Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the Trump indictment. The key is to avoid any objective meaning.
Here is the column:
Abstract artist Jackson Pollock once said that his paintings have no objective meaning, so the best way for people to enjoy them is to stop looking for it.
For many of us, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has created a new school of abstract law where there is no need for objective meaning. The jury is simply supposed to enjoy it for what it is: a chance to convict Donald Trump.
Pollock was famous for his painting drips on large canvases. Bragg has achieved the same effect by regenerating a dead misdemeanor on falsifying business records as 34 felony counts. To achieve that extraordinary goal, he has alleged that the document violations (which expired long ago under the statute of limitations) were committed to hide some other crime.
Originally, Bragg vaguely referenced four crimes and there have been months of confusion as to what he was specifically alleging as his criminal theories. Even legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC have continued to question the specific allegations against Trump as we head into closing arguments.
As it stands, there are three crimes that have been referenced by prosecutors: state and federal election violations and taxation violations.
Bragg’s legal vision for non-objective indictments was greatly advanced by Judge Juan Merchan, who will allow the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg’s paint splatters.
Merchan has ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict.
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations.
Moreover, Michael Cohen is the sole witness even to address the elements of any of these crimes. Cohen is a convicted serial perjurer and disbarred attorney who appears to have lied again during the trial. Even if they consider his testimony, there is no direct corroboration in evidence on Trump’s intent or knowledge. As a result, the prosecutors will rely on circumstantial evidence to support whichever interpretation the jurors will buy.
Faced with charges that can mean different things to different jurors, Trump’s team will have to focus on the spaces between the paint drips; the canvas itself.
All of this case is based on the payment for a non-disclosure agreement that is perfectly legal and indeed common in business and politics. The Trump team needs to stop dancing around the NDA.
The jury likely believes that Trump knew of the NDA and supported it. The defense has to emphasize the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Inquirer, that he killed stories for a variety of celebrities and politicians, including Rahm Emmanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He also said that he killed stories for Trump for years before he even thought of running for president.
They need to emphasize the testimony of multiple witnesses that Trump seemed to want to avoid embarrassment to his family. He was also the host of a popular television show and an international businessman. The payment of a couple hundred thousand to kill stories is considered a cost of doing business for most celebrities, particularly those who have television contracts with provisions allowing cancellation for scandals.
In the instructions, the court will tell the jurors that payments cannot be campaign contributions if they would have been made anyway regardless of the campaign.
They also need to point out other gaps. It was not Trump who listed payments as legal expenses or retainer payments. Witnesses said that payments to lawyers are routinely recorded as legal expenses. Indeed, it is not clear how the money should have been denominated but the decision was being made by others in the Trump organization and by Cohen himself.
Moreover, on the characterization of payments as part of a “retainer,” the other party to that characterization was former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. He is currently in prison in New York, but was not called by the prosecution. The prosecutors elected to rely entirely on Michael Cohen with various witnesses, including Cohen, referencing Weisselberg’s decision on how to pay the money.
That made the canvas itself largely Michael Cohen. All of this is held together by a witness who admitted that he has lied to banks, Congress, prosecutors, business associates, and virtually every creature that has ever walked or crawled on the face of the Earth. He also lied in front of the jury about the critical call where he said that he told Trump about the NDA payment.
The defense showed that that 96-second-long call was to Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, in late October 2016. It was preceded and followed by text messages that indicated that their conversation was actually about a teenager harassing Cohen.
Moreover, Cohen admitted to making millions by bashing Trump, and that he has a personal interest in his conviction.
You can throw paint on Cohen all day, but it will not cover up the fact that he is a pathological liar and grifter.
That is why I still believe that a hung jury might even be the most likely possibility. That may change when we see Judge Merchan’s final instructions. However, the only thing worse in New York than being a Trump supporter is being a chump. To rely solely on Cohen and not even call someone like Weisselberg is to play these jurors as chumps.
Pollock was doing more than just throwing paint at a canvas. As Pablo Picasso said, “there is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.” Bragg started with nothing and sold it as a legal abstraction.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
“The jury is simply supposed to enjoy it for what it is: a chance to convict Donald Trump.”
Oh please, no crime here, just close your eyes and hand over two quarters to the man behind the curtain.
How about the crime for which trump is actually accused of, business fraud for not accounting where $130,000 went and illegal campaign contributions? Cohen has been convicted of crimes he committed while employed. by trump. Cohen says he did those crimes at the behest of trump.
Oh yea, who cares, just look at the thousands, nay, hundreds of adoring fans in NY. And what about that adorning crowd at the libertarian convention? Oh yea, I forgot, they booed him.
Trump was not charged for campaign violations. You cannot pay for NDA out of campaign funds, that would be illegal (not the other way around). The FEC stated/confirmed that there was no violation and Alvin Bragg himself (when he worked as an Assistant US Attorney for the SDNY) declined to bring those charges.
Michael Cohen plead guilty saying “he” paid for it without being reimbursed by Trump. He was neither indicted, charged or found guilty. He offered a plea in hopes the SDNY would use him if they tried to charge Trump (which they didnt).
By law, Michael Cohen’s guilty plea does not make Trump guilty.
If you expect me to believe Trump is guilty of any of the 94 odd charges against him you’re probably suffering from TDS. The same groups of people responsible for the Russia Collusion hoax, Ukraine impeachment, the cover up of Fauci’s gain of function research in Wuhan, lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, mandatory jabs, Hunter Biden laptop information suppression, mass censorship, and the disastrous surrender of Afghanistan, are behind these examples of Lawfare. Why, considering the lack of transparency and the corruption surrounding the Biden regime, would anyone continue to support such a blatantly false narrative. These, and other Biden failures, emboldened Russia, China, and Iran. Culminating in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, increased Iranian support for Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and other Islamist terrorist organizations. Biden policies allowed Iran to earn billions from oil exports, which funded the atrocities against Israel on October 7th. Democrat’s economic, energy, regulatory, and defense policies make us less safe, poorer, and nervous. The price level increased by 20% since Biden stole office. Electricity, gas, food, shelter, insurance, healthcare services and other essential items have increased even more. Michael Cohen plead guilty to a non-crime but went to jail for crimes he committed having nothing to do with Trump. Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is clouding your judgement and wrecking your reasoning skills. You misunderstand what motivates the cabal of establishment activists who continue to break all rules and norms of behavior to take Trump’s ideas out of the conversation. Trump is a class traitor, he knows what goes on behind the curtain, is trying to clean up the corrupt system he didn’t create, and he poses a threat to the establishment’s gravy train of self-aggrandizement.
Here is a question. Obviously, the falsification of business records (Checks, receipts, and bookkeeping) was driven by the invoice sent by Michael Cohen (the only tangible piece of evidence that states this was ongoing fees). The judge allowed the prosecution to bring up the fact that Cohen plead guilty to a campaign violation, but also stated that by law it cannot be used to say Trump is guilty.
Doesn’t this prove that Cohen (not Trump) would have had incentive to create the false impression of ongoing services and that Cohen (not Trump) has something to hide? The only evidence that the prosecution has to say it was not Cohen (but rather Trump) responsible for the wording of the statement was Cohen’s word under oath that he was “told” to do so by Allen Weisselberg? Allen Weisselberg was not even called to corroborate. Still a degree of separation from Trump.
Now obviously neither Trump nor Cohen committed a campaign violation. But just using the prosecutions own logic and evidence, it seems clear that Cohen should be the one charged with falsifying the business records (with the invoice) in order to cover up the non-crime he confessed and plead guilty too later. Their legal logic appears to take Cohen completely at his word that he was forced into what they claim is a crime by Trump’s CFO. Therefore, the bad orange man must be guilty.
It is Memorial Day, and frankly, this country is hardly worth defending any more. At least large parts of it. The Democrats, in collusion with Big Businesses, have turned us into an unsustainable mess. I think it is too late to turn it around, mainly because you have too many people who are stupid enough to continue to vote for Democrats.
Those people should get the country that they deserve.
Turley thinks there is going to be a ‘hung jury’ in this case.
*Idk what that means .. . but it don’t sound good.
dgs – Good news. The jury will not be hanged. But the prosecutor might be.
Your lips to God’s ears.
edwardmahl said: “But the prosecutor might be.”
Don’t leave “His Honor” out of that, please.
Floyd, think about it, 40 years ago we would have associated big business with the Republicans.
Independent Bob said: “40 years ago we would have associated big business with the Republicans.”
Some people have a nuanced understanding of the term “big business” that distinguishes between those businesses that became big mainly through dint of the efforts of the founders and employees in a (at least partially) free market, and those that are essentially nothing but corporatist entities that operate like so many extensions of government, typically enjoying most of the associated protections, with few of the associated restraints. I’m am one of those people, perhaps Flyod is, as well.
Floyd,
What the heck was that?
JUDGMENT WEEK: How prosecutors will use the ‘other crime’ against Trump.
On Tuesday, a jury in Manhattan will hear closing arguments in the trial of former President Donald Trump. Local prosecutors allege Trump committed bookkeeping offenses as part of a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. The former president’s specific crime, prosecutors say, was labeling a nondisclosure agreement negotiated by his lawyer as a “legal expense” in Trump Organization books.
By: Byron York ~ May 27, 2024
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3018294/judgment-week-how-prosecutors-will-use-the-other-crime-against-trump/
Why the Alvin Bragg Case is BS
By: Rich Lowry – National Review ~ May 24, 2024
Former FEC Chairman Defends Donald Trump: Alvin Bragg Is ‘Wrong’
By Andrew Stanton https://www.newsweek.com/former-fec-chairman-defends-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-wrong-1903219
Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, has criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s legal theory behind his case. In a statement, Smith told Newsweek that he decided to become an expert witness in the case because he believes “the legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about.” Trump has been on trial in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Bragg’s case has charged that the payment was meant to prevent her from going public with her allegation that she had a sexual encounter with Trump and hurting his election chances. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has denied having an affair with Daniels and pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges. He also accuses Bragg and other prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes, criticizing the trial as a form of election interference.
Trump’s lawyers had planned to call Smith, who served as FEC chairman from 2000 to 2005, as an expert witness on campaign finance law in the trial.
However, on Monday Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith’s testimony would fall “under the umbrella of legal opinion” and would require him to allow the DA’s office to bring its own expert to testify about the same legal principles, according to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung, who has been covering the trial from the courtroom. The judge decided that Trump’s attorneys could still call Smith as a witness but that he would be able to testify only about the “general definitions and terms” in campaign finance law. Smith told Newsweek he has turned down the “vast majority” of expert requests throughout his career, only agreeing to six engagements in 30 years. He expressed disappointment in Merchan’s ruling, noting that his testimony would have focused on FEC procedures and past actions, rather than the ultimate issue of the trial. “I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump’s guilt—for ‘context.’ He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening,” he said.
Newsweek reached out to Bragg’s office for comment via email.
In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Smith wrote that Bragg’s theory “hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through ‘unlawful means.’ “To do that, he’ll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he’s got to show it on his own evidence,” Smith wrote. “If that’s the case, isn’t it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury’s fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won’t allow that in,” he said.
– Newsweek
FULL PANIC MODE BELOW!
Lowry always looks so constipated.
Jonathan: Today is Memorial Day when we honor those who gave their lives to defend the country. But you rather discuss the man who attacked an elderly man in California–or bizarrely compare DA Bragg’s case to a “drip” painting by Jackson Pollack. Apparently, like DJT, Memorial Day is not important to you. But it is to me. I lost an uncle in WWII!
Even Eric Trump took notice of this holiday yesterday. On “X” Eric shared a post by another “X” user that featured an early photo of DJT, Melania [when they were on good terms], Eric and Don Jr. with their future wives. The poster “Freedom” commented that the photo showed “The family that gave up everything to Save America”. Eric endorsed the post with the comment: “And we will do it again”.
Eric’s post caused a huge backlash. Conservative pundit Bill Kristol called Eric’s post “particularly disgusting to post…on Memorial Day weekend!”. Rep. Adam Kinsinger, a fierce critic of DJT and a former Air Force second lieutenant, was more outspoken: “Your family has sacrificed nothing. Your name will become synonymous with ‘Benedict Arnold’ and how dare you tweet this, THIS weekend. You don’t know the first thing about service, you child”. Another “X” poster called Eric’s post “A bug FU to Gold Star families on Memorial Day”. There were many other similar comments.
Will the former president be at Arlington today to honor the fallen? Nope. He will be in New Orleans for a fundraiser. Neither Eric nor Don Jr. volunteered for the military. DJT avoided the Vietnam War with “bone spurs”. DJT has made many past derogatory comments about members and veterans–calling fallen soldiers “suckers”. Everyone remembers DJT’s defamatory comments about John McCain’s service in Vietnam.
When it comes to real sacrifice the DJT family is MIA. Eric’s post is a slap in the face to those who now serve and those who actually made the ultimate sacrifice to “Save America”!
D M – “Conservative pundit Bill Kristol”? You really will say anything.
EdwardMahl: I didn’t choose the designation “Conservative” to refer to Kristol. That’s how the mainstream press refers to him. In the day I read Kristol all the time because he reflected mainstream “conservative” thought. Why? Because his columns were rationale and thought provoking. I often disagreed with him but he made you think about the issues. Nowadays, Kristol is now considered a “traitor” to the GOP, a RINO or worse by those on the DJT/ MAGA right. Seems you have fallen down that rabbit hole as well!
LMAO at Dennis’ lame explanation of his false categorization of Kristol. No shame in this guy whatsoever.
” Conservative pundit Bill Kristol” ? Are you serious?
If being in the military is an assurance of duty, patriotism, and qualification to hold high office, Benedict Arnold could have been the first president and Father of our Country.
Meanwhile, if you KNEW your uncle that you claim was killed in WW2, that would make you near 90 years old, at least. With so little time left to live, I’d think you’d find better ways to spend your remaining time than puking up TDS trash every day of the week.
Joe! Don’t give that “Eaten by callibals” story again! My ribs are still sore from last time!
“Stranded in the Jungle” (1956)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9PbMucPXU
Anonymous: Serving in the military is NO “assurance of duty, patriotism, and qualification to hold public public office”. Fourteen of our Presidents had no military experience. And Benedict Arnold could not have become the “first president and Father of our country”. Although a brilliant general in the Revolutionary army he gave it all up when he defected back to the British on Sept. 25, 1780–primarily because he was mad he was passed up for promotion. So much for his “patriotism” and “duty”!
As to my age, you have it about right. Amazing isn’t it? That at my advanced age I can stick the proverbial stick in your eye almost every day of the week. Keeps me alive so I can get up every morning and do that. Don’t you just hope and pray you live that long!
By the way Dennis, 72 is no where near 90. Even your math is horrible.
Here, Dennis the pathological liar, lies again. If he were as old as even 82, which would still make him only 4 years old at the end of WW2, he would have been 27 when he claims to have still been in college and dodging the draft.
And here he brags about the glorious pinnacle of his long life, “Doing his job and poking holes” and “sticking the proverbial stick…”
He admits that his lifelong dream of having his own Supermarket Tabloid column (albeit on someone else’s property) culminates in the doo doo he wakes up every morning to share with Turley’s readers.
He is truly a legend in his own mind.
So far we have Dennis working at the Presidio near san Fran. Then we have him saying that the Colonel who ran the “outfit” wanted him there, but he failed his draft physical. Then we have him claiming that somehow this less than flag level officer was going to hand pick him for duty, and keep him out of Vietnam. We also have him claiming to live in an open carry state (clearly not California) and then claiming that he has long lived “in the city” and taking over his parents “vineyard”, out in the country.
The dude is a pathological liar on the scale of Cohen.
Here’s Dennis, ‘honoring vets’ by attacking his crush DJT, and Mr. Turley as usual.
Talk about ‘a slap in the face to those who now serve and those who actually made the ultimate sacrifice’.
Plus no mention of Biden’s ‘asthma’ which kept him out of war (but not football or lifeguarding).
I know that you served valiantly at the Battle of the Presidio, but do you even know the difference between a 2Lt and a Lt Col?
Beau Biden was the seventh generation of Bidens in America, yet the FIRST to perform military service. Daddy Joe pulled FIVE student deferments before claiming at age 25 that “childhood asthma” should keep him from carrying a rifle in Vietnam. What’s funny is that High School Joe worked as a lifeguard and was a varsity running back. In neither role would a sudden bronchospasm be a plus. Funnier still, Joe claimed once again (USMA Commencement) that he was in line for appointment to Annapolis. Well, guess what? A history of asthma is an immediate disqualifier for an Annapolis appointment. So it didn’t bother him through his teens, and it didn’t keep him from applying to the Naval Academy, but it became a live issue at age 25?
“suckers and losers” is yet another Democrat media LIE, HOAX, fabrication.
Never happened, loser.
I wonder what Dennis’ “uncle” (undoubtedly eaten by cannibals) would think of his draft dodging exploits.
This trial is not about Cohen, it’s about Trump. Costello made things worse for Trump and the defense team. Juries pay attention to behavior just as much as evidence. Cohen remained consistent, cool and collected while Costello acted like a privileged disrespectful jerk that earned him a personal rebuke from the judge. That’s not a good thing to have in front of a jury and Turley conveniently neglected that particular incident.
Cohen may be a liar, but he was Trump’s liar just as Weisselberg and…Costello. The jury may very well find him guilty. The possibility is really high and that has Trump and his pundits, like Turley concerned. That’s why there’s so much focus on discrediting Cohen. They want this to be about Cohen, no. It’s about Trump and the jury will focus on that.
Cohen lied and Trump had no idea about any book keeping entries. The phone call Cohen claimed was shown to be a fraud where Cohen wanted a 14 year old attacked.
The prosecution has literally nothing. A non crime outside their jurisdiction with the time for prosecution lapsed where Trump was not part of it at all.
You guys are total zeroes, absolute liars, and completely corrupt beyond any semblance of humanity.
I’d say you’re all crazy but really it’s devious lying without a care in the world.
I thank you for one thing, showing openly how utterly despicable every last one of you are.
As soon as one of you opens your yapper, I know the exact opposite of what proceeds is the truth. There are literally no exceptions. That I do find amazing.
Juries pay attention to behavior just as much as evidence.
This has to be the most ignorant statement ever uttered here. Do you really think that a murderers calm recitation of his “alibi” would get as much of the jury’s attention as his DNA on the murder weapon??? Yikes! I wouldn’t want you on my jury.
Cohen remained consistent, cool and collected
Just like he did every other time he has lied under oath. That’s what pathological liars do. Wowsa, you can’t be this dumb, can you??
If you’d like to place a grand in escrow, we can make a wager on the outcome.
Bragg is depending on the jury to believe the shadow produced by holding his hand and fingers a certain way in front of a light resembles a living rabbit. It may not be convincing, but left-wingers are easy for their masters to fool, so at least some, if not all, on the jury will vote to convict.
Someone once said it is easier to brainwash people than it is to convince them they have been brainwashed.
*the older I get, the truer that seems.
Tapes, receipts, documentation, fact witnesses. This case should be a conviction by friday…
And happy memorial day to all those who’ve served, including members of my family who laid it all down for this country.
If individuals displaying the utmost foolishness and ignorance, such as yourself, are present on the jury, then your assertion may indeed hold validity.
Then it’s a good thing your opinion carries less than zero weight with me. Happy memorial day, dense and obtuse one!
My opinion is almost universal on this blog. That you remain outwardly content is expected. Your bottles replace the needed ingredients for one to be a capable thinker.
It’d be tempting to acknowledge the cognitive decline in your post…, but it’s nothing new. So you just keep being you, cretin
You are allowing the bottles to speak for you.
Nah. If I did that I’d just beat you with them.
You are trapped on the ground amidst filth with your bottles, unable to stand or even pee without soiling yourself.
And when you wanted me to iguana f$%k your b hole with the neck of the bottle I was repulsed.
“Tapes, receipts, documentation, fact witnesses” — LOL — everything but a crime — I mean except the crimes confessed to by the prosecution’s star witness.
Known ahead of time, and indeed, information released by the prosecution ahead of when you magats decided to lose your minds over it.
Of course Cohen stole from trump org…., trump org was an entity driven by theft and fraud. And of course Cohen lied in the past…, that’s why he was trump’s lawyer for ten years.
The IRS audited Trump’s tax returns for TEN YEARS and found no irregularities in Trump’s taxes. The DOJ, FBI, and DNC investigated Trump since 2015 and found NOTHING. But here comes Fat Alvin Bragg, who also declined to indict Trump, until democrats pressured him into it.
I repeat: No xrime was found. The only criminals in that courtroom were the ones on the witness stand and the one wearing a jodge’s robe.
Conviction by friday.
A conviction by democrats, of democrats and for democrats.
Glad we’re in agreement on conviction.
Overturned by a scathing opinion discrediting 10 rulings by Merchan that had no legal basis, By Jan 1 2025
Go place your $1k wager on the outcome and come back and let us know what kind of odds you got, and the wager number.
Otherwise, you’re just a big mouthed coward.
Another old …. mous with an opinion made of whole cloth. Rotten cloth I might add. The is nothing worse for a civilization that a corrupt justice system. But millions have died to give you the right to applaud it. Don’t bleep in your mess kit.
You don’t know anything about me.
If only they had any of that…
A verbal and visual analogy fit for the state of affairs of the current administration, its leaders, minions and those who support them.
“The key is to avoid any objective meaning.” (JT)
Why tyrants love nonobjective law:
“The threat of sudden destruction, of unpredictable retaliation for unnamed offenses, is a much more potent means of enslavement than explicit dictatorial laws. It demands more than mere obedience; it leaves men no policy save one: to please the authorities; to please—blindly, uncritically, without standards or principles; to please—in any issue, matter or circumstance, for fear of an unknowable, unprovable vengeance.” (Ayn Rand)
Sam said: “Why tyrants love nonobjective law”
Great quote, thank you. Is that from “For the New Intellectual”? Rand had a few unfortunate blind spots, but she was dead-center on target with a great deal of her philosophy and observations.
6: “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” in _The Voice of Reason_.
As far as I’m concerned it’s the dem’s J6 reality show all over again (that’s all but confirmed IMO, given Biden’s intent to ‘address’ the ‘verdict’, from the WH, no less) but utilizing our tax dollars in the form of the courts rather than Congress, this time.
There are no words for the mendacity of our modern DNC. A hung jury would be a miracle, and is likely not in their script. This is seriously Mao or Stalin-level ****, and really all that is on trial here are the last remaining crumbs of governmental integrity and decency.
James said: “…the last remaining crumbs of governmental integrity and decency.”
Stale and moldy crumbs, at that.
@Number 6
No doubt. Not much of a meal, for anyone.
Given the chances of a bogus Guilty verdict by a stacked jury in a crooked Manhattan courtroom, I’d be curious to know what the record is concerning how quickly the Supreme Court can step in and reverse this travesty. Certainly the New York appellate courts can be sidestepped in an emergency, such as a bogus verdict in a state court that’s intent on impacting a NATIONAL election.
I would imagine Turley probably knows what the speed record is for the Supreme Court to weigh in. Anyway, I’m pretty sure that SCOTUS has the ability to act urgently when it wants to, since there are times when last-minute rulings are issued to stay executions.
If there was ever an occasion for the US Supreme Court to jump into a case without unnecessary delay, a guilty verdict coming out of the corrupt NY court of crooked Judge Merchan with intent to influence the November election would be it.
If the NY jury that’s been fed nonsense by the judge, prosecutor, and witnesses carries out their SCHEME to influence the election by convicting Trump for a non-crime, SCOTUS should immediately hear the appeal and issue a rulng on a super-accelerated calendar, well before the 4th of July.
Anonymous said: “Certainly the New York appellate courts can be sidestepped in an emergency, such as a bogus verdict in a state court that’s intent on impacting a NATIONAL election.”
IANAL, but I am skeptical that SCOTUS would find sufficient justification to step in immediately after the verdict. For one reason, while Trump is certainly the presumptive GOP nominee, it is not yet official. Seems a conundrum to me: if this was happening to a Democrat, I think the liberal justices might well favor pre-emptive action, but to leap ahead and take action on mere assumptions about the possible ramifications of the verdict and the appeal process seems to be somewhat at odds with the principles of conservatism.
The amorphous “principles of conservatism” are whatever one wants them to be, same as the “principles of liberalism” (whatever they are).
Meanwhile, political ideology (“conservatism” or “liberalism”) and justice are incompatible. Justice has its Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. There are no such rules assocciated with “liberal” or “conserative” political ideology, although I’m sure ideological boneheads would disagree.
“The key is to avoid any objective meaning.” (JT)
Which of course means that any observer or juror is free to indulge his feelings.
So we have here a case in which all of the objective elements of a case have been discarded: facts, specifically defined laws, legal procedures, evidence, testimony, an independent arbiter. A case where the jury instructions amount to: Follow your blind emotions.
If, as Aristotle noted, “the law is reason without passion”, then what is law without reason?
JT: Great demolition job.
Meet the Grim Reapers & have a happy Memorial Day
So if Trump would have written “reimburse lawyer for NDA payments” on the check stubs, there is no case. But the public never saw the stubs anyway. I don’t get it.
The Queen of Hearts said: “Sentence first, verdict afterwards.” Bragg does better: “Sentence first, charge afterwards.”
kauffman1948,
Bragg does better: “Sentence first, crime afterwards.”?????
Dear Prof Turley,
Yeah. The distinction between ‘art’ and the ‘law’ is a fine line these days!
For me, there is a clear, unambiguous, objective meaning to abstract artist Pollock’s work. Pollock’s art work is worth millions of dollars. Cold, hard, cash.
And his daddy was not even the president. A testament to Sotheby’s renowned sales dept.. . “Number 32, 1949” achieved $34,098,000 as an important highlight of Sotheby’s Contemporary Art Evening Auction on 16 May 2018.
Under Kevin Morris’ direction, Hunter Biden’s artwork may achieve similar astronomical sales figures one day. By all accounts Pollock was a troubled ‘mean drunk’ too.
Michael Cohen is like a ‘legal’ abstract artist. In broad strokes Cohen fancies himself a legal ‘fixer’ for everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. That’s why the Trump Apostle and Alvin Bragg team hired him. To paint an abstract legal masterpiece.
There may, or may not, be a debate about all of this .. . if Trump is ‘free on Wednesday’
*Trump will need a legal artist if he plans to deport all the student protesters!
“Trump prosecutor: The other crime? Need not have been committed for Trump to be convicted. Just intended. And by the way–it doesn’t even have to be a crime. Two misdemeanors plus civil FECA violation and–voila!–34 felonies, max 136 years in prison.
https://washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3018294/judgment-week-how-prosecutors-will-use-the-other-crime-against-trump/…“. @ByronYork
I respectfully disagree with our esteemed Professor. NYC juries awarded massive damages to preposterous claimants against Trump. The “citizens” of NYC are so degenerate that the Democrats don’t even have to rig the jury pool. I would put the odds of conviction at around 75%.
Is it too late to make “Escape From New York” a documentary?
Don’t think that requiring a unanimous verdict makes it harder for Bragg. In NYC, any juror who doesn’t convict Trump will be ruined within a matter of days and that will be explained to that juror by other jurors. NYC is a hell hole run by a** holes.
Yeah. The prodigal son has returned home, but it’s not a warm reception!
I escaped from the Big Apple, by the skin of my teeth, when Trump was still banging cocktail waitress’ two at a time @ Club 51.
*nowadays it’s plumb full of movie stars, swimming pools and billionaires. .. the poor millionaires have to build shanties over on the Jersey mud flats.
You were smart. Blue states are considering passing punitive taxes on people who leave. This is an attack on freedom of trade and movement within the U.S. but that won’t stop them from doing it anyway. Nothing stops them from doing anything.
I hope their tax authorities aren’t harassing you with audits. They’re notorious for trolling people who left years ago.
Except that any juror uttering that nonsense to another would be grounds for a mistrial
Diogenes, I respectfully disagree. I believe there’s a 50-50 chance of conviction. New Yorkers enjoy spending money, especially when it’s not their own. I give them more credit when dealing with other matters. I love NYC, was born there, and still maintain a second residence there. I chose a better lifestyle elsewhere.
I hope you’re right, Allen. It would definitely be better world.
I visited NYC twice in the 90’s. The citizens were fantastic. The city was safe again, and New Yorkers were on a charm offensive to improve the image of the city, and it worked. It’s not as good as it used to be, IMHO.
Diogenes, people who visit NYC (Manhattan) sometimes don’t realize that the population almost doubles when the workday begins and shrinks at the end.
Never interfere with a person on the way in or out of Manhattan. He is competing with ~two million others to get where he is supposed to be. People are more pleasant on the weekend or during the working part of the day.
When I am in NYC and people ask me how to get somewhere, I sometimes walk with them until they are in a spot to find their own way. Upper Manhattan is a grid system, but lower Manhattan can get very confusing. In the past, I asked police officers where something was, and they didn’t know, even though it was less than half a block away. I love NYC, but not for my primary residence.
This is way too logical thinking. You haven’t factored in Trump’s inability to defend himself in a non-threatening manner. He has insulted the Judge, the Judge’s daughter, the Judge’s country of birth, and impugned the Judge’s motives.
Let’s say there are a few jurors who might not like Trump, but see the case as a “technicality” and overreach.
Now Defense Summation gets underway, and begins to insult the intelligence of the Jury with manipulative, emotional games. The Jury is asked to see the case from Trump’s narcissistic perspective. The Jury is asked to act politically to protect the campaign of a Presidential candidate against a vast left-wing conspiracy. Trump’s lawyer never admit that he made one mistake in this entire saga. i.e., he doesn’t understand the give and take of recognizing how others’ perceptions differ when defending oneself. In the Summation, his lawyers (taking their cue from their client) telegraph distrust, disrespect and insult toward the Jurors.
The unstated subtext is “we know you’re probably going to convict, but you don’t matter…we’ll prevail on appeal”.
And that is game over.
I doubt that’s what his defense lawyers will do. You may personally dislike Trump, but that doesn’t mean his lawyers are as dumb as you seem to suppose. It’s a stretch to think they’ll prioritize insulting the jury over trying their best to get an acquittal.