Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here (Guilty on all 34 counts, May 30, 2024)

Politics & Elections
2341

Kind of a nit, here, but…

I suspect it’s less important whether Stormy Daniels was actually paid before the election (and I think she was, via Cohen) than it would be if Trump didn’t know whether or not Daniels had been paid, and – particularly (as I referenced above) – if, after the election, he actually did ask somebody if they “still needed to pay” Daniels (or even Cohen, for that matter).

Again: they’d have to be able to establish this pretty conclusively, but if they did, I think it would be powerful.

2342

That doesn’t seem right—surely there can be grounds for appeal other than the judge failing to apply the law correctly. If it were discovered after conviction that a juror or a witness was bribed, wouldn’t that be grounds for appeal? And isn’t it sometimes permitted to introduce new facts on appeal? Otherwise why do we hear about inmates getting exonerated and released after DNA testing was made available to them? Or am I wrong about this, and these sorts of cases are dealt with by some process other than what is properly called an “appeal”?

2343

I don’t want to get too far afield, but briefly:

There are certain circumstances where new facts arise post trial that may allow a case to be reopened and the jury’s verdict set aside for a new trial.

Those cases, such as you point out with DNA exoneration, e.g., are very rare, which is why I didn’t elaborate to explain those rare circumstances. When they do happen, they always start back with the original trial court, where the defendant’s attorney first approaches the prosecutors to see if they can jointly approach the trial judge with a motion for a new trial or some other remedy such as dismissal. That doesn’t usually work, so then the defendant can make a motion for a new trial. That doesn’t usually work, either. But it can, if the new facts are strong enough.

But neither of those circumstances are trial judge error. They are just things that happen post trial. And in the absence of new facts, the appeals court is only reviewing how the law was applied to the original facts as they were determined to be by the trial court.

Hope this clarifies. It does get into the weeds a bit, and if you wish to discuss it further, we should probably go make ourselves a new thread.

2344

Generally, appeals are limited to errors of law committed by the judge. Of course, one such error is failure to dismiss for insufficient evidence. So, the appellate court can review the strength of the evidence. But it all must be viewed in light most favorable to the verdict, and no credibility determinations are made.

The discovery of a bribed witness would not be an appeal issue, but brought to the attention of the trial court. See Fed. Rule 60:

Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order

Primary tabs

(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.

(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to:

(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;

(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. §1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or

(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

(e) Bills and Writs Abolished. The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.

Not done by the appeals court. Usually the prosecution will not oppose a motion to vacate the conviction.

2345

Only if there is some reason why that new evidence should have been used in the original trial, e.g. if the prosecution knew about it but didn’t disclose it to the defence. That’s the point: to appeal you need to show something was wrong with the original trial, and “the jury made the wrong decision” doesn’t count.

2346

That could well be it. I’ll also point out that according to the transcript:

And about a month after the election, Pecker then authorized AMI to release both Sajudin and McDougal from their non-disclosure agreements.

So, having paid for the stories in order to keep them from the public before Election Day, Pecker and AMI then told both McDougal and Sajudin a month after the election that they were no longer bound by the non-disclosure agreements.

(I admit I haven’t read all of the transcript, so I don’t know if later it makes reference to Daniels no longer being bound by the NDA.)

But the transcript does state that AMI paid McDougal. The plan was for Cohen to set up a shell company which would buy the rights to the story, so AMI would be paid back and Trump would own the rights to it. AMI’s legal counsel advised against doing it, so Pecker said they’d eat the cost.

Later, though, when Daniels was to be paid off, (from the transcript)

Cohen tried to get Pecker to agree to pay for this catch-and-kill deal, too, but Pecker was unhappy that he had never been paid back for the Karen McDougal deal or the Sajudin deal.
He was still willing to use AMI’s resources to help make the deal so long as someone else put up the money.

Since (according to Colangelo, anyway) Pecker was pissed off the payoff money came from AMI, it’s at least possible he released Sajudin and McDougal from the NDA without Trump’s approval. After all, Trump had already been elected.

2347

Just got here! :grinning:
Who is Sajudin?

2348

The doorman at – was it Trump Tower? – who asserted, falsely as it turns out, that Trump had a love child with a maid. He was paid $30,000 to keep quiet in another Trump/Pecker/Cohen catch and kill scheme.

2349

Thanks!

2350

Yes. What other crime he was trying to conceal by falsifying the business records.

I mean, I don’t think Trump has to have committed the crime he was trying to conceal, only that he intended to do so. But surely it has to be an actual real life crime you can point to (which is easy, I was just curious which one specifically). Not just something Trump subjectively thinks may or may not be a crime. Right? But I really don’t know one way or the other.

2351

It might be a better question for its own thread. A textualist would probably say, “The text of the law does not make any such requirement, merely that there was criminally-minded intent.”

2352

Is a month correct?

This article from April 2018 says that McDougal had just settled with AMI to be released from contract and that Clifford’s (Daniels) was suing for the same.

As to @wolfpup’s question as to why would AMI release them? The article asserts that it was to keep Trump from being drawn into the suit. It also entitled AMI to half of any proceeds if McDougal sold her story again.

2353

That wouldn’t stop him from running for office or render him ineligible to hold office, but it could prevent him from voting in Florida.

2354

Even if he’s a NY felon, not a Florida felon ? How does it work?

2355

If the state he votes in has a rule against felon’s voting, it doesn’t matter which state he got the felony in. I don’t think it even matters if the crime wasn’t a felony where he lives.

2356

I think that’s right. I think the top of the flowchart is the felony conviction, and that there’s basically unanimity that – if you have one – you have one.

Then it’s state-by-state (and often crime-by-crime), and often in flux, from there down:

2357

Thanks.

2358

I believe even in states where felon voting rights are restored, it’s only after the sentence has been completed.

2359

According to the ACLU web page on voting as a felon in Florida:

If you were convicted outside Florida, your voting rights are governed by the state where you were convicted.

The NewYork rule is that convicted felons can vote unless currently incarcerated. According to the ACLU:

This legislation has established a clear rule of law: if you are living in the community, you can vote.

In my opinion, it is likely Trump can vote this year because it is unlikely he will be in a New York prison on Election Day. Most likely he will be let out awaiting appeals, or maybe just sentenced to probation — and thus “living in the community.” However, it might be that I am missing something.

2360

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand. I thought that the case was about false accounting. And I see that’s a crime, and he should face the consequences.

Now I hear that buying silence is election interference. I don’t see that. As much as I loathe Trump, and want to see him in prison, I don’t see that.

I mean we all have secrets we don’t want other people knowing. Everyone has details of private life that we don’t want publicized. Politicians more so. So, Trump kept a secret, that might have lost him a few votes if it had been known. Isn’t that just ordinary politics?

I mean, Trump claims that he would have won the election if people had known about Hunter Biden’s Laptop. He says that not publishing it means the election was stolen. I thought that was crap. People that would have voted differently if they had know about this, that, or the other is how elections work. It’s a ridiculous argument. And this seems like more of the same.

So what’s the deal?