Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense team and its strategy in the case, including some moves that may undermine appellate issues. However, after the instructions became public, I wrote a column that I thought the case was nearly un-winnable, even for those of us who previously saw a chance for a hung jury. Clarence Darrow would likely have lost with those instructions after the errors in the case by Judge Juan Merchan. At that point, it became a legal canned hunt. So the attention will now shift to the appellate courts. While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court. The thrill kill environment of last week may then dissipate as these glaring errors are presented in higher courts.
Here is the column:
The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.
The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view.
I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.
Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups.
The Judge
Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.
To his credit, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district. On the judge, he recently challenged critics on the fairness of assigning a Biden donor who has earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” He asked “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.”
What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.
The Charges
A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.
Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.
The Evidence
Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections.
Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context. He issued an instruction that the jury could not consider the plea or the agreement to establish or impute the guilt of Trump.
The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations. They also solicited such statements from witnesses like Cohen. Merchan overruled the objections that the prosecutors were eviscerating his instruction. Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.
Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions.
The Instructions
Even with all of the reversible errors, some of us held out hope that there might be a hung jury. That hope was largely smashed by Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find. When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of.
Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.
These are just a few of the appellate issues. There are other challenges, including but not limited to due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like “the legitimate press function.” They are the reason why many of us view this case is likely to be reversed in either the state or federal systems. None of that is likely to dampen the thrill in this kill in Manhattan.
But if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Dear Mr. Turley, I would like to express my thanks (again) to GEB and also to Steven W. Both of these folks stated their excellent opinions without stooping to name calling and the usual rancor that characterizes the Left. I don’t care how much the Left-Wing Media beats their so called “drum” as they are beating a dead horse. Let them cheer and dance. If I were them, I would be more concerned about the large crowds Mr. Trump draws at his rallies. After all of their scolding toward us poor deplorables regarding Mr. Trump, he can still bring people in. To me, that shows his popularity more than their self-congratulatory dancing and hugging each other over his “conviction”.
One thing is for certain, the radical left has tipped their hand. Intoxicated with raw power, they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals and objectives, namely to tear down and divide this nation. They will subvert law and fairness to retain that power and like the Godfather, they have the press and certain areas of the legal system in their back pocket.
One bit of hope is that the combined viewership of all legacy media is less than 10% of the population. The media has lost much of its former power and they have certainly lost the trust of many. CNN and MSNBC which are often quoted are irrelevant. Fox News has also experienced some of the same decline in viewership. Media outlets often cater to their audience and thus true journalism is becoming rare.
The reader, listener and viewer must now regard all sources of information (that includes Google and Wikipedia) with some caution and carefully sift through the reporting and piece together some semblance of truth.
E.M.
Well said.
If you have not seen this one yet, it is a good read, They’re Voting for Trump to Save Democracy
https://www.thefp.com/p/theyre-voting-for-trump-to-save-democracy
No one is above the law. When Obama was president we were killing American citizens in foreign countries with drones. Well, maybe some people are above the law and some people aren’t. Sucks to be you.
Professor Turley has a request of those who comment on his forum:
Like all sites, we attract trolls and juvenile posters who want to tear down the work of others. It is a sad reality of the Internet and the worst element of our species. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.
https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
In the interest of making this site a pleasant experience, ignore the usual suspects who employ Saul Alinksy tactics Rules for Radicals.
Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
– Wiki
so just engage genuine discussants and/ or comment on Professor Turley’s articles.
Let’s all pitch in to not feed the Saul Alinsky types.
Estovir,
Well said and thank you for the reminder.
All they have are insults, anonymously. LOL. Saul Alinsky believed that insulting people would provoke something, but definitely not silence. So, give them silence, and in that way you insult them. Use our cerebral cortex and not our amygdala, be a man of purpose and not a dog in heat humping a leg
Why dont you tell Jonathan that there is an easy fix to this, and it will NEVER get better until he does. He could make some money for charity or a scholarship fund for an underprivileged law student at the same time.
Until then, his and your bull shit are empty rhetoric.
“A candidate under federal investigation has no right to be running”
—–Donald Trump (November 2016)
That’s sort of hard to do when its your political opposition that is doing the investigating.
“A candidate for re-election under impeachment inquiry has no business running” ——-Joe Biden (January 2020)
Now you are just making stuff up.
In January 2020 the election had been over for 3 months.
Trump had already been impeached twice.
There was no impeachment INQUIRY.
The “impeachment inquiry” of Biden has died an inevitable natural death.
In January 2020 the election had been over for 3 months.
——Anonymous the moron
Lmao is that so???
The election was in november of 2020, imbecile.
Notice how the little anonymous kunt never comes back to account for his stupidity. He just scurries off like a cockroach looking for his next meal of dog shit.
Talk about making stuff up???
This idiot has the last presidential election in november of 2019
Also, see below for new george the moron, making stuff up about the ruling of the new york bar.
Professor Turley is grasping at straws. Merchan’s donations were dismissed by the state bar because the amount was ridiculously small. $15 to the Biden campaign. The amount to the other organizations was $10 each. That’s not enough to recuse based on the insignificant amount. Turley left out the amounts because they are not going to be enough to “prove” he was biased. His Daughter’s involvement as a democratic organizer is also irrelevant. Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court has a wife who donates excessively and remains in contact with republican legislators and donors. He chooses not to recuse himself and sets an example to others. So why would Merchan recuse himself? He is not required to.
“ A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law.”
But he didn’t charge Trump for violating federal law. Turley is implying he did when he said “Alvin Bragg EFFECTIVELY try Trump for violations of federal law. By saying “effectively” he implies he did when in fact he did not. Trump was charged under NY law for falsifying business records in the first degree. To do so it must have been in furtherance of committing another crime which was NY election law. 17-175. Professor Turley likes to be disingenuous when he characterizes certain issues to further a misleading narrative.
His last error argument relies on the instructions. He admits that the instructions were largely standard. But he claims this was not an ordinary case, why? Because Trump is special? No. This was an ordinary case and this is why it was treated as such. Trump is not being treated any different than anybody else under NY law.
“ When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of.”
Really? The charges were pretty clear. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree. That is the crime. 34 counts to be exact. Turley and other conservative pundits continued to claim right up to the end that there was on crime. Alas there was. It was spelled out so many times that it is impossible to miss.
While Trump will definitely appeal. It will be at the same pace as every other appeal in NY. It will be no more special than the rest and Turley subtly acknowledge this. He may not get the appeal he wants until after the election. That means Trump will be required to observe whatever restrictions will be imposed in his probation or he might be sent to jail for a short time and be restricted from traveling outside the country. He will also have to be very careful about what he says or does since any new crime or violation of probation as a convicted felon will send him to jail. He’s not the president, he’s a candidate and that does not give him any special immunity from the consequence of violating his probation or avoiding jail.
Perhaps you need to consider JT’s use of the word “effectively” to mean, “in effect.”
Lin, but that would be making an assumption. To say “effectively” in Turley’s context is admitting Bragg did not use the federal violation as Turley claims. Why didn’t he directly say Bragg charged him for violating federal law as he implies? By saying “effectively” he’s leaving the implied accusation to his readers to assume Bragg used federal law to charge Trump and that is certainly not true. Most of Turley’s readers are not bright enough to figure out the distinction which leads them to believe what Turley clearly tried to falsely imply.
And that’s exactly what the democrats wanted. “Legal Expense” is NOT a reason to convict someone who notated a Legal Expense to his lawyer as he did. Oh Yeah Hillary Clinton filed her payment for the “Dossier” as a Legal Expense. Hmmmm. What happened there? Nothing but a simple fine. Give me a break Dude! And also it just so happened that Merchan was the same Judge selected for the Weisselberg case, Bannon case, and now the Trump case. Are there no other judges in the State of New York? It was a setup and was fixed from the start.
He should have used that $35 to buy an “An Appeal to Heaven” flag.
“The charges were pretty clear. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree. That is the crime. 34 counts to be exact.”
Fat Albert disagrees with you.
Today, DJT was unanimously convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election
That “scheme” is one of the elements of the crime. One of the smorgasbord menu crimes Merchan gave the jury was federal election law violations. The law requires, and SCOTUS has ruled several times, that every element of a crime must be proven and unanimously agreed upon. The predicate crime which makes it a felony, is one of the elements of the first degree charge.
One of 3 possibilities exists here. You are either ignorant of this distinction, you are too dumb to understand it, or you are purposely obtuse and a liar.
Don’t be fooled. It does not matter to the prosecutor and judge that the guilty verdict will be overturned on appeal some time in 2025 or 2026. The guilty verdict is simply a predicate for Merchant to sentence Trump to jail at sentencing scheduled July 11 in an attempt to provoke January 6-like chaos just days before the Republican National convention is scheduled to begin on July 15.
Trump in his Fox News interview: “I didn’t say lock her up.”
Trump on Oct. 10, 2016: “Lock her up is right.”
Trump on Oct. 14, 2016: “For what she’s done, they should lock her up.”
Trump on Jan. 9, 2020: “You should lock her up, I’ll tell you.”
The difference is that he never directed his AG to charge her with a felony. He could have, but he didn’t. I believe she should have been indicted. Clearly, she broke the law, but sentencing decisions are highly subjective. In her case, locking her up would have be ridiculous, but probation would have been reasonable. Especially considering that I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why she bypassed the State Dept servers, for everything, including classified messages, and ran everything through a private server in her home. What she needed to be locked up for is running a pay to play scheme through a phony charity, while she was moonlighting as Sec of State.
You are entirely missing the point !!!
The point is that Trump is a congenital liar !!!
For Trump, lying comes as naturally as breathing !!!
As opposed to Faux Joe, who of course has never uttered an untrue thing in his entire life?
/sarc
Do you check to if Donald Trump is under your bed before you go to sleep every night? That’s how irrational you sound.
Anonymous,
The point is Trump just lied. Obviously he did say “Lock her up”. He said he never said that. He flat out lied. Which is why he’s known for being a compulsive liar.
New George the Moron.
Does Biden lie?
Should we list about 100 of them here for you, George? Or would you like to concede that Biden is a pathological liar to the extent he doesnt even know the difference anymore?
Pathological liar? No. By lying as much as Trump? No. But does he lie. Yes. Trump needs to lie to remain relevant. Biden does not.
LMAO love that twisted up logic there Georgie Porgie.
In your mind, Biden doesnt need to lie to remain relevant, but apparently in his mind he does.
MANY of his lies are about his life and his background. Would you like for me to post a few of them here as evidence?
Pathological lying involves a pervasive pattern of intentionally making false statements with the aim of deceiving others, sometimes without a clear or apparent reason.
Joe lied about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. For what purpose?
Joe lied about being born in the same hospital as his grand dad. For what purpose?
Joe lied about his son dying in Iraq. For what purpose?
Joe lied about being at ground zero the morning after. For what purpose?
Joe lied about witnessing the bridge collapse in PA. For what purpose?
Joe lied about his college success. For what purpose?
Joe lied and said he attended a HBC. For what purpose?
Joe lied about the train conductor. For what purpose?
Do you think Joe just came up with these as he was preparing these speeches? No. He has been telling these lies about himself his whole life. Thats why he cant stop, even when his staff tells him to.
People who lie about trivial, inconsequential things will have no problem whatsoever lying about what matters.
People who continue to repeat these lies after being called out for them, are pathological liars.
The difference is, i recognize Trump for what he is. You cant do the same for Biden because you’re a sycophant. Unfortunately, Biden is also a terrible President, and thats the kicker.
“Its the results, stupid”
Yes. And so does Trump. Do you admit Trump lies too?
Absolutely he does. And so do you.
Trump is a serial liar. Biden is a pathological liar, as i clearly showed above.
Who cares? I’m still waiting for Joe to drive up in his 18 wheeler for his march in Selma. I take it he doesn’t have your vote.
Good one. Forgot about that. George wont be back to admit that Biden is the clinical definition of a pathological liar.
Bravo to Professor Turley for laying out the potential foundations for appealable error. Whether you are for or against Trump, fair is fair, and anyone with objective conscience knows and feels some of these intentional errors, –and how exclusively the media, as well as legal commentators, have piled on this case.
Amusingly, only NY Post and Fox mentioned that President Biden privately met with a KEY witness (Hallie Biden) on the verge of his son Hunter’s trial (I believe she was the one who threw the gun in the trash?) as well as spent visibly-increased private time with Hunter these last few days. (Arguendo, if Trump had suddenly increased his meetings with son Eric just prior to Eric testifying, or say, e.g., witness Eric’s wife, etc., –it would have been front-page news for days.)
Lin,
Thank you for pointing that out.
Lin,
Those are pretty weak foundations. Turley already admitted the bar dismissed the donations as too small to be relevant. $15 to the Biden campaign, $10 each to a Democratic get out the vote organizations. That’s not enough to claim it is proof of significant bias. He is not required to recuse over those amounts.
The crimes were clearly spelled out in the indictment and the fact that the grand jury indicted him after extensive testimony and evidence.
Turley didn’t analyze the defense strategy at all. Which many conservatives criticized as disastrous mess. Even left-wing legal analysts pointed out Trump could have defended against the charges if he had a proper defense team and if he let them do their job instead of micromanaging them every step of the way. Ideally Trump should have testified. If he had the ability to control his impulses he would have made a very effective testimony against Cohen’s. But we both know Trump is incapable of exercising restraint or be aware of what he’s says most of the time.
The instructions were for the most part standard as Turley admits. The complicated ones were due to the nature of the charges and explained by Merchan in great details. He kept the references to federal law very narrowly and made it clear that they could not convict on the federal laws but they could consider them for context to the rest of the evidence. The jury was well aware of the nuances and complexity and that is why they chose to have instructions read back and certain testimony reviewed again. There were two lawyers and two engineers on the jury which means they were likely comfortable with the complexity of the instructions.
Well after 9 years they finally bagged the waskally rabbit.
We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.
IOW, Merchan should have recused himself.
He contributed a grand total of…..$10. Merchan’s daughter’s activities have no relevance to his objectivity. It’s no different than Justice Thomas’s wife being an active participant in GOP organizations. He’s not chose to recuse himself either.
George I am still waiting for your response to my question. What is the amount allowed to contribute to political causes?
Iowan2,
The amount is irrelevant. Could be $1.
It shows a bias for a particular party, candidate, or cause.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard twice. If I were a judge, I would recuse myself if I were to preside over some case she was involved in.
It is simply the right thing to do.
Upsatefarmer,
That YOU would choose to recuse yourself would be YOUR choice. Merchan was not required to recuse based on the pithy amount donated. Would you be calling for justice Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves from cases involving. The J6 and election cases against trump because their spouses are deeply involved in GOP organizations? If $1 is enough to recuse based on your view shouldn’t Alito and Thomas recuse themselves? If you don’t think so then you know Merchan shouldn’t either.
Iowan2,
I don’t know, but the NY Bar dismissed the violation for the insignificant amount involved. It’s not enough to show that he was heavily biased against Trump. Plus he made those contributions way before Trump was charged and brought before him. $15 to Biden’s campaign is a pithy amount. $10 to each of two Democratic voter outreach organizations are too small to be relevant. So a grand total of $35 was spent. It’s not enough to recuse himself according to the NY bar.
Of course you dont know.
This is your typical horse manure.
Please cite the relevant passage from the “NY bar” decision that intimates that it was because its an insignificant amount.
Don’t know that one either, but neither does Turley and he admitted the NY bar dismissed the violation which it means it was not enough to require a recusal by the Bar. It would be safe to assume the amount was not significant enough to warrant a recusal according to the bar. So Turley doesn’t question it. He can only complain that it is not right. It was only $15 and two $10 donations to two separate organizations before trump was charged and he was chosen to preside over the case.
Safe to assume. Only a dunce like yourself would open himself up to the ridicule a statement like that is certain to bring.
What you should be asking yourself is, why is this judge behaving like an idiot, and contributing such a trivial amount to a political campaign, when he should KNOW that it will be a source of questions from his detractors? Does that sound like someone with good judgement to you??? A fvcking child would know better.
A judge gets butt hurt over the behavior of a witness and threatens to strike the ENTIRE relevant testimony that is already on the record, if that witness rolls his eyes again. Does that sound like someone with good judgement to you? Do you think he has the power to do that without being stricken down and censured on appeal???
So why dont you stop making shit up and purporting it to be fact when you have no idea as to the veracity of your claim. It makes you look stupid when you are called out on it, and i will every time.
On the Charges paragraph, it isn’t even clear whether any business records were, in fact, falsified. The reason this is a misdemeanor, and almost never charged as a stand-alone crime, is that without some context, it doesn’t make much sense. If a private business books an expense as a “legal expense” vs a “misc. expense”, barring any other action, that shouldn’t morph into a crime.
The other problem that exists, and what could bring the SC into it, is that this could be the blueprint for charging any future president, with a state felony. Every election has some minor example of a campaign finance violation. Even egregious examples are never prosecuted at the federal level, however, each state maintains a campaign office. We cannot have a situation where any state can prosecute a “falsified” business record, and use that misdemeanor as the predicate crime for a felony by tying it to a national campaign, merely because the candidate maintained a temporary office in your state.
Anonymous,
“ On the Charges paragraph, it isn’t even clear whether any business records were, in fact, falsified. The reason this is a misdemeanor, and almost never charged as a stand-alone crime, is that without some context, it doesn’t make much sense.”
The prosecution showed exactly how the documents were falsified and why it was a felony. They provided context by way of Pecker’s and Cohen’s testimony which is why the defense spend so much time and energy trying to discredit Cohen. He was telling the jury exactly how the documents were falsified. He gave the jury the context from the perspective of the guy who orchestrated it. Pecker testified that he gave Trump a benefit of killing these embarrassing stories so it would not affect his campaign which is a violation of NY election law. It also showed Trump lied about the reason for killing the stories that he was protecting his family. That was not true. Trump paid Daniels and McDougal hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their stories secret. If he didn’t do anything why would he pay them. Trump is famously a cheap skate he wouldn’t pay them if he knew they were lying. Obviously he was lying and Melania knew. Notice she never attended the trial in support of her husband.
He was telling the jury exactly how the documents were falsified.
Cohen and Pecker never provided evidence DJT influenced the classification of the expense.
BTW what is the Proper accounting classification for the expenses in question?
Iowan2,
For them, “legal expense” is too vague.
They want something like, “Falsified document, to pay lawyer to cover up . . . some other crime, in an attempt at election interference that wont happen till after the fact.”
Or,
“Hey! Look here! A crime!”
Iowan2,
Yes they did. This is why the defense spend so much energy attacking Cohen as an untrustworthy liar. Because he was testifying to exaclty how Trump was involved and what he did throughout the scheme.
NY law does not require Turmp knowing it. It requires that he participated in it. He signed checks and discussed with Cohen and Pecker the details of the payments which were falsely labeled as legal expenses when they were in reality reimbursements for non-legal “services”. Pecker and Cohen corroborated the documents and Cohen admitted they were indeed falsified. Trump was conspirator in the scheme.
George, I’ve tried to follow your arguments, but this one is an embarrassment. To be convicted of a conspiracy to violate a law, it has to be willful. I get the prosecution argument that it could have been one of three, but he had to know of the legal violation at the time of the conspiracy that the false business record was intended to conceal. Hypothetical: You get your gas tank filled at the service station down the street. Are you guilty of receiving stolen goods if you didn’t know the station pumped stolen gas? Are you guilty of conspiring to launder stolen goods?
But the DOJ refused to file charges, and the FEC declined to fine the campaign. Hillary Clinton’s campaign also falsified records, if Trump did, showing expenses involved in creating the Steele dossier as legal fees. The FEC did, in fact, hit Clinton’s campaign with a hefty fine for that. And yet, New York never brought such charges against her – what was that which was not sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?
Ellen Evans,
Good point and grossly displays our banana republic justice system.
Maybe you’re missing the point, or choose not to see it, but it doesn’t matter how Pecker or Cohen “explained” anything. The payment that was made, by Cohen, was booked as a legal expense. Because it was, a legal expense. I don’t care if Pecker killed stories in the past or what Cohen happens to be saying today, how the campaign chose to label this expense was not a crime. They could have labeled the line item, “Misc.” or “None of your damn business” and that would have been ok too. You don’t seem to be comprehending this, but it really doesn’t matter because there is no predicate state felony, and without that, the business records case is an SOL’d misdemeanor.
This case was dead in the water before it even started, Merchan and Bragg knew this, that’s why the trial was a circus. If this case blows up, and its really only a question of whether the NY Ct of Appeals will do it or the USSC does it for them, Biden will deservedly take the blame…and Trump wins in a landslide. Biden can pretend, even believe, that he isn’t involved, and I suspect that is why in his prepared remarked, he mentioned this, but that isn’t going to save him. No matter what, there is going to be an appeal, and will happen rapidly, or the SC will have to get involved. This really isn’t a hard case to see through.
Anonymous,
“ The payment that was made, by Cohen, was booked as a legal expense. Because it was, a legal expense.”
It wasn’t a legal expense. That’s the core of the charge. Cohen testified that it was NOT a legal expense. It was a reimbursement for a payoff. It wasn’t labeled as a reimbursement as it should have been.
“ I don’t care if Pecker killed stories in the past or what Cohen happens to be saying today, how the campaign chose to label this expense was not a crime.”
But NY cared. Pecker killing stories for the Trump campaign was done as a BENEFIT to the Trump campaign which is a violation of NY election law. Pecker paid for the lifetime rights of McDougal as a benefit to the Trump campaign. That’s a crime under NY election law.
When they label an expense as something other than what it was IS falsifying the nature of the expense which is what falsifying records is. That is illegal in NY.
George, You’re ranting and making no sense at all. Cohen offered what was largely self serving testimony, it doesn’t make it true. Cohen could have testified that the sky was orange, it doesn’t make it so. Cohen’s actions were that he negotiated the NDA, drafted the contract, and made the payment. He even stated in earlier recordings that he made the payment himself, from his own personal funds. Labeling an expense in manner that offends you doesn’t make it a crime, even under this statute.
I agree entirely. The problem here, in addition to the basic unfairness of this particular process, is that these tactics have the potential to disrupt elections completely and effectively wreck politics. No truly free nation, with allegedly clean elections, can allow one party to decide who the opposition can run.
Equally concerning, though, is the cooperation among all these state and county cases with the White House. Political campaigns are inherently dirty to varying degrees but to use the Office of the President to make a central feature of one’s administration about persecuting the opposition for an entire term in office, is unspeakably awful. It is a special kind of corruption.
The guy from Hawaii warned: “ Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to *%#! things up.” The same can be said about Juan Merchan.
In my opinion…
Steve, just a question – What text editor are you using?
I can’t find one that allows: CENTER, STRIKETHROUGH, ITALICS, etc..
It’s HTML tags that create the italics, boldface, blockquote, and links.
I just posted this, maybe it will help…
https://stevewitherspoon.home.blog/2024/06/03/html-format-tags/
For the sake of the country, I believe you’re right. This is a really dangerous thing to play with. However, it may not even need to get that far, but in this case, it should. Being a trial court judge in NYC is pretty low on the food chain. The appellate court in NY has the ability to review the entire case, including the fact finding parts. They may come to the conclusion that there was no predicate felony here, and that trying to make an alleged violation of a federal campaign finance law, into a state campaign finance violation, might not fly very far. Without that, the records falsification is a meaningless SOL’d misdemeanor. It appears that the records falsification charge is so broad and poorly drafted, that just about anything a jury wants to believe could fall into that category. I’m starting to think that Merchan was playing the fool to perfection. He probably believed that this case was likely to get overturned on appeal no matter what he did, so, to help advance his daughter’s career, he figured he would do as much damage as he could. If you’re going to stick your arm in the pickle jar, you might as well go all the way…The point of this exercise wasn’t really to put Trump in prison, it was merely to interfere with the election. That is why I agree that the SC must review this case and ASAP.
if SCOTUS suddenly jumped into the fray, and ruled for Trump, it would not be accepted by Democrats, and lead to violence. People are suggesting SCOTUS get involved now because they know how SCOTUS would rule given the majority. Democrats know this. They would use it to initiate massive violence across the nation like they did with ANTIFA BLM violence.
For the same reasons, US House Republicans aren’t going to hold Merrick Garland in contempt as they have threatened repeatedly. Historical US House rules give them the power to arrest anyone they hold in contempt if they fail to appear before them. The staff at DOJ wouldn’t allow the US House to come for him, guarding him like an emperor. This then would force the hand of Republicans to either send armed personnel to the DOJ building and forcibly remove Garland and drag him to the US House, or the Republicans will do nothing and will look like the weak kneed “men” that they are
Any sudden move on behalf of either side might trigger war. Everyone has to follow protocol, even if Democrats do not, or else the powder keg will be lit and how it blows no one will know.
Estovir,
Interesting analysis.
Just read Bill Maher is of the opinion, if the try to jail Trump, he thinks it would devolve into a race war, based off the race of the DA and the judge.
Honestly, their race never entered my mind till Maher mentioned it.
Also seeing the make up of attendees at Trump rallies, I am not so sure it would become a race war.
If I saw a minority wearing a Trump shirt, I would say, “I like your shirt!” And if I were at a bar, I would buy that person a drink.
Last time I checked, both you and I are minorities, and we both have friends who are minorities not to mention family, spheres of influence, etc. The Democrats are no more interested in minorities than they are in women. Period. Full Stop. Had they been interested in gays/lesbians, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, would have introduced legislation re: gay marriage.
Democrats speak for no one other than themselves. They do not speak for minorities at all. Latinx my Cuban a**! Clearly nor do they speak for Jews.
They do speak for Marxists. Prove me wrong.
Good news, stupid is no longer the minority so you have lost your status, SAD.
The House Sergeant at arms has the only authority to detain the contemptuous witness, and his jurisdiction does not extend beyond the capitol steps.
So you just wasted a lot of words for nothing.
But whats new?
SCOTUS can’t get involved. Not immediately like some Trump supporters want. The appellate process is slow and it takes a long time before any decision is made. Trump will not hear a decision on appeal before the election. Trump still has to go through the sentencing phase.
Trump can appeal directly to SCOTUS, because he can.
SCOTUS can choose to hear the appeal because they can.
You’re use of the word “can’t” is similar to your claim above re: the ny bar ruling. You’ve no idea what you are talking about, and purporting it as fact.
By law, the U.S. Supreme Court’s term begins on the first Monday in October and goes through the Sunday before the first Monday in October of the following year. The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
We need reform of the justice system , designated off ramps for intervention (determined by the legislature and not the judge), limit of judges discretion in determining who can and cannot testify, reform of the grand jury system. I am tired of seeing ham sandwiches served up as criminals . Especially the Grand Jury system. In political trials, and this is a political trial there should be greater attention to a change of venue and possibly review by other judges on the decision to charge or change the venue with out going through an extended review and appeals process all in the open. Absolutely there should be rotation of picking judges and it should be under public scrutiny as it is done and not behind closed doors. Being a judge in one defendant’s case should exclude the judge being in other cases involving the same defendant. I mean we are constantly bombarded with the assertion that guilt in one case has no bearing on a separate charge in another case. Well carrying the same judge over to another case against the same defendant may as well be a retrial of the same previous change. Especially in New York.
Justice (if this is justice ) can be destroyed and the defendant destroyed even if eventually the defendant wins. And only if you have incredible amounts of money to fight with.
Maybe, like in the medical profession in many states, there should be pretrial panels who give an opinion of the care of the patient or the charges against a defendant. In Indiana the plaintiff and the defendant select a member of the panel and those 2 select a 3rd member. Chaired by a non voting attorney. The panel decision is non binding but carries weight and so far cannot be blocked from presentation at a trial.
When this sort of stuff was done in the South we ended up with the Voting rights act and the Civil Rights act. Does New York need an intervention. The voting rights act and civil rights act were targeted at specific states. Maybe New York, or the Northeast need to be targeted.
OR take the law out of the private sector and have the state pay all, the judges, the defense and the prosecution. Criminal trials get a fixed fee, civil trials get a fixed fee, and all attorneys have to work both sides. That might be really interesting.
Politicians often claim that the US criminal justice system is the envy of the world. That is laughably untrue. As an immigrant (with a foreign law degree) I have never been impressed with it. 95% of cases are won by the prosecutions. That is not because they only prosecute strong case, but because of the extreme costs associated with defending yourself which de facto forces a defendant to cut a deal to avoid bankrupting his/her family. That is anything but justice. The prosecutor has unlimited funds (paid for by the taxpayer) and is not personally liable for unfair prosecution.
Some jurisdictions are notoriously biased and impossible to get a fair trial in if the defendant has the ‘wrong’ pedigree. We had that in the South many decades ago; we have that now in NYC, Atlanta, and DC as demonstrated by the DJT cases, the J6 cases. In similar sense, Mr. Chauvin did not get a fair trial in Minneapolis with a jury pressed to bring a guilty verdict by an angry crowd outside the courtroom cheered on by a member of the US House of Representatives.
I agree with many of your suggestions. Random picking of judges, and a panel that decides (not just opiniates in my view) on whether charges can be brought. District attorneys are elected officials, i.e., politicians, who use cases to further their career, and taking away the decision on whether and what to prosecute would prevent a lot of harm. Change of venue could also be decided by such a panel or by an appeals level court and not by the judge of the court of first instance (who may have career reasons to keep the case).
They mostly have a 95% conviction rate because there are very few criminal masterminds out there and, usually, the police get it right. But I agree that there is a big problem, even if its mostly on the fringes. The activist or “Soros” prosecutor is the common thread to most of these problems and its going to take a lot of effort to fix that. People that run for DA don’t really have a campaign war chest, so when Soros, or more precisely, a non-profit that does his bidding (so he can any deny involvement), dumps a lot of money into these races, he essentially buys them. That’s a big problem and it goes far beyond Trump. Not prosecuting crime is absolutely destroying inner cities, leading to no interest in new development, and a downward spiral.
Like I said a few days ago, Trump had never been validly convicted. We should all remember that.
Upstatefarmer,
He was ‘validly’ convicted. He was found guilty in a court of law by a jury. He had his due process rights intact throughout the whole trial. Trump is a freshly minted criminal felon of the state of NY. Get used to it.
“He had his due process rights intact throughout the whole trial.”
Here, George inserts his opinion between a couple of facts. This is a common trick he employs to make his rhetoric seem worthy of anything more than contempt.
Its a third grader trick though, so it never works, except in his mind.
Due process is EXACTLY what the several particulars of the appeal will center around. So frankly, no one cares what you think of the due process in this case. You’ve proven yourself to be a sycophant who cant stick to the facts.
A situation like this always astounds me from the POV that those celebrating today seem to delude themselves into the belief that they will be in power perpetually – which never happens.
The wailing and gnashing from today’s celebrants will be a pathetic sight when their “enemies” are in power again. As much as I wish for a cooling- off of passions, that isn’t going to happen anytime soon, and object lessons will be meted out by the GOP. The only difference will be that the news media will find this an outrage, since they have abandoned any pretense of objectivity long ago.
I caught some information on a you tube channel, with photos of Alex Soros at the White House during the trial, and a tweet he sent out to his flying monkeys after the verdict, “from now on refer to Trump as a convicted felon” which will assure us of victory or something like that. Little rat face spawn of Satan needs to be taught a lesson
HEADS UP
French President Emmanuel Macron has started in with Military “MODALITIES”, WW·III is on the Way!
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/macron-gathering-european-coalition-send-military-trainers-ukraine
If you haven’t yet sent your Offspring to:
New Zealand
Iceland
Antarctica
Argentina
[s]Switzerland[/s]
Bhutan
Chile
Fiji
Greenland
Indonesia
Tuvalu
[s]Canada[/s]
TIME TO GET PACKING!
SAFE HAVENS What are the safest countries in the world if World War 3 started?
If WW3 broke out, we could see unparalleled levels of suffering, the displacement of millions, severe food insecurity, and disruption to essential services
By: Neha Dhillon – The Sun ~ Jan 17 2024
https://www.the-sun.com/news/10116456/safest-countries-to-escape-world-war-3/
All you pro-Ukraine, pro-WWIII, head on down to your local recruiting center now! Be sure to enlist in a combat MOS, and volunteer to be the tip of the spear!
Judge Merchan already made up his mind about giving Trump some jail time.
The jail cell has been chosen. Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell. The cell mates are criminally insane & the security cameras still work intermittently.
The plus side is that bed sheets are clean & fresh.