By Lambert Strether of Corrente.
One of my flaws as a debater on the negative side was that I found it difficult to prepare for cases that I thought were really, really stupid. As a result, my rebuttals were not as crisp as they might have been. It may well be that the same bad attitude has carried over into my coverage of New York prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s oft-misnomered “hush money” care, People vs. Donald J. Trump. The good news is that in the course of researching for this case, I found the docket — thanks, Google. Not! — and so now I can go through all the filings, and better yet, the transcripts, before the verdict finally arrives. At last being able to do the reading will be a great relief to me and possibly to you, since news coverage has been utterly miserable, childishly personality-driven (unlike Colorado vs. the United States, which had legal minds from across the spectrum doing serious analysis although, to be fair, of another stupid case).
However, People v. Trump is not only stupid (and it is often stupid in the complex ways that certain operatives are stupid), it is bewildering and befogged. It feels like a good deal of the action has been taking place off-stage, and so it’s hard to blame even well-intentioned reporters for being confused. Take this oft-repeated talking point, with Byron York at the Washington Examiner giving a example:
Perhaps the weirdest, and by far the most unjust, thing about former President Donald Trump’s trial in New York is that we do not know precisely what crime Trump is charged with committing. We’re in the middle of the trial, with Trump facing a maximum of more than 100 years in prison, and we don’t even know what the charges are! It’s a surreal situation.
Surreal indeed, but what York writes is not quite true; Bragg had four (4) theories of the case, that is, four charges (now he has three (3) but we’ll get to that). However, as we shall see, these theories have been presented in filings, and seem not to have been presented in open court, or presumably they would have been reported on.
Bragg’s architecture in People vs. Trump is what Just Security editor Asha Rangappa amusingly labeled a “felony bump-up,” described by Andrew McCarthy:
As we’ve noted many times, the actual charge against Trump (multiplied into 34 felonies by Bragg) is falsification of business records with fraudulent intent. That is a substantive offense, not a conspiracy (i.e., to be guilty, you actually have to carry out the criminal act, not just agree to do it). Business-records falsification is normally a misdemeanor under New York law (§175.05) but it can be inflated into a felony — with a prison sentence of up to four years for each offense — if prosecutors can prove that the defendant’s fraudulent intent included the concealment of “another crime.”
So, as we showed in NC here, there are two layers to People vs. Trump: The Business Records Offense, and the “Object Offense.”[1] By itself, the business records offenses are misdemeanors; only when they are combined with one or more object offenses — Bragg’s theories of the case — do they become felonies (although, amusingingly, the object offense(s) can also be misdemeanor(s)).
Because I have not yet done the reading, this post will be informative, rather than analytical; I will look at the state of play using Bragg’s architecture. This is in itself newsworthy! First, I will look at the business records offenses, and then at the object offenses. I will then address the election conspiracy aspect of the case, then Molineux Rule, and conclude.
The Business Records Offenses
The business records offenses are accurately described by Andrew McCarthy:
Just to remind you, the allegation in the indictment is that Trump fraudulently caused his business records to be falsified eleven years after this encounter [between Stormy Daniels and Trump]. The encounter makes no difference to the proof of the charges. The state’s theory is that Trump’s records are false because they described as ongoing ‘legal services’ what was actually the reimbursement of a debt to Trump’s lawyer [Michael Cohen] (in connection with a legal transaction in which the lawyer did, in fact, represent Trump). Whether the debt arose out of paying Stormy for an NDA or some other obligation is of no moment to the question of whether the book entry ‘legal services’ accurately describes the payments to Cohen.
Here again my bias against stupid arguments may be working against me. That said, Cohen was lawyer and a fixer. Are we really really going to argue about whether a fixed performed “legal services” or not? (This argument reminds of Engoron’s view that there was only one real estate investor in Manhattan who ever engaged in puffery: Donald Trump.)
The “Object Offense(s)”
Let’s start with the text of Judge Merchan’s “Decision & Order, Feb. 15, 2024” (this seems to be in response to a Motion to Dismiss from the Trump team, but that’s not on the docket, at least not earlier than the Decision and Order, as I would expect to be):
As you can see, the People (Bragg) have four theories for the “object offense.” Merchan then throws out the fourth, leaving three:
(Oddly, it seems that Merchan, in his decision and order, is doing a good deal of tidying up and summarizing of Bragg’s brief responding to Trump’s Motion to Dismiss; it’s almost like he’s directing Bragg on how to present his case.) Here, depressingly, is a diagram from Brookings Institution-adjacent entity Lawfare that summarizes the state of Bragg’s architecture[2] (I’ve added some helpful annotations in red):
Let’s go through each layer in turn. On § 175.10, the statute reads:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime [the “object offense”] or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Yet, in his major pre-trial ruling, Merchan endorsed Bragg’s theory that because §175.10 says “another crime” rather than “another New York crime,” there is no bar to Bragg’s endeavoring to prove that Trump was concealing a federal crime. (See Merchan’s pre-trial opinion, pp. 12–14.) By this loopy logic, Bragg similarly has jurisdiction to enforce, say, Chinese penal statutes, sharia’s hudud crimes, and perhaps even the criminal laws of Rome (after all, under the Bragg/Merchan rationale, the statute doesn’t say the “other crime” must still be in existence).
I don’t think that’s a bad argument; we’ll see how it goes on appeal (though, as we shall see, not all the object offenses are Federal).
So much for the business records layer. Now to the object offenses.
First, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). McCarthy writes:
Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction of a crime that is not actually charged in the indictment [none was]: conspiracy to violate FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act — specifically, its spending limits). That should not be possible in the United States, where the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment mandates that an accused may only be tried for a felony offense if it has been outlined with specificity in an indictment, approved by a grand jury that has found probable cause for that offense.
Yet, Judge Merchan has swallowed whole Bragg’s theory that he can enforce FECA. The judge not only ruled pre-trial that Bragg could prove the uncharged federal crime; he has abetted Bragg’s prosecutors in their framing of the case for the jury as a “criminal conspiracy,” notwithstanding that no conspiracy is actually charged in the indictment — under either federal or state law. And although the trial has been under way for just a week, Merchan has already made key rulings patently designed to convince the jury that Trump’s complicity in a conspiracy to violate FECA has already been established.
LawFare comments:
Trump has leveled multiple legal challenges against Bragg’s use of FECA as an object offense, arguing in his motion to dismiss that a violation of federal law can’t serve as the “other crime” under § 175.10. Merchan, however, held it could. Trump also argued that FECA preempts state law and thus rules out prosecution under § 175.10 with FECA as the object offense. Merchan rejected this argument as well, relying on a ruling last July to that effect by Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the context of rejecting Trump’s attempt to remove this case to federal court.
I think “loopy,” as above, is a fair word here. Under Federalism, do we really want the States enforcing (and, presumably, interpreting) Federal Law? How about the Espionage Act? Or closer to home, the Public Health Service Act in the midst of a pandemic? Again, we’ll see how this fares on appeal[3].
Second, New York State Law § 17-152:
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Note again that this can be the object offense, even if it’s a misdemeanor.) Bragg’s use of § 17-152 has been described as “novel” and “twisty.” From NC:
“Business Insider asked two veteran New York election-law attorneys — one a Republican, the other a Democrat — about the law, also known as ‘Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.’ Neither one could recall a single time when it had been prosecuted. Two highly respected law professors specializing in New York election law said the same…. However, while the two attorneys were highly skeptical of the DA’s newly focused strategy, the two election law professors told BI they were confident it would lead to a conviction. Sure, 17-152 has never been used before, they said. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work now that the dust has been blown off…. [Jeffrey M. Wice, who teaches state election law at New York Law School] noted that two judges — Merchan and Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, a Manhattan federal judge who rejected Trump’s attempt to move the hush-money case to federal court — upheld the use of 17-152 in this case.” But wait! There’s more! “[W]hat if that underlying crime is section 17-152 — conspiring to mess with an election through ‘unlawful means?’ Things will get “twisty,” [Brooklyn attorney and former Democratic NY state Sen. Martin Connor] said, when prosecutors try to show that Trump’s falsified business records are felonies because of an underlying crime — 17-152 — that itself needs proof of a conspiracy to do something ‘unlawful.’ ‘You’re having an underlying crime within an underlying crime to get to that felony,’ Connor told BI. ‘It’s novel,” he said with a laugh. ‘It’s novel,” he repeated. Section 17-152 needs its own underlying criminal conspiracy, he said. ‘Two or more conspiring to elect or defeat a candidate — that’s the definition of every political campaign,’ he joked. ‘It’s only when you conspire to do it by unlawful means that you violate this law.’ Having an election-conspiracy statute like 17-152 on the state election-law books makes little sense, he said. ‘It would appear to cover something like three people getting together and saying, ‘Let’s break into our opponent’s headquarters and destroy all his equipment,’ Connor said.”
Lawfare expands on “twisty”:
During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo emphasized the role of § 17-152 in the district attorney’s case, declaring, “This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected.” Senior Trial Counsel Joshua Steinglass further underlined the importance of the statute the following day, describing § 17-152 as “the primary crime that we have alleged” as an object offense. “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016,” Steinglass said.
But § 17-152 requires that a conspiracy be carried out by “unlawful means”—so what “unlawful means” is Bragg alleging? Here, the legal theory loops back around to point to the other three potential object offenses: FECA violations, tax fraud, and AMI’s and Cohen’s misdemeanor falsifications of business records under § 175.05.
Third, tax fraud. Lawfare comments:
The potential tax fraud arises from the particular method by which the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for his payments to Daniels. Bragg alleges that “defendant reimbursed Cohen twice the amount he was owed for the payoff so Cohen could characterize the payments as income on his tax returns and still be left whole after paying approximately 50% in income taxes.” Here, Bragg points to federal, state, and local prohibitions on providing knowingly incorrect tax information.
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.” He does not explain further, simply writing, “This argument does not require further analysis.”
I’m totally not a tax lawyer, so I can’t express a view (but I imagine it’s likely that there will be a member of the jury who was prosecuted by the IRS for paying too much tax).
Fourth, § 175.05. This is the National Enquirer “catch and kill scheme” that so dominated early coverage of the trial, when David Pecker was a witness; Merchan tossed it out as an object offense, though as Lawfare notes:
Note that while Merchan ruled out these third-party § 175.05 violations as object offenses for Trump’s violation of § 175.10, they’re still available to Bragg as a means by which to get to § 17-152.)
(Lawfare also has an interesting discussion of whether, if Bragg presents all three remaining theories, the jury has to agree on all three, and what the burdens of proof for each are.)
Election Conspiracy
Matthew Colangelo, now working in Bragg’s office, formerly deputy director of the president’s National Economic Council, chief of staff at the Department of Labor, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, and a campaign consultant for the DNC, opened People vs. Trump as follows. From the transcript (I’ve added some helpful notes), the very beginning of the case:
This case is about a criminal conspiracy[1] and a cover-up. The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election[2]; then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again. In June of 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president in the 2016 election; a few months later this conspiracy began. He invited his friend, David Pecker, to a meeting at Trump Tower here in Manhattan. Mr. Pecker was the CEO of a media company that, among other things, owned and published the National Enquirer tabloid. Michael Cohen was also at that meeting. He worked for the defendant as the defendant’s special counsel at his company, the Trump Organization. And those three men formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump[3] in order to help him get elected. As one part of that agreement, Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to an adult film actress named Stormy Daniels just a couple of weeks before the 2016 election to silence her and to make sure the public did not learn of the sexual encounter with the defendant. Cohen made that payment at the defendant’s direction, and he did it to influence the presidential election[4].
[1] This is the “Catch and Kill” scheme, which Merchan threw out as an object offense. So no wonder the case feels befogged and surreal, given that the Merchan threw out what Colangelo said the case was “about.” And if the case isn’t “about” the Catch and Kill scheme, what is it about?
[2] Presumably not with business records falsified in 2017, so how did the corruption take place?
[3] How is this not how any candidate would handle oppo? How is more conspiratorial than, say, using a lawyerly cut-out to put the Steele dossier in play, leveraging the dossier to get a FISA warrant, and then infesting one’s opponent’s campaign with spooks?
[4] Yes, it’s called campaigning. If Trump had gotten 51 intelligence officers to say Stormy Daniels was full of it, would that be OK?
Molineux Rule
Here is an explanation of the Molineux Rule, and how a judge’s violation of that rule led overturing Harvey Weinstein’s conviction. From Robert Weisberg at Stanford Law:
The charges in the New York trial were for crimes against three complainants. Weinstein was convicted for raping one of them and sexually assaulting another. The trial judge permitted the DA to introduce several other witnesses who testified to alleged sexual assaults by Weinstein, but those allegations were not part of the criminal charges in the trial. Under New York state’s century old “Molineux rule,” there are severe restrictions on the admissibility of so-called prior bad acts that are not part of the current charges. The concern is that the jury will infer that the defendant has a so-called propensity to commit acts of this sort, thereby distorting their judgment on his guilt about the formally charged crimes. The New York law has a few exceptions, such as where the prior acts are very distinctly relevant to a contested issue about the defendant’s intent, or to show a very distinctive pattern to his behavior. Here, the majority concluded that the trial judge crossed the line and thereby denied Weinstein a fair trial. Also, because the judge admonished Weinstein that if he testified on his own behalf, he would be subject to cross examination on these uncharged acts, the court ruled that Weinstein was unfairly deterred from exercising his right to testify.
Judge Merchan allowed Daniels to present some pretty lurid testimony. From Jonathan Turley (who is mostly pounding the table these days, but that’s an appropriate method here):
The prosecution fought with Trump’s defense counsel to not only call porn star Stormy Daniels to the stand, but to ask her for lurid details on her alleged tryst with Trump.
The only assurance that they would make to Judge Juan Merchan was that they would “not go into details of genitalia.”
For Merchan, who has largely ruled against Trump on such motions, that was enough.
He allowed the prosecutors to get into the details of the affair despite the immateriality of the evidence to any criminal theory.
Neither the [catch and kill] NDA nor the payment to Daniels is being contested. It is also uncontested that Trump wanted to pay to get the story (and other stories, including untrue allegations) from being published. The value of the testimony was entirely sensational and gratuitous, yet Merchan was fine with humiliating Trump… The most maddening moment for the defense came at the lunch break when Merchan stated, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” He then denied a motion for a mistrial based on the testimony and blamed the defense for not objecting more. That, of course, ignores the standing objection of the defense to Daniels even appearing, and specific objections to the broad scope allowed by the court. This is precisely what the defense said would happen when the prosecutors only agreed to avoid ‘genitalia.’ … Merchan said that he is considering a limiting instruction for the jury to ignore aspects of the testimony. But that is little comfort for the defendant. The court was told that this would happen, it happened, and now the court wants to ask the jury to pretend that it did not happen. Merchan knows that there is no way for the jury to unhear the testimony.
Merchand’s potential violation of The Molineux Rule could relevant on appeal for two reasons: First, the obvious potential to distort the judgment of the jury, as Weisberg says. More subtly, it could “unfairly deter” Trump “from exercising his right to testify.” Trump he really going to take the stand so Bragg can question him about all matters of his sex life short of genitalia?
Conclusion
I hope this serves as a reasonable summary of the state of play on the various elements of Bragg’s architecture (besides giving an account of the befogged and bewildering nature of the trial generally). Let’s close with a nasty twist of thought about the jury:
All it takes to block a conviction is one juror holding out. If members of the jury announce following deliberations that they can’t reach a unanimous verdict, the judge can give them an Allen charge, sending them back to essentially try again. But that would be a controversial move, as it is often viewed as a judge pressuring the holdout to join with the majority.
All that being said, this case would probably be a pretty quick conviction under normal circumstances. But imagine the incentives for a potential holdout: a book deal, traveling the country giving paid speeches to MAGA crowds, the prime-time interview on network television … and that’s just the beginning.
The consensus, across the board, does seem to be for quick conviction, working on the assumption that jurors do their civic duty. However, I think it’s very likely that Merchan has given grounds for appeal; Surtout, pas trop de zele, as Talleyrand once said.
NOTES
[1] Judge Merchan writes: “The ‘object offense’ referenced by Defendant as well as the terms ‘other crime” and ‘another crime’ carry equal meaning.” In my earlier post, I used “other crime,” but I think “object offense” is the more descriptive term, so I will use it going forward.
[2] Note that this diagram is different in detail from the earlier diagram from Asha Rangappa, presented here.
[3] McCarthy also makes the political point:
The campaign laws are so complex that the FEC’s role includes the promulgation of “regulations to implement and clarify these laws.” For its part, the Justice Department has produced an exacting enforcement manual of well over 200 pages, which has been edited numerous times, in order to walk federal prosecutors through the complex web of statutes and regulations.
Why does this matter? Well, if you weren’t born yesterday and you follow the news even casually, then you know that the Department of Justice is so territorial about its jurisdiction that it would make a tiger wilt in admiration. Similarly, the FEC jealously guards its turf. Do you really think for a moment that the Biden Justice Department and the FEC would sit in silent passivity if any other state prosecutor, besides Bragg in this particular case, usurped federal authority and undertook to enforce federal law — in a matter as to which the DOJ and FEC, after thoroughly investigating, had decided not to prosecute?
APPENDIX
I can’t even:
Here is my statement regarding the testimony of Stormy Daniels. Will DA Bragg pursue charges against her for falsification of business records, fraud, etc. pic.twitter.com/ELPNzfMsIC
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 7, 2024
Q: “Is your name Donald John Trump?
A: “Yes. Yes it is.”
Guilty.
Let’s assume conviction. Let’s assume Judge allows DJT to remain free pending sentencing. What will the sentence be???
(1) HUUUUGE fine with probation but no prison.
(2) HUUUUGE fine with prison for a short period (6 months?) then probation.
(3) HUUUUGE fine with book thrown from bench for 25 years to life.
I suspect DJT will in fact be sitting in a NYC prison cell come election day. And his margin of victory over Biden will be HUUUUGE!
I could see DJT choosing to go to prison for a few days as a campaign stunt, but not on Election Day.
From this excellent review of the docket (thank you, Lambert) — Bragg’s case is such shoddy lawyering, the argument so offensive to the most basic protections of English common law, that it’s hard to conceive of it holding up on appeal. The Supreme Court (US) is terrified of the Trump cases, and justly so. But to also shred the Fifth Amendment? That’s a multiple-edged sword, as the Court well knows. I don’t think even the so-called “liberals” on the Court would go for that.
But even if it doesn’t get that far, it appears that the Democrats are doubling down on a really bad, pathetic, failed strategy that generates its own opposition. Perhaps a friend should tell them? haha.
I think a misdemeanor conspiracy fraud to conceal another misdemeanor fraud falsification of business records and election campaign fraud becomes a felony really easily. Anyone else would find himself pleading guilty for fines to prevent trial, restitution and a year in country club jail. But this pug, this ugly bully, Trump, has to preserve his fake marriage to Melania; fume and steam in public. And he ought to do jail time, too, for jury tampering. He has broken away from American ethos of any kind. Let him hang!
I doubt your waders are adequate for stepping into the details of the “case(s)” against Trump. However, if Trump wins the Presidential Election, I think Bidden and his son and perhaps a few other relatives might want to take long term vacations in countries without extradition treaties with the u.s. Neither Trump nor Bidden impress me as persons who have any business … any business whatsoever running the united states of america. That said, the case against Trump sounds bogus beyond bogus. If Trump wins the Presidential election — a not unlikely event, I will be surprised if the future cases brought against Bidden, his son, and their minions, will lack the legal teeth for indictments and judgments against all parties. But that assumes we still have a legal system that metes out at least some pale semblance of Justice — about which I am not entirely optimistic.
This is not the ‘democracy’ I studied in high school civics!
The Blu Team is so afraid that the Orange Man will win if he runs. They’re trying everything to keep him from running – using their friends in the “justice” departments in states where they have officials who will do their bidding. I agree with you. Neither one of these candidates have any qualifications to run this country. The people are totally screwed and the media propaganda will convince Biden friendly voters to vote for him.
To be fair, Team Red installed W via the bench.
> I doubt your waders are adequate
My waders will be adequate now that I have the docket; depends on how fast the case moves, though.
Avenatti commenting from Prison on this case was no on my Bingo card.
America truly is becoming a reality TV show.
Gee, I don’t know, but felt a warm sense of nostalgia seeing Avenatti emerge again; it reminds me of those good times with @McResistance media telling me for years that the Bad Man would disappear because he had done Bad Things (like not hating Russia sufficiently, among others) and that the Good People would win.
Now, thanks to Stormy, we can be confident the Good People will win again.
What confuses me is if the business records were falsified as part of a conspiracy to influence an election, that would seem to imply the contents of the records would be known to the voters. I’m trying to imagine the circumstances in which that would happen. Or is the theory the business records were falsified to avoid a FECA violation, and had the FECA violation been known that would have affected the voters?
Once you decide to flip the meaning of words, it only follows that by your interpretation the accused would be massively guilty of lying since all their documents would reflect a different reality. Bragg’s case truly does seem to be BS stacked on top of BS over and over and over again.
As for how you take care of these things, this is not how you do it (more cut-outs!) which argues that Trump clearly didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. Then again I would argue that Trump probably never thinks he’s done anything wrong but in this case he would seem to be correct.
I’ve been following Julie Kelly on this and still learned a lot from your summary — thanks!
> I’ve been following Julie Kelly on this and still learned a lot from your summary — thanks!
[lambert blushes modestly]
I like Kelly and I don’t think she makes things up. She could, at least in her tweets, provide more context and explanation.
By pounding the table to you mean pounding the table holding the Rube Goldberg device (Turley’s description)? If the case is absurd maybe he is just pointing at the table.
Clearly the reason the Dems think Trump will do anything to grasp for power is that they will do anything to keep him from that power. Lawfare is the thing pounding the table.
> Clearly the reason the Dems think Trump will do anything to grasp for power is that they will do anything to keep him from that power.
Yep. Classic projection.
If the law is against you, pound the facts.
If the facts are against you, pound the law.
If the law and facts are against you, pound the table.
Not exactly Blackstone, but will suffice.
Re: Avenatti
I’m not sure how one “fictionally” options the rights to a book, unless by that Avenatti means there are some further shenanigans in the handling of the options contract, but in any case that’s kind of a clever way to transfer money that you don’t want others to see.
Are publishers legally obliged to make public details about options? Out of curiosity, I looked at the copyright record for Full Disclosure in the CPRS, and there’s nothing about any option there, no special rights and permissions, etc.
I wonder how much money is being funneled around in this way, and how many of these famous ghost-written books are being used as conduits for payoffs, e.g., the Obama books, through wink-wink book “options” that reach expiration and no movie or TV show is ever actually produced.
Merchan seems to be prone to making silly judgements. It rather reminds me of some of the judges in Rumpole of the Bailey. And, like Rumpole, it feels as if Trump’s defense team is exploiting his obvious predispositions and tendencies to make a mockery of him. Thank you Lambert, for this roundup, I would not have followed these developments but now it seems to have some entertainment value.
> Merchan seems to be prone to making silly judgements
I don’t think silly. Mechan clearly wants Trump convicted, exactly as Engoron did. But his rulings may be wrong, and may be overturned on appeal, but from what I have read, they are not silly (though granted the entire enterprise is stupid).
I suppose that if you pay someone for service x, but record it as payment for service y, that is or could be a falsification of business records, but I believe that this payment for service x should still constitute income, and I don’t see how it’s maintained that Michael Cohen overstated his income. The prosecution case appears to be that it should have been classified as a gift, but that seems obviously wrong to me.
> I suppose that if you pay someone for service x, but record it as payment for service y, that is or could be a falsification of business record
I need to know the law on this; Bragg has, after all, a speciality in business records cases.
But the court of public opinion counts as well, and I think Democrat legalisms will be out of step with it.
Italian commentator Marco D´Eramo on Trump being unsuccessful as a serious salesman vs. successful selling himself:
“An influencer avant la lettre. Problem Trump”
https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/problem-trump
p.s. However I have the impression D´Eramo is too European elitist to really get Trump.
“(…)
But equally evident, and quite funny, is the disastrous performance of the many products launched under the orange man’s logo. A non-exhaustive list, in chronological order:
Trump: The Game, a boardgame released in 1989, sold badly. It was re-released in 2004 to coincide with The Apprentice, but failed once again. Today it is a collector’s item for Trumpomaniacs.
Trump Shuttle, launched in 1989. A regional airline operating between New York, Boston and Washington, complete with faux-marble burgundy carpets and gold-coloured toilet fixtures. Went bankrupt 1991.
Trump Table Water (Ice Natural Spring), on sale in 1990, in cheap plastic bottles. Discontinued in 2010, though still available at Trump-branded restaurants and golf-courses.
Trump Pale Ale, announced in 1998 but never went on sale. Ditto, two soft drinks, Trump Fire and Trump Power.
Donald Trump: The Fragrance, a perfume brand launched in 2004. Sold under various labels, always at a loss; the cologne was relaunched this year as Victory47.
Trump University, which opened in 2004, was not a university and did not grant degrees. It provided courses lasting a few days on how to get rich, with fees of up to $34,000. Sued by 7,000 former students, Trump settled the lawsuit for $25 million after his election in 2016.
Trump Vodka, launched in 2005 as ‘Success Distilled’. Discontinued in 2011, though still sold in Israel, where it proved popular for Passover as distilled from potatoes, not grain.
GoTrump.com online travel agency, set up in 2006, promising Trump-style travel. Closed the following year.
Trump Steaks, launched in May 2007, advertising fillet at $96 per pound. Closed down two months later owing a debt of $715,000 to suppliers.
Trump Home, a furnishing brand, launched in 2007. Produced the Trump Mattress, to very poor reviews. After various mishaps, these disappeared from shops in 2017.
DJT, a steak house, opened in Las Vegas in 2008. Briefly shuttered in 2012 for an alleged 51 health violations, including parasites in undercooked halibut, expired yoghurt, month-old caviar, four-month-old duck, two-week-old tomato sauce, expired peanut dressing and an improperly functioning freezer.
Trump Winery, a 500-hectare estate in Virginia, purchased by Trump in 2011 and run by his son Eric. Produces various wines, including Trump Pinot Noir, etc.
Trump Sneakers, all gold, with a capital T on the buckle. Launched in February this year at $399 a pair.
I’ll skip other failed initiatives, like Trump Magazine or Trump Mortgage, as the picture is pretty clear already.
(…)”
vs. Trump the political success:
“(…)
Because MAGA and America First are two big promises (who remembers Biden’s slogans?)
Because you can understand what he’s saying
Because he seems convinced of what he says, much more than Biden
Because this wokeness has gone too far
Because ‘let’s just see what happens’, it can’t get any worse
Because the newspapers and TV networks tell lies, and I only trust what I read in my internet bubble
(…)”.
What has always fascinated me – Trump´s critics giving Trump everything he needs by writing such stupid things like “the daily Trump” (Germany) or the madness of THE NATION, WaPo, truthout, Democracy Now – picturing Trump the devil every single day.
Instead of being totally factual, ignoring him and pointing out that Trump is the total opposite of his publicly propagated image – a bad businessman and loser.
Everything an average Republican voter is, Trump in fact never was.
> An influencer avant la lettre
Clever framing.
> Instead of being totally factual, ignoring him and pointing out that Trump is the total opposite of his publicly propagated image – a bad businessman and loser.
He broke their brains. I don’t know how and that’s not even a good metaphor.
Thaks for the link. Seems to me the European totally gets Trump. He is a character out of Mark Twain or W.C.Fields or perhaps The Music Man which starts out in a train car full of traveling salesmen. Trump, the con man and salesman, is a classic American type and it’s the American elites–with their aspirations to be like Europeans–who don’t get it. Trump is a character out of our comedy tradition and is pulling our leg much of the time.
Of course that doesn’t make him a good choice for president but it also doesn’t make him Hitler. The self serious EuroAmericans are the scary ones.
Herman Melville had people like Trump pegged pretty well back in the 19th century – The Confidence Man: His Masquerade.
People get ripped off in the novel because of their own venality – they want to believe, they want to get rich quick. The American character really hasn’t changed much in the last couple centuries.
Added bonus – Melville flogs his contemporary and current iconic American Hero, Ralph Waldo Emerson in this book. Never read Emerson, but through osmosis I heard of him over the years as the consummate freethinker and rebel. The character Melville creates using Emerson as a model is more like one of those pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, visualize-it-and-you-can-achieve-it, self help flim-flammers still so prevalent today. That was the 2nd time I’d seen Emerson portrayed as more of a shallow huckster than a sage – first was in the great book recommended at NC by Amfortas a while back – The Enchantments of Mammon.
Oh, I think the American elites get it. They just disprove of his habit of confirming it’s all a game. They had no problems with him in the 80s and 90s when he was just another greed is good rich guy. It’s when he started confirming to the peons that the game was rigged that they had an issue.
Trump’s political success can come down to three very basic things.
First and foremost among them – his opponents. Republican and Democrat alike, they are deeply boring, almost repulsive, and clearly have no interest in their customers, aka the voters.
Charisma – not in the traditional sense of the word but Trump is highly watchable, like him or hate him. Hence media’s problem, people will watch him, Biden, DeSantis and so on not so much.
He has more respect for people than his opponents. Yeah, I know it isn’t much, but unlike our enbubbled politicians and our lackeys who sit around wondering why the plebes aren’t eating the dog food despite the PR onslaught. Trump recognizes that these are not just paper people. He may be running a con, but he is aware they aren’t just data. They have their own expertise, their own experiences and the hook has to use that not ignore it. One of his best tools is just telling the truth of how the system is fixed.
But the big one is the first one. The ownership class only like yes, and well trained. Their approved politicians will never play well against a Trump. A thinking engaged politician who can react without worrying about stepping on someone powerful’s toes just isn’t in the mix.
>One of his best tools is just telling the truth of how the system is fixed.
Pat, great comment and you mean like this clip of Dave Chappelle in a SNL monologue about Donald Trump? NSFW words…
Brilliantly nails it in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWfQCDaAa6s&pp=ygUXRGF2ZSBDaGFwcGVsbGUgb24gdHJ1bXA%3D
Great article by D’Eramo. Agree he totally gets Trump. Those “Because…” Lol
But hey… sneakers and wine for the win !
Julie Kelly always seems to know more than she can report. She’s always leading up to something but since 2020 there always seems to be something there. I don’t recall her backtracking on any of her stories: the J6 pipebombs and lawfare at the top of the list.
A while back she mentioned the J6 gallows in a tweet so I dropped the URL to your gallows story in her comments and got a 100% favorable response from her followers.
It’s a terrible pun but I will never stop saying that J6 was Reichstaged. Govt can’t hire that selectively, there’s a rot in our management ranks that beggars belief. After that, lawfare must have seemed like the natural way of doing things. A little fascism always turns into a lot of fascism.
People in the court of public opinion, i.e., many voters, are looking at how the Merchan process is going, or at least how it is presented in the conventional and alternative media. Based on ad hoc polling research, they are likely to have a few concerns, starting with the following.
1. There is election interference due to Biden Admin influence, and would not have been brought unless Trump.
a. See Ham Sandwich; and Lawfare.
b. Distracts from virtually any public appearance by Biden that amplifies and reinforces his manifest defects.
2. The gag order is illegitimate, in part due to conflicts galore in Merchan’s family.
3. When looked at together with the other s**tshow cases like the Mar A Lago raid and the Fani Fiasco, there is an odor of malicious prosecution to punctuate the incompetence. Disbarments and sanctions should follow.
It doesn’t matter how so many of us feel about Trump as an individual, and there is obviously widespread dislike or revulsion, to stop people from thinking that the justice system in the US is corrupt.
What does a country gain by conviction while it loses more of its soul? That adds to a long list of losses.
The Mar-a-lago search happened after he had stolen boxes of government documents, refused to return them when asked by NARA and when subpoenaed, and lied (or had his lawyer lie) about whether he returned them all. He has a very sympathetic judge in that case. Anti-Trumpists are as adamant about what they see as her corrupt actions and inactions as anti-anti-Trumpists are about prosecutors and judges in some of his other cases. He also tried to continue being president after losing an election, so despite the DA’s personal behavioral missteps in GA, the GA and the DC cases address legitimate issues. He’s not the victim there, in my (non-lawyer) opinion.
The gag order seems particularly onerous because so much of Trump’s repertoire consists of trash talking people. Most defendants don’t have to be court-ordered not to talk trash about witnesses and jurors.
Yet somehow it’s perfectly fine for a prosecution witness to repeatedly trash talk the defendant, on social media no less (some people have been banned for that type of thing!), while the trial is ongoing, and grifting all the while – https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/09/michael-cohen-goes-on-tiktok-with-new-trump-taunt-and-announced-campaign-for-congress/
Using your business to conceal unlawful campaign contributions is wrong. What makes this case novel is that Trump’s agents initiated the contact on behalf of Trump and his campaign. At no point were the transactions pursuant to a defense of a potential legal action or settlement. Contemporaneous text communications between Trump’s agents showed remorse having participated in the unlawful payments.
But for Trump’s criminal intent to misrepresent these payments, establishing a guilty mind, Trump was free to personally spend his income on whomever. Trump instead preferred his business’s lenders foot the bill disguised as legal expenses for his buildings. (A psycho-geographer will point out Trump’s buildings in addition to his assignations are monuments to deep inadequacies. Somewhere on a Trump property wall is a crypto-plaque, a faux-magazine cover, probably golf-themed, to mark the particular event.) If you are unprepared to follow NY election laws, don’t run for office, boychik!
First, this not only has yet to be proven, but as Lambert bothered to point out and you ignored, Bragg has not even decided what theories he wants to argue.
But second and more important, your claim about “unlawful campaign contribution” is bogus. From a lawyer by e-mail:
Could there be a typo and that you actually find it UN-likely a juror had been prosecuted after having paid too much tax?