For that matter, if it isn’t a Zoom call, what assurance does anyone have that it’s actually the America-hating fuckstick answering the questions?
Well, there was no media or audience this time, and the only camera/microphone was on a private Zoom call or similar. He didn’t need to show his version of toughness to his adoring fans; he only needed to be polite to the interviewer, and supply answers to the interviewer’s questions.
I’ve said it before, but I think it has finally sunk home to Trump that this is real. No longer can he stiff small contractors by stretching matters out, and no longer can he bluff and bluster his way through. No, the State of New York is serious here, and I would imagine that he has finally realized that no matter what he says at rallies and before media, the only way that he has any hope in this court (as opposed to his favourite, the Court of Public Opinion) is by being polite and respectful.
The Trump Organization has had Barbara Jones, a retired federal judge, monitoring them since 2022. During that time, the Trump Organization hasn’t conducted any business aside from collecting fees on their ongoing interests. I believe you are correct that Trump is incapable of running a legitimate business.
My guess is that he wanted it to be over as quickly and easily as possible. Which, strange as it might be to say, is what I would expect a normal person to do.
This brings up what happens on July 11. Is the convicted felon allowed to say something at sentencing? If so, would a normal judge, faced with a defiant convict, increase the sentence they might have been contemplating? Or is the sentence already decided by then, so Trump has every reason to play to his base at sentencing?
It seems that they are if this is accurate.
The defendant also has the right to make a statement personally in his or her own behalf, and before pronouncing sentence the court must ask the defendant whether he or she wishes to make such a statement.
As you might expect, the prosecutor and the defending counsel also have opportunities to speak prior to the sentence being handed down.
As has been noted, yes, the defendant can speak before sentence is passed. In most cases, the defendant will be polite, and show remorse and contrition. I don’t think that will happen in Trump’s case, but I do think that if he chooses to say anything, it will be to politely thank his lawyers, and his fans for their support, and other such things.
The sentence hasn’t yet been finalized at that point, so if he goes off about “conflicted judge” and “Biden witch hunt” and similar, it will only hurt him. Similarly, Trump shedding crocodile tears in an effort to show remorse won’t move anybody. But staying polite, thanking his lawyers, etc., is fairly neutral. It will neither help nor hurt him, but he gets a chance to speak, which he seems to like. Note that he can waive his chance to speak before sentence if he likes, but Trump being Trump, he will say something.
I assume also its the kind of thing that could easily coached. I’m sure the answers expected from a felon in these circumstances in order to show remorse are well documented and known to any competent lawyer. And at this point the reality is sinking in for Trump. Hell what’s the betting there was a teleprompter involved behind the camera.
If course all that makes the ability (and desire) of the officer to look at the public statements he’s made and how they compare to what he said in the interview more important. I would like to see what Merchan’s orders are regarding that.
Hey Trump! My cousin is on a jury and told me that the way to get a mistrial is to make the judge really mad! When you’re being sentenced make sure to tell the judge off real good and get some digs in about his daughter too. When he loses his cool in the courtroom that’ll result in a mistrial and you’ll be free to go while the angry judge will get hauled off to jail instead!
Probably. If I were Bragg, I would answer every single question with “I brought this case on my own belief that Mr. Trump is a criminal which was proved in this trial which makes him a convicted felon.” Repeat ad nauseum (vary the wording as necessary). The late night shows would eat it up.
I’m looking at it from the victim/State of NY perspective. Because of this crime/scheme, NY received more money in tax revenue. Had Trump done this by the book, NY would have received less in tax revenue. That’s all I’m saying. Here is someone saying it better than me summarizing Bragg’s argument to the Court - Lawfare: Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump:
The twist here is that because Cohen reported his income as greater than it actually was, he paid more in taxes, rather than less—which is probably not what most people have in mind when they think of tax fraud. On this point, Bragg argues that “[u]nder New York law, criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree does not require financial injury to the state” and that “[f]ederal tax law also imposes criminal liability in instances that do not involve underpayment of taxes.” Merchan seems to have been convinced, rejecting Trump’s argument “that the alleged New York State tax violation is of no consequence because the State of New York did not suffer any financial harm.”
As noted above, while I’m not an accountant, I can appreciate that the Trump/Trump Org technically did not pay the taxes - they paid it to Cohen who paid the taxes. I do not think Trump, or anyone, did this crime to avoid paying taxes, that was not the point or their intent. They did the crime to avoid public knowledge of the NDA/Stormy situation because of the election. Taxes had nothing to do with it. In order to carry out the coverup of Stormy, they had to fraudulently mischaracterize the financial books and statements to the tax authorities. But for NY, that fraudulent coverup led to more tax revenue. Not less.
If it was never about the taxes and only about keeping it quiet, then why didn’t Trump pay it out of his own pocket? It would have disappeared just like anything else he pays out of his pocket.
Hell, he still could have had Cohen run it through a bunch of fake companies to obscure it’s origins, but Trump paying Cohen, his personal lawyer, and not deducting it, wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows.
Because that would involve Trump paying for something.
Trump, Weisselberg, and the Trump Organization had spent decades creating an incredibly elaborate set of shell companies, specifically to obscure financial records for the various things that they were doing (of, likely, varying levels of legality). And, frankly, they seemed to be pretty good at it, until recently.
So, he had Cohen paid from some account, because that’s how he always did things.
That also shows evidence of guilt. Had Trump and Cohen properly described these payments as reimbursements, it would have saved Trump more than $100,000. He willingly paid that extra money to conceal that he was behind the payments to Ms. Daniels.
I’m not following, but it might be my own ignorance.
The fraud, was making this look like Cohen did real legal work for Trump (instead of Cohen paying the NDA on Trump’s behalf). Under the fraud version: Trump paid Cohen money for legal work. Cohen paid taxes on that work income. Or, Trump hired someone to do work and paid them for the work - I don’t think that creates a taxable event for Trump/Org. Just for Cohen - income tax.
That’s the coverup. Making this look like he’s paying Cohen to do work and Cohen paid taxes to make it all appear legit. This is essentially Bragg’s argument noted above.
I realize that the probation officer’s pre-sentencing report does not form part of the published court proceedings, but is there an example report that we could view to get some idea of the sorts of things that it is likely to contain and how they’re expressed? I assume that convicts are normally provided with (or can gain access on request to) a copy of their own reports, so perhaps someone has already voluntarily made theirs public? Or maybe the New York probation office has published (fictitious) sample reports to serve as training material for its probation officers?
Absolutely agree. Cheapskates don’t do that, but a criminal would.
Trump had only the best people at being the worst people.
Word of warning to future criminals considering running for POTUS… It’s harder to crime in a fishbowl and get away with it.
Also well known to any parole officer.
Heh heh! I’m sure it is, and the Schadenfreude is sweet!