We’ll know it’s over when the defendant makes an unhinged rant to the press.
Yeah, but he does that every day.
Is both the interview and the sentencing report confidential? Or just the interview?
But it’s still a good way to know whatever legal issue he’s dealing with is done for the day.
And you just know Trump will brag that he gave the best probation interview ever. “And after the interview the probation officer said, with tears in his eyes, 'Sir, I just want you to know all Americans support you one hundred percent and I’m going to tell that mean, biased judge that you should be sent free.”
both. we may see bits of it in the sentencing papers from both side when they file their sentencing recommendations.
Hey, everyone, did you not notice this? Trump won’t be face to face with the interviewer,(When will Trump be sentenced? Former president to undergo pre-sentencing probation interview after hush money conviction - ABC7 New York although it will be a videoconference, so hopefully the interviewer can get a good grasp of the felon he’s dealing with.
Trump will do the interview via a computer video conference from his residence at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach,
I don’t think the interview being done by videoconference will matter much. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Covid, it’s that business, school, and so on can be done virtually. Maybe not quite as good as in-person, but the next-best thing.
It’s excellent for Trump. His lawyer will no doubt keep a finger on the mute button in case he starts ranting, and Trump will be overall much more comfortable than if he had to go into somebody else’s physical space and do as he’s told. A comfy Trump is more capable if following the instructions of his lawyer.
But this part of the process isn’t supposed to be punitive, as much as I’d love to hear reports of him losing his shit and crying during the interview.
I would assume since the Trump Org classified Cohen’s payments as legal expenses that they were deducted from the taxable income, so even if Cohen paid the appropriate taxes, Trump Org did not?
Sure, but what kind of inference will the interviewer take from Trump’s lawyer muting him? I’d imagine that it would not be a good one. “In answer to my question about XYZ, Mr. Trump started to say something, then somehow the sound shut off [I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here], then the picture went blank. Then both sound and video came back a minute later, with Mr. Trump saying, ‘Okay, about XYZ …’.”
I don’t think “pleading the Fifth” can be done in this context, and it wouldn’t do any good if it could. Trump cannot implicate himself any more since the court proceedings to determine guilt are over. It’s in his best interests to cooperate as fully as possible with the interviewer, to give a good impression. I don’t see muting him to be in those best interests—the interviewer might well report that “Every time I asked a question about XYZ, the screen went blank and the sound went off. I think he was trying to avoid discussing XYZ.”
Is Trump also precluded from talking about the details of the interview?
I would assume it would be the same as if he’d just refused to answer the question. And the officer is free treat that prejudicially
I’m sure he could find a way.
I’m sure he could. Or at least give a very bad impression that will work against him.
It’s my understanding that a pre-sentence report is more than just the answers to questions. It’s also the interviewee’s attitude, and Trump’s might work against him. “When I asked a question about how Mr. Trump is already taking steps to rehabilitate himself, he avoided the question and instead spoke of ‘Biden this’ and ‘conflicted judge that,’ and it took a lot of work to get anything resembling an answer to my question out of him.”
That sort of attitude will not make Trump look good. At the very least, the court will be looking for any sign of remorse in the report, and if Trump shows none, then things will likely not go well for him.
Doubtful. He’ll describe the interviewer as blubbering how he was forced into the job, crying, all the while calling him “sir”.
That’s fair, and a good point. And to be clear, this particular part is not in the jury instructions, just my take. I was only looking at it “globally” - this fraud caused the state of NY to take in more tax revenue than it otherwise would have had this been done properly (I’m pretty sure that’s correct).
But no, I did not think about how it would look from each person or entities perspective. I guess it might be very technically correct to say Trump/Org “evaded” taxes, but really by paying back Cohen much more than the 130k they caused more taxes to be paid - just paid it to Cohen who then paid taxes (for the fraudulent reasons).
I don’t mean to minimize this either. It’s almost my personal smoking gun. He would never do this unless he wanted to get away with a crime.
Remorse? He’s got plenty of remorse. He couldn’t get the judge thrown out, get the trial moved, get summary acquired, couldn’t intimidate any jurors, couldn’t testify in his own defense, etc… All the best remorse. No one has shown more remorse than him.
Yeah, if Trump tells us how the interview went we’d still have no info about it.
You can assume it went the opposite of how he said it did but I wouldn’t even trust that.
And for me that’s not the issue–if Cohen had fudged his taxes would it be worse for Trump Co? No better or worse. You are responsible for your own tax return, not making sure the State gets its net tax. So IMHO this is as much a conspiracy as the others, although I think the whole campaign contribution/coverup is much worse. I know he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, but if this story had come out a non-zero number of voters would have voted differently.