The Magna Charta is fascinating and all, but…
Moderating:
Let me just finish that thought for you.
This is not the thread for a discussion about it. For those who wish to carry on the conversation, please start a new thread. Thanks.
I’d love a thread on Magna Carta. But this is not the place.
I’ve been reading through the transcript of Monday’s proceedings, available through the NY Courts’ website. I appreciate how the judge is explaining, in plain English, to the jurors exactly what their job is. They are the finders of fact, nothing else. A lot about evidence that can be included, about physical exhibits, and so on. In language anybody can understand. Hell, I wish some of my law school classes were that clear.
I’m reminded of a law school classmate who wanted to include as much Latin as he could in every paper he wrote for school. He got me to edit/proofread his papers, and I asked, “Do you have to include so much Latin?” He said he did, that was legalspeak. But once he started practicing, he found how useless Latin was with his clients. Latin was useful as a shorthand with other lawyers (“Can’t do that, per the ex turpi rule”), but clients? Nope.
I understand that we had a juror’s emergency dental appointment to deal with, and Passover, and Wednesdays off, but fercryingoutloud, can we get this puppy underway without more delays?
There’s an old tale of an exchange between judge and counsel:
Judge: “Mr Marshall Hall, is your client familiar with the doctrine res ipsa loquitur?
Marshall: “My Lord, in the remote hills of County Donegal from where my client hails they speak of little else.”
I know I’m no genius like trump, but I would not beg my fans to come protest on my behalf and also tell my fans that the protestors are being intercepted and put in holding pens.
Maybe he should brag about the number of people in prison for January 6th while he’s at it.
Never argue with an orange genius playing 5D chess. 
Trump is charged with falsifying business records with an intent to conceal another crime.
What is the other crime(s)? Has the prosecution said what it is? If not, when do they have to say what it is.
I gather so far it’s related to an election law, but not clear which one.
Your question appears to be addressed by post 712 in this thread, above.
I also note you asked basically the same question a year ago in post 739, so you might want to go back up and look at the replies to refresh your memory and see if your question was answered there. (This is not a dig, by the way; the legal nuance here is pretty subtle, in terms of the misdemeanor being escalated to a felony due to its asserted association with another cime which has not itself been charged or prosecuted, so it’s understandable that the details would have become squishy in anyone’s recollection over time.)
Wow. Well done on digging that up so quickly. That was helpful.
As best I can tell after reading it, it’s basically informed guesses, though (ie, “election laws”). I was looking for the specific statute Trump was intending to conceal. The best I could find was a Bragg remark at a press conference:
Bragg briefly described them in a press conference afterward: a New York law that prohibits any conspiracy to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means” and a federal limit on campaign contributions.
I can probably reverse engineer those brief remarks at a press conference, but why can’t I find this more “officially”?
Or put differently, is the prosecution just not required to be specific about this right now. If not, then when?
By overloading the holding pens, Trump makes it impossible for them to arrest any more MAGAts! Hell, Zap Brannigan got a medal for using the exact same strategy!
As I understand it, there were 11 payments to Cohen that each had 3 records associated with it. The extra count is because one payment was recorded twice.
SOURCE (also linked via @Moriarty upthread)
ETA: I just don’t know that the law with which Bragg is charging Trump requires immediate identification of the ‘other crime’ referenced in 175.10.
I’m not trying to be difficult but this is becoming a bit circular. I’m curious as to which specific state and federal laws he violated. Like Penal Code X.25 or whatever.
I don’t think there is an answer and I don’t know why.
Edit: just saw your ETA. That’s probably where I’m confused. When do we (or the defendant) know that. It just seems really odd. But I don’t know how these predicate type crimes work.
Nah. I got that you were looking for The Specific Crime. I should have given a better answer.
A Syracuse University Law Professor implies that we do NOT have a specific ‘other crime’ from Alvin Bragg at this point:
District Attorney Bragg’s indictment charges Trump with 34 felony counts, each of which relates to a business record disguising a payment made to Cohen as attorney fees. The indictment alleges that Trump disguised the payments with intent to cover up another crime. But the indictment does not say what that other crime is.
I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime. Those are going to be hard things to prove.
I’d recommend others read this quick article. It’s quick, and seems to explain the squishiness of this aspect of the case.
But, again, I’m not sure that’s needed … at least today.
It looks like the other article I linked to appeared, but then disappeared. I think I was on the cusp of the edit window.
This wasn’t paywalled for me, but – being NYT – I’m not sure (I don’t subscribe). It goes further into the ‘underlying’ or ‘predicate’ crime issue(s):
Thanks for posting the links. To anyone wondering, they scholarly opinions and are helpful in understanding this is a complicated case.
I’m hoping a defense lawyer can weigh in or maybe I can ask in FQ, but when does the prosecution need to inform the defense of the specific crimes Trump concealed. It really feels like it would have been before trial started, but maybe they can wait to see how it shakes out.
For an analogy, the crime of burglary is breaking and entering into the home of another with the intent to commit a felony inside. Basically. If the intent was to just watch TV, it’s not burglary. So I don’t think the prosecution can be cagey about what that felony the criminal intended to commit is. Is it theft. Is it rape. I’m pretty sure they have to inform the defendant.
Brian Stelter describes bombshell testimony from the Trump trial:
“CNN - April 23, 2024 - David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, while testifying today about the tabloid’s catch-and-kill tactics for stories unfavorable to Donald Trump, admitted on the stand that Trump had confided to him back in the 1990s that he was the father of Bat-Boy. Bat-Boy, who has been described as half human, half bat, and half squirrel, and an Endangered Species, was a staple of the tabloids during that time.
Trump, according to Pecker, claimed he had passed out after eating a half dozen fermented banana cheesecakes during a golf outing in Costa Rica and that a succubus had copulated with him in his suite afterward. The succubus later demanded money to keep the story quiet.
The notorious Bat-Boy was infamous in the tabloid media during the '90s for his daring escapes from Deep State government scientists and Bill Gates, who wanted to clone Bat-Boy to take advantage of his appetite for mosquitos to combat malaria in sub-Saharan Africa.
When informed about their half-brother, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump stated that they would seek an injunction to prevent Bat-Boy from being included in their father’s will.”
Moderating:
Cute story. Let’s leave the jokey stuff for less serious threads. There are an abundance of them in the Pit. Thanks.
Here is another article which lays out the possible underlying offenses:
Options include: Federal campaign finance law, state campaign finance law, state election interference law, state “catch-all” election law.
It seems, based on the judges instructions and the opening statements, that they are going for #3, the state election interference law. NY 17-152. The key phrase there is “unlawful means”. If they can show that the payments were unlawful (perhaps because they were not reported as campaign expenditures) then they can show there was a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person by unlawful means. That would then satisfy the records violation upgrade to a felony, if they can also show that Trump knew and intended the false records to be made to conceal the elections interference law violation.
What is odd about all of this is that you string together a bunch of misdemeanors and suddenly turn them into a felony. Particularly when the statute of limitations for all of the underlying crimes have long expired. There will definitely be plenty of appeals if the jury returns a guilty verdict.
I was going to start a new thread in FQ about the appeals, but maybe it fits here.
My factual question is: how long will the appeals take?
Or, more precisely, can Trump stretch the appeals until November?
Because if he can delay till November, this whole case becomes much less important. Even if there is a verdict of guilty, Trump and Foxnews can legitimately scream that he is not guilty until the appeals are finished. and he can really ramp up his campaign of “they’re persecuting me for no reason.”
If the appeals last till November, this case won’t hurt him , and might even help him get re-elected.