Basically, defense asked for prosecution to clarify what the other crimes were. Prosecution said we don’t have to, but here’s 4 specific crimes it might be. They also said we don’t have to prove he committed the other crimes, only that he intended to. Defense filed a motion to dismiss and that was denied.
Yes. And appeals always take years. There’s not a single case pending against Trump that would or will have the appeals process completed before November. There never was.
It’s also not the usual standard people use when they discuss whether or not someone has been convicted. If the jury renders a guilty verdict on even one count, he’s a convicted felon.
Many people have the wrong idea that an appeal is a do-over of the entire trial process. It’s not. It’s simply a review to determine if the judge applied the law correctly to the facts as they were established by the jury. The underlying facts of the case are written in stone by the trial court.
Stretching the appeals out until November is definitely an option. What is not guaranteed is that he’ll be allowed to stay out of prison while his appeal is running it’s course (though it’s a definite possibility) there’s a thread here about it:
I also think it’s worth referring back to my own post.
If Trump intended to conceal a crime committed by somebody else – say, Michael Cohen, just as a possibility – I think it would be important and proper to introduce that during the trial.
If Trump isn’t being charged with the underlying crime, then I’m not sure there’d be a need to name it on the front end, in the charging documents, or in the Statement of Facts.
I just think you’d introduce it, and support it with evidence, as part of your ‘theory of the case.’
There is zero chance being tried and found guilty of a felony conspiracy to cover up payments to a porn star during a general election will help Trump’s election chances. You can argue about how much it will hurt him (if he’s allowed to stay out of prison pending appeal) but the trial and verdict will hurt his chances.
My reading of the tweet posted upthread by Smapti led to two immediate thoughts.
He goes out of his way to describe how he enters and leaves through a “tiny side door.” I think this means that Donnie’s fee-fees are hurt that there’s no pomp and circumstance.
More importantly, he’s looking to the appellate courts to save his ass, meaning he’s pretty sure he’ll be convicted. I wonder if his lawyers are telling him this.
Rachel Maddow was in the courtroom for opening arguments, and she says the prosecution mentioned something I’d not heard before: that Trump released the people paid for silence from their agreements, about a month after the election.
If that’s proven, it helps the prosecution claim that the silence was bought solely for the election. After he was elected, the stories couldn’t affect the outcome.
It also undercuts the argument that the payments were to keep it from Melania.
Is the question what crime Trump was trying to avoid being charged with, and hence falsifying records for?
Cohen plead guilty to 52 USC 30118 and 52 USC 30116. If there was a conspiracy to commit those crimes then that would also include 18 USC 371.
While Cohen didn’t plea guilty to conspiracy, there arguably was one, so that may simply be a matter that the prosecution accepted a deal to not charge him with that crime in exchange for cooperation and a guilty plea.
But there are probably other crimes which could have been charged. The crime that Trump’s is actually being charged with is falsifying records to avoid being charged with a crime. There’s no requirement that the imagined crime be a real one, just that the person falsified with that mental image in mind.
Maddow’s article offered a fascinating glimpse into some of the visceral aspects of being in that courtroom. But I find the above claim – and, yes, that’s exactly what Maddow said – to be very hard to believe. Why in the world would Trump or his minions ever say – after the election or at any other time, with respect to a non-disclosure agreement – “OK, now you can say whatever you want”? It makes no sense, unless there’s some major aspect of it that I’m missing.
Because Trump is cheap and stupid as fuck. He was trying to forestall the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels until after the election, when, in his words, “It won’t matter anymore.” Michael Cohen will testify to this and Pecker, too, I think. It proves that Trump didn’t care about keeping the information quiet except as it affected the outcome of the election.
After winning the election despite the Access Hollywood tape, Trump no longer considered any sex related disclosures to be a threat to his political popularity.
The statement that “Trump released the people paid for silence from their agreements, about a month after the election” implies that they had already been paid. It’s understandable that the Orange Fuck wouldn’t much care about what they said after the election, but it’s not clear why he would explicitly release them from their contractual obligation, which is what Maddow implied.
Oh, they were paid. But that’s because he was talked into doing it. He still made the incriminating statements about the purpose for the payments. It wasn’t to protect Melania’s delicate sensibilities.
As for why he released them, it was probably to save the expense of being hauled into court and told that his NDAs were unenforceable.