GUILTY

[driewerf]

It is not clear what made this an election violation. Remember not all jururs had to agree on the crimes. They were given a smorgasbord to choose from. That is not unanimous, it is just accepted anyway.
This "hush money" case, was about a legal non disclosure agreement which STORMY VIOLATED

Yes it is clear what made this en election violation: the falsification of business records.
This has been so from the beginning. But apparently Trump supporters can't process this tiny little bit of information. F.a.l.s.i.f.i.c.a.t.i.o.n o.f b.u.s.i.n.e.s.s. r.e.c.o.r.d.s. NOT an NDA.

 

[ralliann]

Yes it is clear what made this en election violation: the falsification of business records.
This has been so from the beginning. But apparently Trump supporters can't process this tiny little bit of information. F.a.l.s.i.f.i.c.a.t.i.o.n o.f b.u.s.i.n.e.s.s. r.e.c.o.r.d.s. NOT an NDA.

They took a dead misdemeanor and resurrected it to a felony BASED UPON A SECONDARY CRIME. We do not know what crime that the jury found for this secondary crime that this case is about..

AND, this leads to the question, how can one prepare a defense when the crime is unclear? Or the crime is a smorgasbord of ideas? And if this secondary crime was unanimously found.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They took a dead misdemeanor and resurrected it to a felony BASED UPON A SECONDARY CRIME. We do not know what crime that the jury found for this secondary crime that this case is about..

AND, this leads to the question, how can one prepare a defense when the crime is unclear? Or the crime is a smorgasbord of ideas? And if this secondary crime was unanimously found.

The secondary crime was quite clearly explained in the jury instructions, beginning on page 30:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24703898/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-jury-instructions.pdf

 

[ralliann]

As I posted yesterday when this was brought up in another thread:

There were three "unlawful means" that the prosecution put forward. The jurors still had to agree unanimously that Trump conspired to promote an election by "unlawful means".

And what were those unlawful means? What is the crime?

It had absolutely nothing to do with Ms. Daniels' NDA.

It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense, as most such agreements are. What is the unlawfulness in this?

 

[rturner76]

It's too late. We're everywhere. Mwa ha ha.

I believe it. One anecdote...My sister bought a house in a quasi-retirement community. Not a 55+ condo but a neighborhood wth many retirees in it (actually that has nothing to do with the story but it's a quiet place with a lot of American flags flying around the neighborhood. Anyway, She and her husband were doing yard work when a neighbor approached. They had been friendly with small talk but they weren't friends per say. So the neighbor asked here literally, "Do you think Donald Trump is going to be the savior of America?" Her husband rudely blurts out "I would believe that if I was crazy." The neighbor has not spoken to either one since. So "you" are everywhere in my personal once-removed experience. The neighbor had a look of surprise and was speechless so it made me think, there must be a whole crowd of people that think this way if these people weren't aware that seeing a President as a savior is a "normal" way of thinking. I guess in some places, it is.

 

[wing2000]

The worst people I've ever met in my life have been, to a person, conservative Christians. Christians are calling the Sermon on the Mount "weak". Christians are calling Donald Trump a "messiah".

Who in the Christian community is speaking out on this?

....that is one of the problems in "Evangelical America" -- there is not "authority". -- anything goes.

 

[ralliann]

The secondary crime was quite clearly explained in the jury instructions, beginning on page 30:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24703898/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-jury-instructions.pdf

Not quite clear........
They need not be unanimously unlawful means were.....

They do not need to agree on the secondary CRIME.....
Quote.....
“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were."

Yet it is this secondary crime that not only resurrected a dead misdemeanor, as well as elevate it to Felony....

 

[wing2000]

Not quite clear........
They need not be unanimously unlawful means were.....

They do not need to agree on the secondary CRIME.....
Quote.....
“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were."

In accordance with New York State law.

 

[FaithT]

I don't see hatred and love as being mutually exclusive. Typically, hatred is the product of feeling betrayed. I think most people don't like Trump because, as a narcissist, he relies on slandering those who openly disagree with him, and he has shown the ability to manipulate people through this deception, into following his lead.

I wonder how many Trump supporters actually realize that Trump is only for them as long as they’re kissing his hiney? This same man would turn on them faster than anything as soon as they disagree with him about anything. Trump doesn't care about anybody except himself.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not quite clear........
They need not be unanimously unlawful means were.....

They do not need to agree on the secondary CRIME.....

“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

The exact nature of the unlawful means is irrelevant to the actual crime being charged - the crime is not "Conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by violation of campaign finance laws (or falsification of business records, or violation of tax laws)". So long as the members of the jury agree that Trump conspired to use unlawful means in order to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office, he is guilty.

The prosecution presented three different theories of "unlawful means" that the jury could consider, for which evidence was presented and which the defense was permitted to rebut. Unanimity on the nature of the unlawful means was not required because Trump was not being criminally charged for any of them. That is how the law is written. I agree that it's perhaps not completely intuitive, but sometimes that how the law works. Your lack of understanding does not invalidate it though.

Side note: this is why people argue about the specific wording of laws - if they're not written in such a way to be crystal clear in their scope and intent, conflict over the precise meanings can arise down the road.

It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense, as most such agreements are. What is the unlawfulness in this?

1. A payment to another party in an NDA would not be correctly classified as a "legal expense". Ms. Daniels provided no legal services to Mr. Trump (or Mr. Cohen), nor did she incur any expenses in the pursuit of providing legal services.

2. The money paid to Cohen was a reimbursement for his payment towards that NDA - which is still not a legal expense. If your lawyer makes you a cake, he cannot bill you for the material costs or his time as a "legal expense" simply because he is a lawyer. Cohen could certainly charge his time in drafting the NDA as a legal expense, as well as any time spent collaborating with Ms. Daniels' lawyers on the subject, but him fronting the payment to Daniels is NOT a legal expense.

 

[ralliann]

In accordance with New York State law.

Election crimes are FEDERAL. This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?

 

[ralliann]

I wonder how many Trump supporters actually realize that Trump is only for them as long as they’re kissing his hiney? This same man would turn on them faster than anything as soon as they disagree with him about anything. Trump doesn't care about anybody except himself.

This is about our justice system which should be important to all of us.

 

[FaithT]

This is about our justice system which should be important to all of us.

It is important. And our justice system worked.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense,

Excuse me. Was Stormy Daniels representing Trump in court or something? That is not a legal expense.

What is the unlawfulness in this?

What Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Election crimes are FEDERAL.

States can and do have election laws as well.

This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?

Repeating the same incorrect claims does not make them true. Multiple people have explained to you that you are wrong about this.

 

[Green Sun]

Election crimes are FEDERAL. This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?

Michael Cohen's charges and conviction were for violating federal campaign finance law. Those occurred in the Federal Court System.

Trump's charges were falsification of business records, with the intent of covering up Cohen's crimes. That was a violation of New York State law, which does not allow one to falsify business records to cover up a crime.

Does that make sense? Working to cover up a different crime is also a crime, and in this case, that coverup of a federal election crime violated a New York State law about businesses and their financial records.

 

[Nithavela]

His enemies may be laughing at him ...
but his supporters are praying for him, and contributing money to his campaign.

Of course they are. Trumps supporters start donating reflexively every time Donald has an Ouchie.

 

[FaithT]

Now Trump was talking about Cohen and said that he couldn’t mention him by name because of the gag order (maybe he said everybody knows who he’s talking about), he called him a sleezebag. I wonder if that violates the gag order? He’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now Trump was talking about Cohen and said that he couldn’t mention him by name because of the gag order (maybe he said everybody knows who he’s talking about), he called him a sleezebag. I wonder if that violates the gag order? He’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut.

I was initially surprised it's still in effect, since the jury has done its job, but of course part of the reason for it was the danger.

Trump Still Under Gag Order: Can’t Comment On Jury, Witnesses After Conviction​

Legal expert Norm Eisen said on a call with reporters Friday that “risk continues for the witnesses” and jurors in the case, given the threats or harassment they could face as a result of their verdict and testimony, predicting, “I don’t think the judge is going to be quick to remove that gag order.”

retired New York state Judge Michael Obus told reporters he doesn’t believe the gag order will last past Trump’s sentencing on July 11, as at that point, “the case would be over.”

 

[Green Sun]

Now Trump was talking about Cohen and said that he couldn’t mention him by name because of the gag order (maybe he said everybody knows who he’s talking about), he called him a sleezebag. I wonder if that violates the gag order? He’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut.

It'd almost be easier to count the times he hasn't violated the gag orders he's been under - It's wild to think about how much leeway he's been given for flagrantly refusing to cooperate. He's given so many second chances, but he'll constantly whine about how he's being treated unfairly.

Meanwhile, if I was some random joe charged with a crime right now, I'd feel like Convicted Felon Donald Trump just always got more wiggle room than me.