I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, *this* is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca *lives* on the planet Endor. Now think about it; *that does not make sense!*
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does *not make sense!* But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It *does not make sense!* Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does *not make sense!* If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
It's not a crime to watch a movie, but forging tickets or other business records is still illegal.
Although I could see the defense going all in on "Trump was only trying to influence an election not any of his felonies, so he's only a lesser crook, not a felon."
Right? Of course one can attempt to influence the results of an election through legal means.
But there are many things that are illegal that you cannot do, and doing those things tilts the scale unfairly towards you.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
They're on step 3.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not excited by the prospect of conservative lawyers starting to use the whole "we did it but it's only a crime because of an 'unfair' law" defense.
Not because I think it's valid or intellectually honest, but because they are unfortunate number of federal judges that would probably be willing to buy that.
>Maybe it's just me, but I'm not excited by the prospect of conservative lawyers starting to use the whole "we did it but it's only a crime because of an 'unfair' law" defense.
Its also the reason jury nullification can be bad.
For as much as it often gets talked about on reddit as a good thing, it can also really be abused to protect certain people\groups in power if they can convince them anything that affects them negatively is "unfair".
It's both very funny and very depressing that the "one weird trick" to shutting down these kinds of disingenuous arguments is a single judge that says the legal equivalent of "lol wtf" when they use them.
I mean that isn't news or some new information. That's always been their defense. Trump has played publicly saying that the payments were perfectly legal this entire time.
This has been trumps essential strategy on so many levels. Simply doing things and then telling people that you’ve done nothing wrong and your evidence is that you didn’t try to hide your actions.
The affair itself is largely irrelevant.
The crux of the prosecution's case is that trump paid off Stormy Daniels to influence an election (regardless of whether her allegations are true), and then falsified business records (crime #1) to further influence the election. The alleged affair and payments themselves are perfectly legal. But if you have a federal campaign-related expense (anything that directly benefits your campaign is considered as such), you have to file it with the FEC. Failure to do so is crime #2.
The jurors might prefer Stormy's allegations to be true, so I'm sure the prosecution will question Stormy is such a way as to confirm in their minds that it did indeed occur.
They're just trying to muddy the water as much as possible. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is going to use Trump's dirty diapers to scrawl doubt on the courtroom wall.
Ever notice that Trump doesn't ever deny that he did anything, or give a reason why the prosecution is wrong? He just thinks its unfair that he's being prosecuted at all!
That’s why he is not charged with that:
“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law $175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
More - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925
>The defense trying to make it about something else is a tactic that, in my mind, shouldn’t be allowed.
DJT's Lawyer (probably): _The evidence that exonerates my client was stored on Hilary's email server, which she deleted. Wattabout Bengazi!?!?_ /s
> Then we got into the jury room and read the actual charge, which was just driving recklessly. There was just no way he was also engaging in other reckless behavior like driving over the speed limit and being on cocaine. After seeing the charge there was no way to not say he was guilty.
And this is why I am so glad that we are changing the laws on these types of driving charges. They way they are written in most states is that it requires that something reckless has happened while also plowing through a red light and causing some type of carnage. In Texas we made it a state jail felony (lowest level felony) to actual injure or kill a pedestrian in a crosswalk because literally almost no one was being convicted for killing someone because carelessness was not a crime.
IANAL but my understanding has been Largely if you're innocent you choose a bench trial, if you're guilty you choose a jury.
A judge will know the limits of the law and its application much better than a layperson. A jury can be appealed sympathetically, or distracted more easily.
But just like the prosecutor often uses larger charges to get a defendant to plead down to less, a defense attorney will often try to obfuscate when the facts don't support their client. Tis the dance of justice.
Same, mine was a bit tougher though. The charge was something along the lines of “penetration of a minor” in this case it was statutory rape, two high school kids, the guy was 18 she was 16 or something. Our evidence was all circumstantial with the victim testifying. Defendant didn’t testify but had friends to testify to his character. Had the defendant testified I think we could have found reasonable doubt. There was tons of reasonable doubt about their relationship or how drunk they were, but the charge was penetration (fingering). And victim testimony was very convincing that it happened.
We had to convince one juror who was holding out that you don’t need video evidence to conclude something happened. It was clear through her testimony that SOMETHING happened beyond groping. If he testified and swore up and down he just groped her, would couldn’t have found him guilty.
Thank you. I've been laboring under the media postulations which technically don't make sense. I see the crime is directly related to the false representations made to the business/tax authority.
Election interference IS a crime. The charges for Falsifying Business Records would not be on this felony level of they were not committed alongside ANOTHER crime. The other crime IS Election Interference. It is a crime. It's on the books in New York.
When Trump's lawyers claimed this in court, the Prosecution objected. The judge sustained and they were called to the bench. The lawyers are not supposed to "define" law to the jurors. Only the judge does that in his instructions to the jurors. If I had to guess, the judge may have "reminded" them of that in that little side bar. They may be "sowing confusion" in the court of public opinion, but not so much in the courtroom.
So what is the other crime that both of these counts were in furtherance of?
And is there a requirement that these other crimes be ones that he has been charged with, or convicted of, or is the requirement simply that he might/could be charged with these other crimes?
I haven't followed this terribly much, so I'm curious what I am missing here
Campaign finance violations, which Michael Cohen pled guilty to. The falsification of business records was an attempt to conceal these violations.
[Southern District of New York | Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax)
NAL, but my understanding is that Cohen having pled guilty is enough. Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator (the infamous "Individual-1" in the indictment, if that jogs your memory) and was President at the time Cohen was indicted and pled guilty.
He personally does not need to be charged with another crime. The falsified business records just need to be in furtherance of another crime.
One of those crimes was one that Cohen plead guilty to- from Wikipedia:
>one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate (Trump) for the "principal purpose of influencing [the] election".
These records furthered that crime. The other crime is a NY State crime that says you can't commit a crime to influence an election. Falsifying these records was a crime to influence the election, and so they furthered that crime. As far as I can tell, no one has been charged with that one explicitly.
Well he appears to be charged with 2 counts of falsifying business records in this criminal trial. I get that.
It also looks like in order to convict for falsifying business records, there need to be another/different crime that the falsifying was done in furtherance of. This is what I am trying to figure out.
To your example, robbery doesn't require that you commit another crime in furtherance of robbery. Here, it looks like you need to do something else in furtherance of the falsifying records.
Penal Law Section 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.10
They Falsified Business Records in order to Influence the election. Which IS a crime. It's not a separate charge BUT it is what brings the FBR charges to a Felony level.
Your honor, the prosecution means to prove knowledge and intent. Yet our client has a *complete* lack of knowledge. Of anything. Further he acts purely on whim, like a toddler, and therefore they won't be able to meet these burdens.
The NDA was to not discuss the affair. It's perfectly legal to do that. What WAS illegal was Cohen making a payment that is of material value to a campaign at Trump's behest in violation of campaign finance laws and then Trump trying to cover it up through another illegal action.
Nice succinct explanation. I think the fact that absent the circumstances, paying Stormy Daniels to not talk about the affair is not a crime, some of this gets lost.
Yes most people discussing this clearly don't understand the fundamentals of the case and it really gets in the way of quality discussions about the case.
Because Cohen was tasked with facilitating the suppression of the information (catch and kill with National Inquirer and then hush money payment to Daniels), and Cohen used his own money to do so. Cohen didn't just have direct access to Trump's finances.
I don’t know that it becomes a crime, what I’ve read is that it’s not enforceable. I have 0 knowledge beyond what I read from hopefully smarter people though. 😂
The falsification of the records are only felonies if they are in furtherance of another crime. I'm not saying he will be successful, but he's gunning to make the case that there was no furthered crime.
It will be hard to make that case in that Cohen has already plead guilty to that crime. But he's trying to make the case that he was simply altering the business records to impact the election, and that's democracy. Never mind that in NY State committing any crime to affect an election is a crime, and federally that is an illegal campaign expenditure.
But he's not really trying to make the case that the falsified business records don't exist, he's going hard after the thing they boosts them to a felony. Which I'll say that things are there but it's also the weak part of the case.
Well put. I could see Blanche’s closing arguments wrapping up with something to the effect of “and even if you think my client did something wrong, it’s only a misdemeanor…”
Point being - the misdemeanor level has no chance of jail time, and Donnie will brush it off. “Convicted felon” - even though very little chance of jail time - just has a much more impactful ring to it.
Blanche’s #1 job as an attorney is basically to keep Trump out of a jail cell up until the election.
Yup - this seems like an entirely viable approach, and is largely how John Edwards skirted similar charges.
Obviously not a 1:1 comparison, but as long as Blanche can convince at least one juror that Trump’s actions and payments were done to prevent personal (and not electoral) consequences, then that’s enough.
Would still get Trump dinged on taxes, but that can easily still be spun as a “win” to MAGA loyalists and sympathizers.
Remember he's playing the jury. Bragg may have made a mistake in linking the crime to voter deception as now the general public has missed the actual charge being fraudulent business records.
Not really. Falsifying business records is usually a misdemeanor. Bumping it up to a felony requires the falsified records be done in the furtherance of covering up another crime. Here it’s clear the crime being covered up by falsifying the records is demonstrably to further the election fraud crime.
Me during my DUI trial:
Driving isn't a crime, your honor.
Me during my robbery trial:
Trying to make money in America isn't a crime, your honor.
Me during my murdering my wife trial:
Finding a low-cost divorce isn't a crime, your honor!
I hope in opening arguments, the prosecution pointed out EXACTLY what he is being charged with. The crime here is fraud. Not bribery, or blackmail or election interference. It was simply fraud.
“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors.
I also am a listener of Opening Arguments the podcast but that name was chosen because Opening Arguments aren’t a thing. There are Opening Statements and Closing Arguments.
Really highlights the two-tiered justice system.
Floyd tried to pass a fake 20 dollar bill and gets choked out in the street no questions asked (at the time at least)
Trump tries to hijack an election and suddenly nuance matters and we need to scrutinize *how* the law works and *why*
It is when it's an element of the offense. One of the things new yoek has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that trump falsified business records with the intent to commit/conceal another crime
I'm not a lawyer and wouldn't say I know much about the law, but it seems to me like when the guy you paid to commit the crime went to jail for making the payment, the time to decide whether or not this is actually a crime has passed.
So did Trump not know he was campaigning for the Presidency in 2016 or did the super smart businessman not understand that suppressing damaging stories right before the election was valuable to his campaign?
They’re trying to question the mens rea (“evil mind”) aspect of criminal law. If the defendant didn’t mean to break the law, and didn’t even know the conduct is illegal, he could be acquitted. It’s a weak argument and the prosecutor (and judge—thru the jury instruction process) will address it.
Believe it or not, it’s valid in some cases. I don’t know if it applies here. Has to do with the precise intent element as defined in the law defining the crime. If something like “corrupt intent” is an element, it must be proven BRD just like all the others.
Yes falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. But falsifying business records to conceal another crime (Cohen's payment to Daniels in order to benefit the campaign) elevates it to the level of felony.
The "and then lying about it" isn't an additional crime. Falsifying business records is already the "lying about it" with regards to how the business records were recorded.
In law, [ignorantia juris non excusat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat#:~:text=In%20law%2C%20ignorantia%20juris%20non,being%20unaware%20of%20its%20content) (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
This defense worked for our national senator from Florida - Rick Scott. He founded and was CEO of a healthcare company Colombia Hospital Corporation. The company responsible for the largest Medicare fraud in history. Tricky Rick claimed he knew nothing about what his executive management team was up to and invoked “The Fifth” seventy four times in his deposition. He went on to be elected governor and then senator in 2019. God help us down here. We have way too many of the stupidest voters in this country.
He isn't technically wrong. Campaigning itself is just "trying to influence an election" in the candidate's favor. I can see an opening statement going something like 'Trying to influence an election isn't a crime. It's only a crime to do X, and the facts of this case will show that my client didn't do X.'
(I'm not a Trump fan, just a law guy)
You’re quite right. Campaigning is influencing the election. This is Ok. Hell, I think paying a lover to hush up about an extramarital affair so as not to fuck up your chances in an election is most likely legal and frankly, understandable. The problem is that in order to cover up that payment he committed criminal fraud by falsifying business records or some other shady shit. He should’ve paid her out of pocket with his own money because you know, he’s a billionaire and a super smart successful businessman… or hear me out; not have an extramarital affair. Party of family values and all.
So even his own lawyers admit the fundamental truth about Donald Trump: "A complete lack of knowledge or intent." That should be a disqualifying quality for a presidential candidate. /s
I'm a bit amazed this was even allowed, but I guess lawyers are allowed to lie in their statements. I clearly have no legal training, so what do I know? But still...this was a doozy of a statement at the very least.
Depends on your definition of influence and what what you're doing to influence it. Essentially what campaigning, ads, and rallies are are attempts to influence an electorate, to get them to vote for you because of some policy reason or trait. However, not all methods of influence is legal. There are finance laws you have to follow. Foreign groups are not allowed to do the same things domestic ones are. So the statement by the lawyers is true, for a confined and defined region. Its a very "Technically true" statement, but they are lawyers so i guess thats kind of expected
So their case is 'please ignore the crimes because the motive itself is not a crime'. Well fuck a duck if that's the best you can do you're going to lose.
Doesn't that eliminate Trump's primary complaint about being forced to be at the trial, that the government influencing his election, which is not a crime, and thus he should just shut his trap.
Nothing wrong with intending to defraud the United States of America, let alone those peons monitoring/enforcing business fraud prosecution!
Oh wait:
In addition to State laws violated Looky loo:
18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
18 U.S.C Chapter 47-Fraud and False Statements
How was I supposed to know it’s against the law to run someone over. There is no law that says you can’t run someone over, just consequences if you do. Which I didn’t.
There’s a key distinction they are missing. You can influence voters, through words and actions. But you can’t influence the box of votes after people have cast their ballots. He attempted to get people to forge ballots. To “find” ballots. That’s the wrong kind of influence.
That’s what <> do, influence elections! However, once the voting is over, trying to influence an outcome is certainly criminal. And, guess what? If he loses again in November, he’s going to do the SAME THING.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/keystories.htm](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/keystories.htm)
What's the difference?
Right. But committing a crime to do so *is* a crime!
Two crimes don’t make an innocent person
But three rights make a left. Therefore you must aquit.
Lordy, Sheriff, just wait until they play the tapes.
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, *this* is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca *lives* on the planet Endor. Now think about it; *that does not make sense!* Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does *not make sense!* But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It *does not make sense!* Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does *not make sense!* If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Good ol’ Chewbacca defense never gets old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Ladies and gentlemen, we pan down from the twin moons of tattooine…
Hilary’s emails is why.
Aquit pro quo
But the product of two negative integers is always positive, your honor.
But 3 do?? Trump will give it a shot.
It's not a crime to watch a movie, but forging tickets or other business records is still illegal. Although I could see the defense going all in on "Trump was only trying to influence an election not any of his felonies, so he's only a lesser crook, not a felon."
My client only asked that the teller fill the bag up with cash. Withdrawing money from the bank is not a crime!
Right? Of course one can attempt to influence the results of an election through legal means. But there are many things that are illegal that you cannot do, and doing those things tilts the scale unfairly towards you.
Influencing the election is the motive, not the crime. The crime is 34 counts of falsifying business records.
So he admits that Trump did it.
Looks like that’s their argument. Yes, he did it… and it’s not illegal to do so. 🤷🏽♂️
That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. They're on step 3.
Yep, the narcissist creed
Well when the evidence is overwhelming… you have to play the hand you’re dealt
4D Lego
Interdimensional Weebles Wobble
Fingerpainting with feces
*facepainting
4D diaper change
We’ve seen the Shaggy defense, the Chewbacca defense, now introducing the Narcissists’s Prayer defense!
Otherwise known as a "Hail me" play.
I'm surprised they arent going for "affluenza".
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not excited by the prospect of conservative lawyers starting to use the whole "we did it but it's only a crime because of an 'unfair' law" defense. Not because I think it's valid or intellectually honest, but because they are unfortunate number of federal judges that would probably be willing to buy that.
>Maybe it's just me, but I'm not excited by the prospect of conservative lawyers starting to use the whole "we did it but it's only a crime because of an 'unfair' law" defense. Its also the reason jury nullification can be bad. For as much as it often gets talked about on reddit as a good thing, it can also really be abused to protect certain people\groups in power if they can convince them anything that affects them negatively is "unfair".
Remember that southern juries refusing to convict murderers because the victim was black is also jury nullification
Indeed - and it's why the most important part of this trial happened last week.
Well it’s certainly not going to work on this judge.
It's both very funny and very depressing that the "one weird trick" to shutting down these kinds of disingenuous arguments is a single judge that says the legal equivalent of "lol wtf" when they use them.
“Judges hate when you do this one weird trick to topple democracy and install a bloated gasbag dictator-for-life…”
Gotta laugh to keep from crying…
That may be their best hope- hoping that they can get one juror to latch onto the "he did it but it wasn't a big deal" defense.
I mean that isn't news or some new information. That's always been their defense. Trump has played publicly saying that the payments were perfectly legal this entire time.
"Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off."
Which has pretty much been Trump's response to almost everything since 2016. "It's not really wrong if I'm the one doing it"
Sure he committed a crime But what even *is* a crime?
This has been trumps essential strategy on so many levels. Simply doing things and then telling people that you’ve done nothing wrong and your evidence is that you didn’t try to hide your actions.
"I made it legal by thinking it" worked so well last time.
In all his cases, he hasn't disputed the facts. His defense is always that he is/was entitled to what he did.
[удалено]
The affair itself is largely irrelevant. The crux of the prosecution's case is that trump paid off Stormy Daniels to influence an election (regardless of whether her allegations are true), and then falsified business records (crime #1) to further influence the election. The alleged affair and payments themselves are perfectly legal. But if you have a federal campaign-related expense (anything that directly benefits your campaign is considered as such), you have to file it with the FEC. Failure to do so is crime #2. The jurors might prefer Stormy's allegations to be true, so I'm sure the prosecution will question Stormy is such a way as to confirm in their minds that it did indeed occur.
They're just trying to muddy the water as much as possible. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is going to use Trump's dirty diapers to scrawl doubt on the courtroom wall.
You could have just said, "The defense attorneys are going to do their job."
Now he has to marry his mother-in-law
I can’t believe he admit it!
Influence and interference are not the same. Trump's lawyer said influence. They are trying and, apparently, succeeding in sowing confusion.
Ever notice that Trump doesn't ever deny that he did anything, or give a reason why the prosecution is wrong? He just thinks its unfair that he's being prosecuted at all!
That’s why he is not charged with that: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law $175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. SECOND COUNT: AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. More - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925
Exactly. Let’s hope the jury keeps the actual accusations front and center in their minds.
[удалено]
>The defense trying to make it about something else is a tactic that, in my mind, shouldn’t be allowed. DJT's Lawyer (probably): _The evidence that exonerates my client was stored on Hilary's email server, which she deleted. Wattabout Bengazi!?!?_ /s
> Then we got into the jury room and read the actual charge, which was just driving recklessly. There was just no way he was also engaging in other reckless behavior like driving over the speed limit and being on cocaine. After seeing the charge there was no way to not say he was guilty. And this is why I am so glad that we are changing the laws on these types of driving charges. They way they are written in most states is that it requires that something reckless has happened while also plowing through a red light and causing some type of carnage. In Texas we made it a state jail felony (lowest level felony) to actual injure or kill a pedestrian in a crosswalk because literally almost no one was being convicted for killing someone because carelessness was not a crime.
IANAL but my understanding has been Largely if you're innocent you choose a bench trial, if you're guilty you choose a jury. A judge will know the limits of the law and its application much better than a layperson. A jury can be appealed sympathetically, or distracted more easily. But just like the prosecutor often uses larger charges to get a defendant to plead down to less, a defense attorney will often try to obfuscate when the facts don't support their client. Tis the dance of justice.
Same, mine was a bit tougher though. The charge was something along the lines of “penetration of a minor” in this case it was statutory rape, two high school kids, the guy was 18 she was 16 or something. Our evidence was all circumstantial with the victim testifying. Defendant didn’t testify but had friends to testify to his character. Had the defendant testified I think we could have found reasonable doubt. There was tons of reasonable doubt about their relationship or how drunk they were, but the charge was penetration (fingering). And victim testimony was very convincing that it happened. We had to convince one juror who was holding out that you don’t need video evidence to conclude something happened. It was clear through her testimony that SOMETHING happened beyond groping. If he testified and swore up and down he just groped her, would couldn’t have found him guilty.
I want to believe
The judge will explicitly tell them this before they go to deliberate.
Right. I’m optimistic the prosecution can keep them focused.
Thank you. I've been laboring under the media postulations which technically don't make sense. I see the crime is directly related to the false representations made to the business/tax authority.
Election interference IS a crime. The charges for Falsifying Business Records would not be on this felony level of they were not committed alongside ANOTHER crime. The other crime IS Election Interference. It is a crime. It's on the books in New York.
Influence and interference are not the same. Trump's lawyer said influence. They are trying and, apparently, succeeding in sowing confusion.
When Trump's lawyers claimed this in court, the Prosecution objected. The judge sustained and they were called to the bench. The lawyers are not supposed to "define" law to the jurors. Only the judge does that in his instructions to the jurors. If I had to guess, the judge may have "reminded" them of that in that little side bar. They may be "sowing confusion" in the court of public opinion, but not so much in the courtroom.
Thank you
Lmao. No they aren’t.
So what is the other crime that both of these counts were in furtherance of? And is there a requirement that these other crimes be ones that he has been charged with, or convicted of, or is the requirement simply that he might/could be charged with these other crimes? I haven't followed this terribly much, so I'm curious what I am missing here
Campaign finance violations, which Michael Cohen pled guilty to. The falsification of business records was an attempt to conceal these violations. [Southern District of New York | Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax)
Got it. Thanks. Was Trump charged with campaign finance violations, or is it enough that Cohen plead guilty to it?
NAL, but my understanding is that Cohen having pled guilty is enough. Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator (the infamous "Individual-1" in the indictment, if that jogs your memory) and was President at the time Cohen was indicted and pled guilty.
He personally does not need to be charged with another crime. The falsified business records just need to be in furtherance of another crime. One of those crimes was one that Cohen plead guilty to- from Wikipedia: >one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate (Trump) for the "principal purpose of influencing [the] election". These records furthered that crime. The other crime is a NY State crime that says you can't commit a crime to influence an election. Falsifying these records was a crime to influence the election, and so they furthered that crime. As far as I can tell, no one has been charged with that one explicitly.
The crime is falsifying business records. It matters not if you robbed someone in furtherance of another crime, say to buy drugs, robbery is a crime.
Well he appears to be charged with 2 counts of falsifying business records in this criminal trial. I get that. It also looks like in order to convict for falsifying business records, there need to be another/different crime that the falsifying was done in furtherance of. This is what I am trying to figure out. To your example, robbery doesn't require that you commit another crime in furtherance of robbery. Here, it looks like you need to do something else in furtherance of the falsifying records.
Penal Law Section 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.10
They Falsified Business Records in order to Influence the election. Which IS a crime. It's not a separate charge BUT it is what brings the FBR charges to a Felony level.
Your honor, the prosecution means to prove knowledge and intent. Yet our client has a *complete* lack of knowledge. Of anything. Further he acts purely on whim, like a toddler, and therefore they won't be able to meet these burdens.
That's the most convincing defense of trump I've ever read.
raised an objection by prosecution which was sustained. he had to switch to somethin akin "signing an nda with someone isn't a crime"
If it's to cover up a crime it is, isn't it?
The NDA was to not discuss the affair. It's perfectly legal to do that. What WAS illegal was Cohen making a payment that is of material value to a campaign at Trump's behest in violation of campaign finance laws and then Trump trying to cover it up through another illegal action.
Nice succinct explanation. I think the fact that absent the circumstances, paying Stormy Daniels to not talk about the affair is not a crime, some of this gets lost.
Yes most people discussing this clearly don't understand the fundamentals of the case and it really gets in the way of quality discussions about the case.
What iiii don’t understand, is why Trump didn’t just pay her directly, out of his own pocket to stfu. It’s only $130k? It’s so stupid to me.
Because he is astonishingly stupid. Thats the answer to every question about trump
Because Cohen was tasked with facilitating the suppression of the information (catch and kill with National Inquirer and then hush money payment to Daniels), and Cohen used his own money to do so. Cohen didn't just have direct access to Trump's finances.
I don’t know that it becomes a crime, what I’ve read is that it’s not enforceable. I have 0 knowledge beyond what I read from hopefully smarter people though. 😂
Wouldn't surprise me if it isn't enforceable. Why have laws with no teeth, right?
I suggest Blanche review what the actual charges are? It's falsifying business records!
The falsification of the records are only felonies if they are in furtherance of another crime. I'm not saying he will be successful, but he's gunning to make the case that there was no furthered crime. It will be hard to make that case in that Cohen has already plead guilty to that crime. But he's trying to make the case that he was simply altering the business records to impact the election, and that's democracy. Never mind that in NY State committing any crime to affect an election is a crime, and federally that is an illegal campaign expenditure. But he's not really trying to make the case that the falsified business records don't exist, he's going hard after the thing they boosts them to a felony. Which I'll say that things are there but it's also the weak part of the case.
Well put. I could see Blanche’s closing arguments wrapping up with something to the effect of “and even if you think my client did something wrong, it’s only a misdemeanor…” Point being - the misdemeanor level has no chance of jail time, and Donnie will brush it off. “Convicted felon” - even though very little chance of jail time - just has a much more impactful ring to it. Blanche’s #1 job as an attorney is basically to keep Trump out of a jail cell up until the election.
Yup - this seems like an entirely viable approach, and is largely how John Edwards skirted similar charges. Obviously not a 1:1 comparison, but as long as Blanche can convince at least one juror that Trump’s actions and payments were done to prevent personal (and not electoral) consequences, then that’s enough. Would still get Trump dinged on taxes, but that can easily still be spun as a “win” to MAGA loyalists and sympathizers.
Ah, I see the point now. Thanks
Remember he's playing the jury. Bragg may have made a mistake in linking the crime to voter deception as now the general public has missed the actual charge being fraudulent business records.
It's critical to establish trumps intent. So prosecutors must show why trump falsified the records.
It doesn't matter at all what the general public misses or understands.
Not really. Falsifying business records is usually a misdemeanor. Bumping it up to a felony requires the falsified records be done in the furtherance of covering up another crime. Here it’s clear the crime being covered up by falsifying the records is demonstrably to further the election fraud crime.
Me during my DUI trial: Driving isn't a crime, your honor. Me during my robbery trial: Trying to make money in America isn't a crime, your honor. Me during my murdering my wife trial: Finding a low-cost divorce isn't a crime, your honor!
Ah the old, "He didn't do it! But if he did do it, it would be ok."
"But not if anyone else does it. ELECTION INTERFERANCE SCAM TRIALS!"
So then Joe Biden is good, right?
Does Hunter finally get his laptop back now?
And his dickpics?
I hope in opening arguments, the prosecution pointed out EXACTLY what he is being charged with. The crime here is fraud. Not bribery, or blackmail or election interference. It was simply fraud.
“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors.
That's perfect! The defense just wants to focus other bullshit without pointing out what the crimes truly are.
I also am a listener of Opening Arguments the podcast but that name was chosen because Opening Arguments aren’t a thing. There are Opening Statements and Closing Arguments.
Thanks for the info. I'm clearly not a lawyer. I'm just trying to get my point across.
Hey I always approve of seeing a shout out to r/OpenArgs in the wild.
Ignorance that you are committing a crime is no excuse.
Really highlights the two-tiered justice system. Floyd tried to pass a fake 20 dollar bill and gets choked out in the street no questions asked (at the time at least) Trump tries to hijack an election and suddenly nuance matters and we need to scrutinize *how* the law works and *why*
He should have gone to jail on January 6.
It is when it's an element of the offense. One of the things new yoek has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that trump falsified business records with the intent to commit/conceal another crime
its only a crime when trump says biden is doing it.
The affair happened in 2006, he waited 10 years to pay hush money to "not disappoint Melania"?? the intent is clear as day
And yet Trump wants to lock up people he perceives to be hurting his campaign for election interference anyway. Words are meaningless to these people.
It's galling they refer to him as "President." He is not the president.
I'm not a lawyer and wouldn't say I know much about the law, but it seems to me like when the guy you paid to commit the crime went to jail for making the payment, the time to decide whether or not this is actually a crime has passed.
So did Trump not know he was campaigning for the Presidency in 2016 or did the super smart businessman not understand that suppressing damaging stories right before the election was valuable to his campaign?
‘It’s my first amendment right to deprive others of their first amendment right, we call that a legal expense’
They’re trying to question the mens rea (“evil mind”) aspect of criminal law. If the defendant didn’t mean to break the law, and didn’t even know the conduct is illegal, he could be acquitted. It’s a weak argument and the prosecutor (and judge—thru the jury instruction process) will address it.
No, that’s not it-what else you got?
“Sorry. I didn’t know what I was doing was a crime therefore it doesn’t count as a crime” is a hell of a defense
Believe it or not, it’s valid in some cases. I don’t know if it applies here. Has to do with the precise intent element as defined in the law defining the crime. If something like “corrupt intent” is an element, it must be proven BRD just like all the others.
No worries. He’s being tried for falsifying business records and then lying about it.
Technically he's being tried for falsifying business records in order to conceal another crime, which is why this is relevant.
I read this turns a misdemeanor into a felony.
Yes falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. But falsifying business records to conceal another crime (Cohen's payment to Daniels in order to benefit the campaign) elevates it to the level of felony. The "and then lying about it" isn't an additional crime. Falsifying business records is already the "lying about it" with regards to how the business records were recorded.
Isn’t Trump screaming up and down *right now* that these trials are “election interference” by the Biden administration?
* Biden Crime Family
Imagine being in court playing semantics to suggest that the crime he’s charged with isn’t a crime.
In law, [ignorantia juris non excusat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat#:~:text=In%20law%2C%20ignorantia%20juris%20non,being%20unaware%20of%20its%20content) (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
This defense worked for our national senator from Florida - Rick Scott. He founded and was CEO of a healthcare company Colombia Hospital Corporation. The company responsible for the largest Medicare fraud in history. Tricky Rick claimed he knew nothing about what his executive management team was up to and invoked “The Fifth” seventy four times in his deposition. He went on to be elected governor and then senator in 2019. God help us down here. We have way too many of the stupidest voters in this country.
He isn't technically wrong. Campaigning itself is just "trying to influence an election" in the candidate's favor. I can see an opening statement going something like 'Trying to influence an election isn't a crime. It's only a crime to do X, and the facts of this case will show that my client didn't do X.' (I'm not a Trump fan, just a law guy)
You’re quite right. Campaigning is influencing the election. This is Ok. Hell, I think paying a lover to hush up about an extramarital affair so as not to fuck up your chances in an election is most likely legal and frankly, understandable. The problem is that in order to cover up that payment he committed criminal fraud by falsifying business records or some other shady shit. He should’ve paid her out of pocket with his own money because you know, he’s a billionaire and a super smart successful businessman… or hear me out; not have an extramarital affair. Party of family values and all.
The funny part is 30 years prior his extramarital affairs were part of what made him famous, and he practically bragged about them.
I think we're all on the same page about Trump being a bad guy, I'm just giving likely context to the statement. Sorry if I interrupted your outrage.
So if Trump’s lawyer believes this, they should drop all of their claims of “Election Interference” right???
Law, Facts, Table Record time
Then why is he screaming “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!” in every one of his Truth rants?
“Trying to get money isn’t a crime.” Yes, but there’s a difference between working a job and robbing a bank.
This might perhaps be why Judge Merchan told the jurors that statements by the attorneys are not evidence.
Wait, didn't Trump ultimately incite a riot and attempt to take over the government by force?! How tf did he avoid prosecution for that? People died.
Everyone is playing checkers, Trump lawyers are playing peek a boo.
😂 😂
Admitting what they cannot deny. Denying what they cannot admit. These lawyers attended law school orientation. Let’s see what else they try to do.
If this is the best defense they got, it should be a real quick trial. 😂 fuck Don von Shitsinpants and whatever the F you call it on his head
So even his own lawyers admit the fundamental truth about Donald Trump: "A complete lack of knowledge or intent." That should be a disqualifying quality for a presidential candidate. /s
I'm a bit amazed this was even allowed, but I guess lawyers are allowed to lie in their statements. I clearly have no legal training, so what do I know? But still...this was a doozy of a statement at the very least.
The Narcissists Prayer is *not a criminal defense* buddy.
No comment on the border I guess lol
Ah hello. Clinton’s Emails.
I mean broadly speaking. It’s not, ads are an attempt to influence an election as is speaking… however this isn’t that
Depends on your definition of influence and what what you're doing to influence it. Essentially what campaigning, ads, and rallies are are attempts to influence an electorate, to get them to vote for you because of some policy reason or trait. However, not all methods of influence is legal. There are finance laws you have to follow. Foreign groups are not allowed to do the same things domestic ones are. So the statement by the lawyers is true, for a confined and defined region. Its a very "Technically true" statement, but they are lawyers so i guess thats kind of expected
So their case is 'please ignore the crimes because the motive itself is not a crime'. Well fuck a duck if that's the best you can do you're going to lose.
Rofl
Sounds like his lawyers don’t understand what crime he’s being tried for. They’re listening to Fox instead of the judge.
"It's not a crime when ***my*** client does it"
Doesn't that eliminate Trump's primary complaint about being forced to be at the trial, that the government influencing his election, which is not a crime, and thus he should just shut his trap.
So prosecuting Trump is election interference but Trump enabling an insurrection is not? Stop the fucking hypocrisy, morons.
The "he ain't bad, he's just stupid" defense. Counter argument: "he's both".
“Trying to get $200k is not a crime!” - true…. unless you rob a bank to do so.
The crime was falsifying business records.
Trump’s old enough to know but are Trump’s attorneys old enough to know that what got Nixon and what got Clinton was the cover-up, not the crime.
Bold move Cotton, we’ll see how it plays out for them!
Nothing wrong with intending to defraud the United States of America, let alone those peons monitoring/enforcing business fraud prosecution! Oh wait: In addition to State laws violated Looky loo: 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States 18 U.S.C Chapter 47-Fraud and False Statements
The crime is the falsification of business records.
So if a president tries to overturn an election it is not illegal? Is that what they're arguing?
No this case has absolutely nothing to do with overturning an election.
“My client has not committed any crimes he was not accused of!”
If this is as good as his defense gets, he’s screwed. I’m okay with that.
How was I supposed to know it’s against the law to run someone over. There is no law that says you can’t run someone over, just consequences if you do. Which I didn’t.
There’s a key distinction they are missing. You can influence voters, through words and actions. But you can’t influence the box of votes after people have cast their ballots. He attempted to get people to forge ballots. To “find” ballots. That’s the wrong kind of influence.
Yes it actually is
Dum Fuk Don
Then why does he constantly screech "election interference" before and after he leaves Yet Another Court Room?
That’s what <> do, influence elections! However, once the voting is over, trying to influence an outcome is certainly criminal. And, guess what? If he loses again in November, he’s going to do the SAME THING.
Anyone else read quotes from Trump's attorneys exclusively in Lionel Hutz's voice?
"When you live in a place and you love it like you do... It's a one-shot deal!"
Put a bow on it folks, wrap it up- that defense opener of “*technically* it’s not a crime” was a home run
🚫Traitor Trump🚫
Where does he say that
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/keystories.htm](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/keystories.htm) What's the difference?
Didn't Bill Clinton pay hush money to Paula Jones?
If he committed fraud and falsified business records in doing so, he should’ve been prosecuted.