The guy in the back on the left, looks like he’s about into burst into laughter.
That’s Eric Trump.
He always looks like that.
Holy crap, I did not realize that was Eric Trump.
I may have been too kind.
FWIW when I saw that picture, my first thought was “eric’s laughing at him”.
It’s probably been mentioned before, but would someone please remind me about two points:
If Trump is found guilty, does the judge set his sentence or the jury?
What is the range of penalties for the crimes he’s charged with?
The judge decides sentencing. Since it’s a felony, there is usually a presentence investigation before sentencing; then a sentencing hearing where both sides (along with family, and victims) are allowed to speak.
These are Class E felonies, punishable by a term of prison up to 4 years.
Probation is an option, however. And while, arguably, convictions for each count could run consecutively, that is not usually the case absent some serious aggravating factors. Instead, he’d probably get a concurrent sentence for each count for which he’s found guilty.
Then again, I think covering up campaign fraud that occurred on the eve of the election is the most aggravating thing to imagine.
Since we are getting ahead of ourselves, here’s another fun thought. Let’s say donald is convicted, but is only sentenced to probation.
But then one of the judges in one of his other pending cases, on the basis of this’conviction, revokes his pretrial bond. He can sit in jail awaiting trial in Georgia or DC, for example.
Thanks!
When that happened to one of my clients, I was able to successfully argue that the “new crime” was not committed while under court supervision.
Don’t forget they have to set a hearing for the sentencing, then think about it after, then set another hearing about the sentencing… (repeat until November)
Touché.
But what if your client was found to be in contempt of court in the new case while under court supervision?
Hmmm…
And then file appeals, which will take another year or two.
Trump is safe.
Unless, of course, the Biden Crime Family™ “rigs” the election so that the Orange Menace loses in November. Now that’s something I really look forward to.
Felons can file their appeals while serving their sentence.
Trump is fucked.
For anyone who may be interested, Josh Kovensky at Talking Points Memo (TPM) has been live-blogging from the overflow room for most of the week, and I assume will continue to do so as long as he can get in. I’ve been trying to follow him and this thread while working during the day in order to keep up to date. Great coverage!
Another point to remember: The judge is going to instruct the jury about the law. The prosecution isn’t going to be laying out how the pieces connect (or at least, won’t be the only one doing so): The judge will, too. “Cohen has already been convicted for his crimes in this manner, namely contributing illegally to Trump’s campaign. If you believe that Trump falsified business records by mislabeling his payments to Cohen, and if you believe that Trump’s reason for doing so was, in part, to conceal the crimes that Cohen and others committed, then Trump is guilty of the charge.” Juries can and should approach all statements by the lawyers for either side with skepticism, but when the judge says it, that should carry more weight.
Isn’t it one of the fundamental principles of trying a case in court that you never ask a witness a question, unless you both know what the answer is, and know that the answer will be favorable to your side? The witness saying no to a question like that sure seems to indicate an incompetent defense team.
[quote=“Chronos, post:2535, topic:980953, full:true”]
Well, the prosecution is still presenting their case, so she’s not a witness that was called by the defense team—so presumably the lawyer for the defense was not able to prep her. Instead, she is being questioned on cross-examination in which the defense attorney is playing defense, so to speak. 
It’s a sound principle, but on cross-examination, your goal is to show weaknesses in the witness’s testimony. That may require asking risky questions. It’s a balancing act.
A good cross-examiner will slowly probe and feel their way in the direction they want it to go. If they can stop on a strong implication without actually asking the question they don’t know the answer to, they should do so.
You always here about “one question too many” in things like moot court and trial advocacy. But my experience ends there so I can’t get too much further into questioning strategy.
So, for shits and giggles, I looked up the standard jury instructions for this offense.
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.docx
Now, that affirmative defense that is mentioned (he was just a bookkeeper following orders) is wholly inapplicable.
More importantly, I’d think, is the fact that this law doesn’t provide insight into how to determine what “other crime” was being concealed.
I’m guessing that Cohen will testify that he was convicted of election fraud and went to prison. He may even testify that donald was Individual-1 in his indictment.
I’d imagine that the defense would object if the DA asked Cohen if the only reason that donald wasn’t also indicted was because he was president (if so, that might be one of those intentionally objectionable questions that @velomont had asked about earlier). But that inference may be all the DA needs to prove that second element of the crime.
Then again, just to underscore the point, the DA will almost certainly include reference to New York Election Law 17-52
Admittedly, it reads circular. But it just confirms that, if Cohen went to prison for his activities, and if Cohen was working with donald when conducting these activities, then donald was conspiring to commit a crime.
Hell, I would probably object to that question, and I’m not even a lawyer. It’s asking the witness to speculate on the decision-making process of the prosecution.
OTOH, given the general fecklessness of the America-hating fuckstick’s legal team that we’ve seen, there’s every reason to suppose that it wouldn’t occur to them to object.