather than make ridiculous personal attacks.
I am debt free & worth over a million.
You underestimate the value we place on you which is easily over a trillion Reichsmarks, the worthless unit of currency in Nazi concentration camps that had no value outside of the camps
It’s laughable yet highly predictable when posters prattle on about Reichsmarks & Nazi concentration camps rather than provide a direct answer to a simple basic question. You obviously can’t come up with a single logical reason why Trump shut down a supposedly thriving business which provided valuable secrets of success. Try again pal.
Cohen is disreputable and deserves what he has gotten, but even he would never have found himself as the subject of an investigation but for the blind rage of the left seeking to get Trump.
The Guilliani and Weisselberg cases are a travesty of justice.
There is no sane world in which Weisselberg would be guilty of perjury but for the efforts to Get Trump.
Gulliani is a hero to most of this country – until he started to Defend Trump.
The left has used all the power they have to Get Trump – particularly going after anyone close to him from the moment he won the election in 2020.
You piss all over Guiliani and Weisselberg – but the truly corrupt are those like YOU.
Gulliani is no stranger to politics – he probably had atleast a clue what he was getting into when he jumped into this.
But Weisselberg, Carter Page, Papadopholis, and myriads of others that those of you on the left have DESTORYED,
in the hope that you could manufacture crimes against them to get them to roll on Trump and LIE to “get Trump”
Here we are after 8 years of your nonsense – with YOU having destroyed hundreds of people who have gotten in your way – many of whom did not know what they were getting into or did not even choose to be any part of this – all to Destory Trump.
And what do you have ?
You say Trump is Tony Soprano, but the bugs crawling out from under every rock you overturn – are those on the left.
You have managed to win a few civil cases in incredibly corrupt courts with incredibly corrupt juries – that everyone in the country KNOWS you could not win with a fari court and fair jury anywhere in the US. That you could not even win with corrupt courts and juries in 90% of the country.
Bill Barr is returning to aggressively defend Trump after excoriating him to your glee for 3 years.
Why ? Because YOU are far more dangerous that Trump could ever possibly be.
Because YOUR efforts to GET TRUMP – because YOUR Trump Derangement is 10,000 times more dangerous than if Trump actually did what you accuse him of.
Bragg Versus (Disbarred) Nifong
During the infamous Duke lacrosse hoax, now-disbarred, Leftist prosecutor Nifong stuck to at least one element of the rule of law. He made the alleged crimes clear. The defendants and their attorneys then knew, unequivocally, what they were up against, what counted as evidence, and how to muster a defense.
Now, some 18 years later, another Leftist prosecutor simply ignores that aspect of the rule of law. It is now not necessary to state clearly and unambiguously what the alleged crime is.
Bragg makes Nifong look like a paragon of justice.
LOL! But true!
The moment N.Y. District Attorney Alvin Bragg nailed Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels
“You want tact, call a tactition. If you want Ass Nailin’, you call Alvin Bragg”
[This is a Parody]
“There was generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because they were not a campaign contribution in the view of the federal government.”
The professor says it’s not clear what the issue is. That’s a false claim. It’s quite clear what the issue is. Trump falsified business records by claiming they were a personal legal expense using campaign money. That’s illegal.
“It is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records.”
It is clear. This will be shown why later in the trial. It’s clear enough that Jesse Watters understood it and inadvertently said it on air. He said the opposite of what the defense is saying.
That never happened. No money came from the campaign. Even Colangelo is making such a stupid claim
See George
I warned your earlier to stfu before you said something really stupid.
No campaign funds were used, you ignorant douche.
You probably cant name the river or the sea either
I didn’t know that Jesse Watters was a legal scholar. He need a different type of show if that is so.
I have no idea what it is that Watters allegedly said.
Myriads of people have made misstatements about this case – including Turley.
And that is likely to continue. That is ALWAYS what happens when you have an incredibly complex legal theory to explain how you have tried to coral a long series of otherwise legal acts into a crime.
The core to this case is that Trump allegedly lied to himself – that is the crime being alleged. That is the ONLY crime Trump is charged with.
The legal theory of this case is so convoluted – that every element has a dozen flaws and even legal experts like Turley often acceidently presume on portion of the claim is correct – while they are tearing down others.
Is it a felony?
Your facts are wrong. It wasn’t campaign money and Trump never claimed it was. And it was a legal expense. I will put the same question to you as others: If the expense wasn’t a legal expense, how should it have been accounted?
George – they were NOT using campaign money. You are really not up on the facts. This money came from Trump’s personal bank account.
Trump did not even deduct it from his taxes as an expense.
The CLAIM that Bragg is making is that because Trum’s campaign benefits from Daniels silence Trump spending money to pay daniels is a campaign contribution, and it is illegal because he failed to disclose it as a campaign contribution.
This is a ludicrously stupid claim.
Bragg’s theory of the law -= is that Trump’s payment undet NY law would be legal if he only put “Hus Money” on the check.
And that it would not be a Federal campaign violation if Trump hd merely told the FEC – I gave Stormey Daniels 130K.
While both of those theories are false. Even if True this is unbeleivably deminimus. I am not aware of the FEC ever doing anything more than slapping people on the writst for ACTUAL campaign finance violations.
The Obama campaign received millions in foreign donations using credit cards – many from the mideast.
Possibly from terrorists. They KNEW at the time that many of their credit card donations were illegal.
The FEC fined them, that is all.
The FEC fined Clinton for the Payments to fund the Steele Dossier – it was not even a significant fine.
Micheal Cohen is the only one I know who has EVER been convicted of a Criminal violation of campaign finance law.
Further the Campaign finance violation was just an add on with no consequence to his guilty plea.
The entire purpose of that part of the plea was o get a headline. Cohen did not care – he was going to jail for the same amount of time.
I would bet if we got the documentation – that SDNY agreed to a LOWER sentence recomendation if he would plead guilty to the campaign finance violation.
So you have a collection of charges that are diminimus – if you had a perfect case – which you do not.
The core charge the actual charge – the falsifyin records is legal garbage.
The payments are legal fees – even if they atleast partly went to pay for an NDA.
Bragg is litterlaly trying to argue that you must call payments for gas “gas” rather than fuel or auto.
Worse still – this is NOT a claim that Trump filed a false tax return – even there listing an expense as auto rather than gas is NOT A CRIME.
You are not required to perfectly accurately categorize your expenses on your tax forms. Further taxes list expenses in huge catagories typically – and NDA’s would be LEGAL EXPENSES.
This is NOT a claim that Trump filed any records with NY or the federal government that were incorrect.
The core claim is that Trump lied to himself in his own records and that the State of NY discovered that lie when they subpeonad his records.
And Worse still – the Checks – which Trump wrote, do NOT say legal expenses. They say Micheal Cohen. The bookeeping entires that classify them as legal expenses were made over a year after the election by Trump’s accountant – not Trump.
And finally we get to the Fact that the legal definition of Fraud requires:
A deliberate lie – you do not have that.
A duty to be truthful – you do not have that.
A third party to have Relied on the false statement. – you do not have that.
and finally a real possibi9llity that the third party could be harmed.
Nor is that legal definition somehow optional.
Criminal law is NOT – anything the legislature decides to call a crime.
Legitimate criminal law is ONLY that law which punishes people for intentional ACTS that have a serious possibility of actually harming others.
As the declaration of independence states – the purpose of government – the social contract is to SECURE our individual rights.
Government acting outside that domain is illegitimate.
Actually the tremendous discrepancies on details and claims between all the different people talking about this are the PROOF this is bogus.
I have no idea what it is that you think Water gor wrong or right -= but it does not matter. Just about every person who writes about this not only gets something wrong – but gets many things wrong.
Why does that matter ? Because the legal theory here is so incredibly convoluted that meaningly details change everything.
Coangello rants about a conspiracy – no conspiracy was charged. He rants about campaign finance law violations – no campaign finance law violations were charged – even this recent introduction of the bizarre New York Election law – is not charge.
It is a violation of the constitution and due process to try someone for crimes they are not charged with. Bragg is limited in this prosecution to the indictment. He is free to amend the indictment – but he has not.
He is trying Trump for violating a federal law that he has no jurisdiction over – and has never been charged.
He is trying trump for a conspiracy – that has never been charged.
He is trying Trump for violating a state election law – that has never been charge.
What has been charged is 34 counts of this bizarre misdemeanor that there is no evidence for, elevated to a felony based on other alleged crimes where those crimes have never been charged, or convicted.
That is unconstitutional.
If you grab a person off the street, throw them into your car, drive them a mile away and shoot them,
and the prosecutor indicts you for murder, he can present evidence that describes all of the facts above,
But if he even MENTIONS that you kidnapped the person – the whole case goes out the window.
In the example I gave – the prosecutor COULD have charged kidnapping.
No matter what – the prosecutor can bring in evidence – Facts that contribute towards building proof of all the elements of the crime alleged.
But the prosecutor can not ARGUE – ie even mention crimes that are not charge. That SHOULD with an honest judge result in a mistrial.
One of the things clear from Coangello’s opening is that Coangello is actually trying Trump for ONE crime, and he is begging the jury to convict Trump for ONE crime, and that crime is beating Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This case is even stupider than the collusion delussion – but the goal is the same – to use the existential angst of manhattan jurrors to convict Trump – Because he beat Clinton in 2016 and because he is likely to beat Biden in 2024.
It is also to allow them to bury any suspicious that there was election fraud in 2020 – because the ends justify the means – and election fraud to defeat someone you have framed as Hitler is magically justified.
If ever there were a case/justification for employing “whataboutism,”…this be it.
In a thorough-going dictatorship, criminal laws are kept vague and harsh on purpose. The specificity of a criminal law is the best defense of any a person charged. But when no one knows what the crime is, no defendant can feel assured of vindication or even his own innocence.
In the Soviet Union, criminal laws were notoriously vague.
“Unfortunately, most provisions of the RSFSR Criminal Code are vague and impermissibly overbroad. The “hooliganism”and “anti-parasite” statutes belong to this latter category but no Soviet court has seen fit to declare them void for vagueness or overbreadth. What this means is that whereas contemporary Soviet criminal law rejects the concept of crime by analogy, it refuses to adopt the doctrine of over-breadth or void for vagueness. As a result of this, the RSFSR Criminal Code is replete with omnibus criminal statutes.”
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2345&context=gjicl [p. 449]
Until 1964, the Soviet Union had a provision in its laws known as “guilt by analogy”, where someone could be found guilty of behavior that was similar to behavior described in some criminal statute. Naturally, in Western societies, this view has been rejected.
“The principle of analogy is neither the product of twentieth century jurisprudence, nor is its application confined to regimes which Westerners characterize as totalitarian. However, it was employed until 1958 in the Soviet Union and it is still in use in the People’s Republic of China. Our focus will be primarily on these modern applications.
The use of analogy is anathema to the Western tradition. The contrasting philosophy in Europe is expressed in the maxim Nulla crimen sine lege, Nulla poena sine lege, that no person may be punished except under the authority of a statute which defines the act as criminal and prescribes the permissible punishment.”
https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1380&context=dlj
We can now see what Barack Obama meant when he said Democrats wanted “to transform America.” We are being turned into a Police State. Letitia James Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, Joe Biden and others may seem like clowns, and they are, but they are still capable of destroying the institution of law in this country.
edwardmahl,
Well said and terrifying.
Given the chance, I think they would apply that Soviet Union like law to half of Americans.
Excellent.
Most of us do not give a schiff about this case as we know it will not survive and appeal.
Merchan knows it will not survive an appeal.
But it could be years before a bogus verdict is overturned.
But that is NOT the purpose of this prosecution.
The purpose is to get a jury to label Trump as a felon – in the hope that the MSM talking heads refering to Trump as a felon for the next 6 months will flip the election.
And that MAY work.
But the same was said of indicting Trump. The press barely says Trump’s name without saying indicted 90 something times.
That was supposed to alone flip the election – and yet it has not.
It is my belief – and several pollsters have said this – that this case is much like the stock market. i.e. the Polls ALREADY reflect the most likely outcome. In 2016 – we were slowly headed for recession prior to the eleciton – the stock market was in decline. But within days of the election – the stock market rose and economic decline reversed.
Long before Trump did anything – things imporved. Why ?
Because the market – both the staock market and the economy expected Clinton to win and priced it into the election and the economy.
When they were suprised they shifted on a dime and priced in the anticipated results of a Trump presidency.
The same is true of the polls – if people beleive Trump is going to be convicted – then that effect is ALREADY in the polls.
Polls right now say that 70% of people beleive the trump prosecutions are political not criminal. And 60% of people beleive Biden is driving it.
Democrats who have been historically good at messaging and historically good at manipulating voters to see things their way – are failing miserably in this cycle.
I beleive that democrats saw polls that said that Indicting Trump would knock him out – and so that became their strategy.
When that did not work – the polls said convicting him would lead to a win – so they are hell bent on doing that.
I was personally surprised that Trump’s polls went up after each indictment.
I do not claim special perceptive ability with respect to what will happen with a conviction here. Beyond that Rachel MAddow is going to say convicted felon with every breath.
But so far democrats have been entirely wrong about EVERYTHING it has NOT worked the way they expected, and my bet is this is no different.
I think that the adage “What does not kill me makes me stronger” is absolutely True in Trump’s case.
I also think he knows it.
Reported yesterday was that there is a cabal of legal scholars and journalists who have been stratgizing on Zoom for over a year about how to “Get Trump” and that these are a major influence on Bragg, Smith, Willis etc.
I would note – this is just as legal as paying hush money to a porn star.
Regardless while I find their conduct revolting and delusional – these are the best of the best of the legal minds on the left.
And Trump is single handedly beating them.
Carl Rove has for a year said – if this election is about Trump – Trump loses. If this election is about policies – Republicans win.
Democrats – especially this cabal took that to heart. If Trump has a weakness it is that he is a massive narcissit – Rove was warning about that. And rove had an important point.
But Rove was only PARTLY correct.
The correct Statement is “If Trump makes this election about him – he loses, but if Democrats make this election about him – he likely wins”
If the majority of people BELEIVE Trump committed a felony – he will lose.
But the majority of people have gotten very used to false allegations about Trump.
Regardless Democrats – this kabal beleived that Rove was correct – and they are working tirelessly to make the election about Trump.
What they do not understand is that as Rove said Trump[ running arround whinning about being cheated in 2020 is nto a winning strategy – even if True. No one likes whiners. No one likes people who cry over spilt milk. We do not like people who wallow in the past – even justified.
But we do like actual underdogs. We do like actual martyr’s and the this kabal has gone all in in making Trump into a martyr.
Or put differently – Trump is incredibly politically atune. He is possibly the best “retail politician” in this countries history – better than Bill Clinton. Whatever you do to him he turns to his advantage.
Increasingly I think this trial is a strategic mistake for democrats.
We have people like Turley and Derschowitz ranting about the lawlessness of it.
Even Bill Barr is back in the fold. Historic NY AG Cyrus Vance has come out against this.
The very kabal going after Trump has engineered a Win-Win for Trump.
Look at the gag order – its Campaign Gold. The words unconstituitonal gag order are heard hundreds of times every day.
Even on the MSM when they try to “fact check” these things – while they play into the hands of a tiny core of true beleivers – a growing body of their own audience is going – So Trump can not call out Merchan’s conflict of interest ? So Cohen can attack Trump buyt Trump can not attack Cohen ?
The George’s and Gigi’s and Dennis’s here or their clones on the MSM do not understand that even as THEY make their own arguments – their Audience is going “That does not sound right ?!”
Trump is politically smart enough to understand how this will work.
The Kabal of the best and brightest on the left do not grasp that THEY are F#$King up.
Even Merchan and Bragg’s efforts to get Trump to KowTow. Are backfiring.
I fully expect that Trump will violate Merchan’s orders.
Merchan has a problem I found as a landlord long ago. I have only ONE power, I can evict a tenant. I can not MAKE them follow the lease. I can not MAKE them behave. The same is True of Judges – the only real power Merchan has over Trump is to fine or jail him.
Merchan can not fine Trump into compliance and even if he does – it is Trump that wins. All Merchan has left is to Jail Trump.
And it is OBVIOUS to all – except Gigi, George and Dennis how incredibly stupid that would be.
Even Merchan seems to understand that here he is a NY Judge and he is actually powerless over the man before him.
He is Losing a battle of Wills.
He is Creating the image of Trump as Atlas with the world on his shoulders, drug down by chains, but STILL standing strong and tall.
Trump appears to have understood this from the start. And he is working it brilliantly.
While Turley gets paid from FOX to spin his “theories” Fact is, Trump was charged with felonies because he allegedly concealed an underlying crime. Trump’s hush money payments allegedly involved the falsification of business records to conceal a crime. And Turley needs to reinforce his MAGA cult followers beliefs that Trump is above the law.
Please educate us on what underlying crime he concealed, to include the statute.
Put down your crayons and look it up yourself.
That seems to be the answer all you legal geniuses give to this question. We know you don’t know and the reason you don’t know is because Bragg doesn’t know. Which is what the column above is about. MAGA isn’t even mentioned.
Every day some more prominet legal scholar comes out to decry this horse schiff.
We have two Opeds in the NYT one by a prominent judge and one by famous NY AG Cyrus Vance saying this is a stupid mistake.
It is pretty clear to all that it is left wing nuts – “fishwings” coloring outside the line.
Several have asked you for the statute Trump violated – that is not really the right question.
The correct question is what Criminal ACT did Trump commit.
Murder is a crime. Extortion is a crime. Assault is a crime. You may not understand this by Lying under oath as an example is ONLY a crime when that lie as the brits say “perverts the cause of justice” – If you lie about what you had for breakfast under oath – that is not actually perjury. Spin is not perjury.
My point is not specifically about perjury it is that crimes are things that can potentially cause ACTUAL HARM.
Lying under oath about what you had for breakfast is immoral, but it is not a crime. Lying about who you say commit a robbery is a crime. And ordinary people have no problems understanding why.
When you say Trump \violated the law by doing X and according to your twisted reading of the law is a crime – the answer from most people will be “Who cares”.
Why do Crimes require actual harm ? Because we do not have the right to micromanage the lives of others.
You are not free to decide how another person decorates the inside of their home.
The allegedly falsified business record that Trump is actually charged with – these are NOT tax forms or reports. These are not documents that are required to be filed with the state. I would note there is actually supreme court legal precident that you are free to keep your financial records however you please. What you can not do is fail to pay the correct taxes, and misrepresent to the government what you owe.
Whether you like it or not how you represent you personal records is no more the states business than how you decorate your home.
Some people here are asking you for citations to a statute.
I am not. I am asking you to state in plain language what Trump has done that ordinarly people would clearly understand as a crime – something that deliberately causes or could easily cause actual harm to others.
If you can not do that – even if you can find a statute that with enough weasel words you can find a violation – it is YOU that is lawless – not Trump
The courts reject unclear law, overly broad laws as unconstitutional. But the problem is NOT that they are overly broad. That is just the way in which we know that they are ripe for abuse.
The problem with vague and overly broad laws – the reason they are unconstitutional is that they criminalize conduct that is not a crime.
You do not win a rule of law argument by claiming that someone has violated a law so broad that it criminalizes elections.
You win a rule of law argument by demonstrating that a person has done something that clearly does or easily could harm others AND that that action contains every single element required for a narrow reading of a criminal statue.
The job of the legislature is to write laws that make those acts that clearly harm of could harm others illegal AND ONLY those acts that clearly harm others. Whenever a law is so broad or so vague that it exceeds that – it is unconstitutional.
While most of us do not go though all that logic.
We instinctively know that where an alleged criminal act does NOT clearly harm others – that either it is not illegal, or you are reading the law wrong. or the law is unconstitutional.
Exactly which error you made is not relevant. What is relevant is that you are outside the rule of law – you are lawless.
Trump’s hush money payments allegedly involved the falsification of business records to conceal a crime.
GREAT!
You made a declarative statement. Now all we need are definitions. We’ll keep it simple. Name the crime?
The prosecution has said it’s a NY statute that makes it a misdemeanour to conspire to promote or prevent the election of a person by “unlawful means.”
It’s not clear to me that this applies to a presidential election.
The prosecution has also not said what “unlawful means” were used.
It is not unlawful to enter into catch and kill arrangements or NDAs. So far as I know, the prosecution has not yet alleged that any of these arrangements violated Federal campaign finance laws. No Federal authority has charged Trump under these laws, and the former head of the FEC has argued that these arrangements did not violate those laws.
It seems to me a potential due process violation that a person can be tried for a crime without being told in advance what it is and what all the elements are. I haven’t seem this argument being made, though.
The only way for him to be ‘above the law’ would be if he had remained a democrat.
Your problem is that most people have seen the facts, and they do not beleive you.
People do not accept that calling payments to Cohen legal fees is fraud. And even if it is, that it matters.
You say Trump has committed multiple crimes here – but what meaningfully distinguishes anything Trump has done from Hillaries efforts to win in 2016 or Bidens efforts in 2020 or now.
People do not see why one is a crime and the other not. One of the reasons is because neither are crimes.
This is not some MAGA thing – only 30% of people beleive Trump is getting a fair trial, that this is not purely political.
Only 40% of people beleive that Biden is NOT behind all of this.
60 and 70% of the country is not MAGA – and even if they were – You lose.
several people have reported that Blanche killed it in his opening.
But the FACT is Coangello lost this in his opening.
He spent 45 minutes making it clear that Trump’s crime was “conspiring to win the 2016 election”
I have no idea if that will convince a jury. But it is a loser elsewhere.
You have pumelled Trump over claims that an election that hinged on 44,000 votes accross 3 states was stolen.
Yet Coangello is actually in a criminal court trying to Convict Trump of stealing the 2016 election – one Trump won by 5 times the margin Biden did in 2020.
When Trump wins in 2024 – should he work with Republican state prosecutors to go after Biden from rigging the 2020 Election.
After all many in the Biden Campaign are complicit in the “catch and Kill” operation targeting the NY Post story on the Biden corrption in Ukraine.
Frustratingly, I actually think I get Bragg’s theory of the case, based on the NY law that they finally cited. The crime wasn’t committed by Trump, but rather by Cohen. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own money, evidenced by the mortgage on the house. The prosecution argues that this was to benefit the campaign, and thus a violation of campaign finance laws (individual donation in excess of $100,000). Indeed, Cohen even plead guilty to the campaign finance violation (probably not admissible, but we’ll see.) Trump (in Bragg’s mind) paid Cohen to hide/fix the campaign finance violation, then falsely reported the reimbursements as legal expenses to conceal hiding the finance violation. It doesn’t matter how they were recorded, Trump reimbursed Cohen to conceal the campaign finance violation, thus the conspiracy in violation of the NY statute, followed by the mis-categorization, in view of the records law. I can see a whole bunch of problems with this, first and foremost, the Edwards precedent, which is on point. Whether Cohen was extorted to plea to the campaign finance charge or not, the Edwards precedent says it wasn’t a violation, so no crime was concealed.
Turley should have mentioned Jesse Watters from Fox News. He just made the case against Trump pretty clear. He described the crime.
“Watters: His lawyer paid Stormy and after the campaign was over, the money was reimbursed and booked as a legal expense.”
Watters described the exact opposite of what Trump’s lawyer said on opening statements.
“Watters: His lawyer paid Stormy and after the campaign was over, the money was reimbursed and booked as a legal expense.”
That’s the crime. He falsified the payments as legal expenses.
NDA’s are not a crime
Using campaign money for a personal expense is a crime. The NDA is not the issue. It’s the classification of the expense while using campaign money. He hid that crime by falsifying on his business records that it was a legal expense.
The only money in question, came from Trump. No money was dispersed from the campaign.
If you have facts, please share
No, money was used from the campaign. After the campaign was over Trump reimbursed cohen and classified it as a legal expense. Not a reimbursement for the campaign.
After the campaign was over Trump reimbursed cohen and classified it as a legal expense. Not a reimbursement for the campaign.
The payments are 100% legal. Why do you keep dragging the campaign into this.
Candidate Edwards had a campaign donor pay for his girl friend and baby. No conviction on those transactions.
The FEC looked at the Trump paperwork and walked away. Nothing there
Iowan2,
Is that not the strange part about all of this? The FEC walked way from this, and yet here is Bragg trying to do . . . ?
Does prove this is nothing more than a political hack job.
Are we dumb? This is what Watters says and it makes no references to the Campaign reimbursing Stormy.
Watters: “His (Trump’s) lawyer paid Stormy and after the campaign was over, the money was reimbursed and booked as a legal expense.” How does Trump’q Lawyer becomes “the Campaign”?
Recall in Georgia, Fani Willis told the court that some of the cash stash she had in her house came from her “campaign” which is how she was able to have so much cash on hand at home, she said.
Has anyone moved to investigate that admission? Search warrant to check out Fani’s cash stash? Not that I’ve heard. Did Fani Willis use campaign cash to reimburse her lover for trips? They should look into it.
So did Hillary Clinton. Got caught and had to pay a fine.
See the double standard?
Okay — when does Bragg go on trial? Seems that there must be something for dereliction of duty and fraudulent use of taxpayer monies! What chance does the common person have against government when they are using vast amounts of ‘our money’ to go after us? If one WOKE supporter was arrested and tried as Trump is, he/she would understand that this isn’t a game but a deadly attack of suppression. Sadly, they are blinded to see that consequences of their hate is only the beginning of the story — the playout will backfire in time.
On another note — every facial expression of Trump is securitized by the media — funny how they don’t watch the glassy-eyed and robotic-walking Biden and comment on his ‘new bionic’ persona! Guess ‘love’ is blind!
Li’l Al Bragg shows off his wares as a Harvard grad. A man that has taken his destiny into his own hands (or possibly instructed to do so)!
Will history will remember Al as a great legal knight willing to simultaneously tackle the evils of non-disclosure agreements AND defining with absolute clarity what constitutes a campaign expense (that being anything and everything…my, my, will the IRS agree?). Or will history remember li’l Al as mere stooge cast to side of the political road by Democratic Party operatives while attempting to throw feces at the wall and hoping something sticks? Which alternative are you willing to bet your money on?
Ex Dem,
I was just thinking how will historians view this period in history?
Point out the absurd twisting of the law?
Pretend the absurdity never happened?
@UpstateFarmer
I wish I could give you a fanciful answer that would cover the points you raise. I can’t.
History is typically written by the victors and their sycophants so the appearance that “absurdity never happened” is probable either through omission or de-emphasis.
The “absurd twisting of the law” has always been an ever present danger. To combat such action requires a continuously educated citizenry along with virtuous law makers, enforcers and judiciary. And those requirements are the Achilles’ heel of the whole system. The Constitution may be to us what the River Styx was to Achilles, but poorly educated citizens relying on an immoral government will not survive anymore than the man with the weak heel did.
For anyone thinking ‘this will come back around to bite those who are doing it’:
those who are doing it (lawfare) won’t allow it to happen to their own.
Rules for thee, not for we.