But it really seem (to me, anyway) to be the most slam-dunk of them.
I disagree and I believe that the textualists who run SCOTUS would also disagree.
The New York statute doesn’t say that you have to have broken some other law, it simply says that you have to have had the intent to hide the information in the belief that it would aid you in the commissioning of some other crime, or protect you from being incarcerated for said crime. There is nothing saying that said law needs to be a real, existent, enforced law, it could just be one that you (mistakenly) believed in the existence of. It also does not say that your belief that you could be convicted for it needs to have been a reasonable fear. You may have grossly misunderstood it and been absolutely in the clear, so far as it was concerned.
This is important. The prosecution does not need to prove any underlying crime or even specify a particular one.
Thank you for your responses about sentencing.
What if you think nothing you do is a crime?
Then you would commit those acts openly without going through the obfuscating behavior. And in this case, it would have cost less since there would not have been the “gross up” to hide the nature of the payments to Cohen.
Clearly there was some awareness that the behavior was not truly on the up and up.
If I understand correctly, your beliefs about what the law is aren’t relevant; only your intent to take an act is relevant.
If I shoot you because you called me a ginger, and I believe I have the legal right to shoot you for insulting me, that erroneous belief does not offer a defense. It’s whether I intended to take an act that matters, not whether I believed the act I intended to take was legal.
From CNN. Does this mean the jury are returning to give their verdict? Should probably not have the live commentary open 
A buzzer sounds in the courtroom and we’re waiting for the attorneys and the judge.
The courtroom is filled with reporters but no one else yet.
could be a question or a verdict…
team nyc is in the room.
so far 3 hours, 29 minutes.
trump in courtroom.
My guess is a question to the judge. Either asking if they can get some of the transcript or a question about the meaning of a charge. Most likely what keeps being discussed about how the misdemeanor elevates.
Then you didn’t hide the information with the intent to avoid getting prosecuted for a crime.
According to “Manhunt”, the Apple TV series about Lincoln’s assassination, the conspirators were found guilty by a military tribunal, and the sentence was pronounced immediately (hanging) and carried out the next day.
Not likely in this case, though.
although from reporting trump is saying he could be in jail tonight.
Trump also said that his personal choice for FBI director was trying to assassinate him.
judge in the room.
note from the jury.
the bell sounds like an oldy phone ring.
note at 2:56.
4 request from the jury.
I have a mild allergy to alcohol so I drink very rarely. If Trump goes to jail tonight, then I’m having some sake!
questions on pecker and cohen.
Donald Trump is entering the courtroom.
He just pulled down hard on the collar of his suit jacket as he walked in.
His attorney Todd Blanche is whispering to him.
from cnn:
“The note contains 4 requests," Judge Juan Merchan says.
According to the judge, the jury wants:
- David Pecker’s testimony regarding a phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting.
- Pecker’s testimony about the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of Karen McDougal’s life rights.
- Pecker’s testimony regarding a Trump Tower meeting.
- Michael Cohen’s testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
rc: looks like they haven’t totally discounted cohen.
Anyone know how it’s done in Manhattan? Will they get a hard copy transcript or is a court employee going to have to sit there for as long as it takes reading the records aloud?
court reporter will read it out. this will take some time. there will be back and forth on this.
the judge is saying 4:30 today. they could reassess and go longer… it could be that the timing may not work out for all the back and forth for 4:30 today.
per cnn:
Judge Juan Merchan says he will bring the jury plus the alternates in to hear the requested testimony again.
rc: from what i am heaing on commentary, the jury isn’t in the courtroom yet. the judge and lawyers will work on what will be read out.
It can be maddening trying to divine meaning behind jury questions. It could reflect the consensus of the group, or it could be one holdout who is leading the charge.
Maybe they are being very thorough, and leaning in to Pecker as an honest reporter, so they want to be reminded of what he said.
Or maybe there’s just one person saying “we can’t believe anything Cohen said” and they are trying to show that person that Cohen is more credible than they are claiming.