Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York

[Agema]

Instead, they have the most comical legal theory ever contrived.
The conviction is for felony falsification of documents... which is only a felony if it has the intent to defraud to aid or conceal another crime... and the other crime is to conspire to promote Trump's election... which is also not a crime unless it is specifically pursued by illegal means... and the "illegal means" they use to justify that includes falsifying business documents... So if the falsification alone isn't a crime they can charge him with, they don't have a crime to make it illegal promotion of an election, which makes the falsification not a felony, which makes it beyond the statute of limitations, which makes it not a crime they can charge him with.

I would agree that this case is odd, and the construction is unusual which I am sure will garner significant attention from higher courts. However, I am not sure that your argument is anything like as strong as you present - it seems more like playing with technicalities than the DA's case!

1) Crime A is a misdemeanour unless connected to another crime in which case it's a felony. Crime B is trying to do X by illegal means. So if someone attempts to do X by Crime A, then both Crime B applies, and Crime A is a felony. Sounds reasonable.

2) Something being outside the statute of limitations does not mean that it was not illegal. It means someone cannot be specifically prosecuted for it.

Let's say someone commits a crime A and the statute of limitations has passed. However, that Crime A is then found out to be part of a wider crime, B, that is within its time limit. They cannot specifically prosecute someone for Crime A, but they absolutely can take the evidence of Crime A to a courtroom to present before a jury for its relevance to Crime B, and the jury absolutely can decide as part of their reasoning that A was illegal with reference to Crime B.

So, now just put (1) and (2) together...

Which doesn't matter, cause a jury in New York all know that their lives are ruined if they don't convict Donald Trump, which is why venue changes for trials exist, which was denied here, which is the easiest way to throw out this conviction.

I get this reflex reaction, but I think it's uglier and less wise than you might think.

Firstly, it's incredibly unpleasant to casually defame 12 people you know nothing about except their place of residence: you are essentially arguing that they are all unethical. That reflects more on you than it does on them. And not just those 12 but all New Yorkers and possibly Democrat voters, to suggest the entire city cannot supply 12 fair-minded jurors, even with a selection process designed to weed out bias. In that sense, your comment is a morass of prejudice and divisiveness that's a lot of the USA's problem these days.

Furthermore, you could also consider other factors. Such as that credit might go to the prosecutor for laying out what appears to be a very clear and cohesive narrative, thus making what was hardly a slam-dunk into a convincing story. And in contrast that the defence lawyers may have done a very poor job at defending their client.

 

[Kwak]

Which doesn't matter, cause a jury in New York all know that their lives are ruined if they don't convict Donald Trump,

What conspiracy bullshit is this you're trying to sneak into the conversation?

 

[tstorm823]

Yeah, he just happened to ask them to find the exact number of votes he needed to flip the state. Nothing suspicious about that.

It's not suspicious. He wanted to win. He wanted them to find an amount of fraud greater than the margin needed to win.

But the thing he said is "I just need to find this many votes". And it gets characterized as "I need you to find this many votes for me", which is the same in meaning at face value but has a very different undertone. It's not a secret conspiracy that Trump wanted to win and was looking to challenge aspects of the election in order to overcome the vote difference, but that's not illegal, Democrats do that every time they lose, and when you put that much of your life into an election I'm not going to blame anyone for being thorough. The thing that makes is sound underhanded isn't that he's trying to find enough votes to win, but that he was asking the officials to "find" [nudge nudge wink wink] enough votes for him to win, but he didn't even phrase it that way to read that undertone, which is why you end up with headlines like this where only the word find is quoted:

Trump, in Taped Call, Pressured Georgia Official to ‘Find’ Votes to Overturn Election (Published 2021)

The president vaguely warned of a “criminal offense” as he pressured Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the call, according to an audio recording.

www.nytimes.com

1) Crime A is a misdemeanour unless connected to another crime in which case it's a felony. Crime B is trying to do X by illegal means. So if someone attempts to do X by Crime A, then both Crime B applies, and Crime A is a felony. Sounds reasonable.

It's genuinely difficult to put into words the exact mechanisms here, because it's so convoluted, but this description is slightly off. The charge is not upgraded to a felony because it was performing another crime, but because it was concealing it. The election promoting alleged was the payment to Daniels, which nobody has disputed the actual legality of. If Trump had paid Cohen and marked it as a campaign expense, there would be no charge here. Thus the argument becomes that the document falsification is a felony because it was meant to conceal itself. And like, all of this requires intent (and only intent for that matter), so we're meant to conclude that they falsified those documents with the end goal of concealing that the were falsifying those exact documents, because otherwise the thing they were hiding was legal.

And this is all without talking about this just being one of the possible concealed crimes, when they went with "here's three crimes he might have committed and was concealing, he hasn't been charged for any of them, we don't have to prove he committed any of them, and you don't all have to agree on which one you think he did, so long as you all agree he committed some crime that they were conspiring with intent to hide."

And not just those 12 but all New Yorkers and possibly Democrat voters, to suggest the entire city cannot supply 12 fair-minded jurors, even with a selection process designed to weed out bias. In that sense, your comment is a morass of prejudice and divisiveness that's a lot of the USA's problem these days.

It's not that they aren't fair minded, it's not even an accusation of bias, I'm willing to bet they're mostly fair-minded and probably a couple even like Trump. It's that their lives as they know it would be over. They're not gonna be murdered, America's not that far gone, but if they acquitted Trump, they would be found out who they are and hunted down and harassed. An army of internet people would be contacting their places of employment demanding they be fired. Most of the people here would celebrate the campaign against them, Brawlman would personally demand they be hanged. They can no longer live or work in New York City, all of their social media needs to be deleted, their life as they knew it is gone. And all it takes to avoid this is not getting stuck on details like "beyond a reasonable doubt", and agree to those plausible enough charges, and anyone on that jury with the right knowledge and understanding to know the charges are ridiculous also knows the courts will correct it anyway. So either give the legal authorities what they want and let it be their problem to sort out, or put yourself and everyone you love in danger.

 

[Worgen]

It's not suspicious. He wanted to win. He wanted them to find an amount of fraud greater than the margin needed to win.

And when a mob boss whanted someone killed he always would say "kill this guy" never something like "I want so and so gone."

 

[tstorm823]

And when a mob boss whanted someone killed he always would say "kill this guy" never something like "I want so and so gone."

You can't possibly believe Trump has that level of subtlety.

 

[Worgen]

The Muller report absolutely said he was guilty

He was guilty of covering up crimes that his underlings commited to benefit the Trump campaign. 37 criminals went to jail over the Muller report and Trump tried to stop anyone finding out about them

The Muller report stated that Trump never ASKED any of these 37 people to commit crimes. Trump was only involved aftee the crimes were commited

It wasnt a not guilty result at all. Fox and friends just made up what the Muller report was about and pretended Trump wasn't guilty

No, it said he was "not, not guilty" it means he was guilty, but as I said, Muller was working under the legal theory that he could only find trump 'not guilty.' And that congress had to take it from there.

 

[Worgen]

You can't possibly believe Trump has that level of subtlety.

Its very well known that trump styles himself a mob boss. He is known as the teflon don for a reason, hes actually been really good at avoiding consequences for his crimes. Either by making cases drag on forever, or having enough layers between him and those he has actually do the crimes, or by paying just enough to not make it worth pursuing further.

 

[Bedinsis]

An army of internet people would be contacting their places of employment demanding they be fired. Most of the people here would celebrate the campaign against them, Brawlman would personally demand they be hanged.

I call complete baloney on this.

They can no longer live or work in New York City, all of their social media needs to be deleted, their life as they knew it is gone. And all it takes to avoid this is not getting stuck on details like "beyond a reasonable doubt", and agree to those plausible enough charges, and anyone on that jury with the right knowledge and understanding to know the charges are ridiculous also knows the courts will correct it anyway.

What sort of special knowledge do you sit on that would somehow supersede what the jury has access to?

 

[Agema]

It's genuinely difficult to put into words the exact mechanisms here, because it's so convoluted, but this description is slightly off. The charge is not upgraded to a felony because it was performing another crime, but because it was concealing it. The election promoting alleged was the payment to Daniels, which nobody has disputed the actual legality of. If Trump had paid Cohen and marked it as a campaign expense, there would be no charge here. Thus the argument becomes that the document falsification is a felony because it was meant to conceal itself. And like, all of this requires intent (and only intent for that matter), so we're meant to conclude that they falsified those documents with the end goal of concealing that the were falsifying those exact documents, because otherwise the thing they were hiding was legal.

Again, I think you're attempting to contort this more than actually requires. Falsifying business records in the manner accused is a crime. The question here is whether it is a misdemeanour or a felony. There is a NY law that, at face value, justifies it being a felony. When this reasoning was put before the judge and jury, they were satisfied. An appeals court may disagree, and that would be its prerogative.

I am not unsympathetic to the unusual stitching together of these two laws into a case, and I would not be shocked if an appeals court decided to unpick it. I am not unsympathetic to the relatively trivial issue here of attempting to cover up an affair, and that Trump never imagined he was committing a felony but just a misdemeanour. But - and it's a big but - Trump has behaved as a crook (again). What you and others are arguing is not that he wasn't crooked, but for various legal technicalities, he should have got away with it. There is something distinctly unsatisfying about that, especially when deployed as grounds to vote that crook into the presidency.

It's not that they aren't fair minded, it's not even an accusation of bias, I'm willing to bet they're mostly fair-minded and probably a couple even like Trump. It's that their lives as they know it would be over. They're not gonna be murdered, America's not that far gone, but if they acquitted Trump, they would be found out who they are and hunted down and harassed.

I suggest that you are grossly exaggerating the extent to which Americans will not tolerate jurors making their rulings. They may face some harassment, but that's hardly only in-state (you could for instance contend with the incitement of national right-wing media against jurors they didn't like the look of). You are also, even unintentionally, laying the groundwork to dispute jury trials full stop, and you might want to think about whether that's what you really want.

 

[Agema]

But the thing he said is "I just need to find this many votes". And it gets characterized as "I need you to find this many votes for me", which is the same in meaning at face value but has a very different undertone. It's not a secret conspiracy that Trump wanted to win and was looking to challenge aspects of the election in order to overcome the vote difference, but that's not illegal, Democrats do that every time they lose, and when you put that much of your life into an election I'm not going to blame anyone for being thorough. The thing that makes is sound underhanded isn't that he's trying to find enough votes to win, but that he was asking the officials to "find" [nudge nudge wink wink] enough votes for him to win, but he didn't even phrase it that way to read that undertone, which is why you end up with headlines like this where only the word find is quoted:

What about the bit where he asks for the Georgia administration to give the Presidential team a load of data, and when told it would be illegal, he just tells them they need to do it anyway?

This is sort of indicative of the call. The state of Georgia has laws and processes, which have been put into effect. At the point the President is arranging a private call with the state administration to effectively get them to intervene by browbeating, cajoling and even threatening them it is underhanded. It was not a rational, "evidence-based" discussion, it was an attempt to exert pressure in a manner which in my professional workplace would be considered deeply inappropriate.

 

[Silvanus]

Because irony is dead, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has decried how political opponents like Trump are unlawfully eliminated in America.

Peskov's boss, of course, ordered the imprisonment, forced labour, and poisoning of their main opponent, until he was finally found dead in a state-run Siberian slave camp.

 

[tstorm823]

Its very well known that trump styles himself a mob boss. He is known as the teflon don for a reason, hes actually been really good at avoiding consequences for his crimes. Either by making cases drag on forever, or having enough layers between him and those he has actually do the crimes, or by paying just enough to not make it worth pursuing further.

The Teflon Don was an actual mobster. You are the first person I have heard apply that moniker to Trump.

I call complete baloney on this.

Then you haven't been paying attention to what people say here. There were calls for capital punishment for 14 year old girls who got in a fight at school.

What you and others are arguing is not that he wasn't crooked, but for various legal technicalities, he should have got away with it.

On the contrary, he is going to "get away with it" because they don't pursue the right charges, and are instead focused on political disruption. Id be more than happy with the proper pursuit of justice.

There is something distinctly unsatisfying about that, especially when deployed as grounds to vote that crook into the presidency.

The person of Trump is dissatisfying. The idea that all 4 estates can move against a single person and the people's vote still wins is a testament to the durability of American representative government.

I suggest that you are grossly exaggerating the extent to which Americans will not tolerate jurors making their rulings. They may face some harassment, but that's hardly only in-state (you could for instance contend with the incitement of national right-wing media against jurors they didn't like the look of). You are also, even unintentionally, laying the groundwork to dispute jury trials full stop, and you might want to think about whether that's what you really want.

There are procedures to relocate trials specifically for circumstances where the defendant cannot possibly have a fair trial, I'm hardly questioning the system more than it questions itself.

What about the bit where he asks for the Georgia administration to give the Presidential team a load of data, and when told it would be illegal, he just tells them they need to do it anyway?

This is sort of indicative of the call. The state of Georgia has laws and processes, which have been put into effect. At the point the President is arranging a private call with the state administration to effectively get them to intervene by browbeating, cajoling and even threatening them it is underhanded. It was not a rational, "evidence-based" discussion, it was an attempt to exert pressure in a manner which in my professional workplace would be considered deeply inappropriate.

You mean he was acting like a normal Democrat?

 

[Schadrach]

either Turmp win next election, in which case everything will be discarded

Why's that again? Worst case would be it being deferred - it'd be weird to be President as a work-release program and they'd probably defer any unpaid fines until end of term out of respect for the office. It's not like he could even hypothetically pardon himself, though whatever the process for pardons in NY is could apply (most states let the Governor issue pardons, but there are a few that don't and I don't know offhand which NY is).

Amusingly, Florida's rules for whether or not felons can vote mean that he uses New York's rules for whether felons can vote - Florida uses the rules regarding voting from wherever the charges originated from, rather than the "must have completed all of your sentence including any fines" that Florida uses for Florida charges.

Should add, that will probably help him in the next election, people love underdog and rebel, him getting guilty over what a lot of people will consider technicality will just help his case.

Looking at right-wing social media, there are a lot of folks declaring that the trial was a farce and an abomination of justice and that they're going to vote for Trump because of it. How many actually do, and weren't already going to vote for Trump remains to be seen.

Peskov's boss, of course, ordered the imprisonment, forced labour, and poisoning of their main opponent, until he was finally found dead in a state-run Siberian slave camp.

Wouldn't the classic defenestration have been simpler?

The Teflon Don was an actual mobster. You are the first person I have heard apply that moniker to Trump.

Not even close to the first time I've heard it used for him, hell Epic Rap Battles of History even used it in their election episode last election:

 

[Hades]

Trump has little reason to complain. I'd be trilled if I did a coup but the only thing I suffered punishment for was chicanery about paying off a porn star.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I get this reflex reaction, but I think it's uglier and less wise than you might think.

Firstly, it's incredibly unpleasant to casually defame 12 people you know nothing about except their place of residence: you are essentially arguing that they are all unethical. That reflects more on you than it does on them. And not just those 12 but all New Yorkers and possibly Democrat voters, to suggest the entire city cannot supply 12 fair-minded jurors, even with a selection process designed to weed out bias. In that sense, your comment is a morass of prejudice and divisiveness that's a lot of the USA's problem these days.

Furthermore, you could also consider other factors. Such as that credit might go to the prosecutor for laying out what appears to be a very clear and cohesive narrative, thus making what was hardly a slam-dunk into a convincing story. And in contrast that the defence lawyers may have done a very poor job at defending their client.

I'm sure the jurors followed the instructions they were given and found enough evidence to convict Trump of being guilty on the charges. A lot the legal questions of the case aren't for the jurors to decide. It's not on them to legally figure this stuff out but to rule guilty/not guilty on the charges, evidence provided, and instructions given and I'm sure that did that as honestly as possible. It's the equivalent of a bunch of people here criticizing the jurors and acting like they knew more about the case than them in the Rittenhouse trial (which was a much simpler trial from a legal standpoint obviously).

 

[dreng3]

There are procedures to relocate trials specifically for circumstances where the defendant cannot possibly have a fair trial, I'm hardly questioning the system more than it questions itself.

Should the classified documents case have been relocated from Florida to another state or another court/judge?

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[meiam]

Trump has little reason to complain. I'd be trilled if I did a coup but the only thing I suffered punishment for was chicanery about paying off a porn star.

He's yet to suffer punishment and likely won't for awhile, if he ever does.

Looking at right-wing social media, there are a lot of folks declaring that the trial was a farce and an abomination of justice and that they're going to vote for Trump because of it. How many actually do, and weren't already going to vote for Trump remains to be seen.

I think its more a case of "no publicity is bad publicity", it's sometime hard to believe, but there's a very sizable number of people who are shockingly ignorant about some very basic aspect of politic. I imagine the big news of him being found guilty will break trough their bubble, and from there they'll go "well I don't like the government for nonsense reason, therefore I'll vote for the guy who's getting charged because he's sticking it to them".

 

[Agema]

On the contrary, he is going to "get away with it" because they don't pursue the right charges, and are instead focused on political disruption. Id be more than happy with the proper pursuit of justice.

There will never be the right charges to you and many other Republicans. Do you not understand that about yourselves by now?

Calling him "dissatisfying" is one part a mere pretence of reasonableness by offering up some criticism, and one part an apologia to evade the severity of his sins. He is a crook.

There are procedures to relocate trials specifically for circumstances where the defendant cannot possibly have a fair trial, I'm hardly questioning the system more than it questions itself.

The argument that Trump cannot get a fair hearing in NY is just one of the plumes of chaff thrown out by Republicans to distract from the fact that their presidential candidate is losing court cases. It's just a vapid smear with no actual evidence.

You mean he was acting like a normal Democrat?

That is the sort of boring and empty statement a man says when he knows he does not really have a point.

 

[tstorm823]

Should the classified documents case have been relocated from Florida to another state or another court/judge?

I don't know about should, but there are situations where it could.

There will never be the right charges to you and many other Republicans. Do you not understand that about yourselves by now?

May I direct you to the first page of this thread.

That is the sort of boring and empty statement a man says when he knows he does not really have a point.

There really is nothing Trump has done as a Republican that Democratic politicians haven't been doing for years before him. LBJ used the CIA to spy on Goldwater long before Watergate happened. It only becomes a matter of public scandal when the party that doesn't control the mainstream media does the thing.