Update on Trump Legal Cases

[Beebs52]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... d0908637f3

[silverscreenselect]

The key takeaway from this testimony is that this agreement to trash opponents and puff up Trump took place after Trump was an announced candidate, which establishes the criminal conspiracy the prosecution needs to prove. He's not on trial for conspiracy, but falsification of business records in support of that conspiracy, which is a felony, or here, 34 felonies for 34 different records.

Not withstanding my belief the entire trial is bs, wouldn't there have to be a trial with a guilty verdict to establish there was a criminal conspiracy? For the charges to be considered felony, doesn't the falsification have to be for purposed to cover another crime, to to establish a crime was committed, wouldn't there need to be a formal "guilty" verdict of criminal conspiracy?

Maybe we’ll get lucky here and have a Harvard Law School professor weigh in on this.

This thread illustrates why I think that Trump's lawyers made a bad mistake in letting two attorneys on the jury, at least one of whom is an experienced civil litigator. In a case like this, where a lot of people are thinking "paying hush money isn't illegal," the judge will instruct the jury on the law, but there's a good chance that one or both attorneys may wind up being unofficial expert references if the deliberations on this issue get bogged down.

[Bob78164]

The key takeaway from this testimony is that this agreement to trash opponents and puff up Trump took place after Trump was an announced candidate, which establishes the criminal conspiracy the prosecution needs to prove. He's not on trial for conspiracy, but falsification of business records in support of that conspiracy, which is a felony, or here, 34 felonies for 34 different records.

Not withstanding my belief the entire trial is bs, wouldn't there have to be a trial with a guilty verdict to establish there was a criminal conspiracy? For the charges to be considered felony, doesn't the falsification have to be for purposed to cover another crime, to to establish a crime was committed, wouldn't there need to be a formal "guilty" verdict of criminal conspiracy?

It needs to be proved, but it doesn't need to be proved in a separate trial. The jury that's seated for this trial can make that determination. --Bob

[jarnon]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has announced charges against 11 fake electors. The charges include fraud, forgery and conspiracy.

And in Michigan, prosecutors revealed that Pres. Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Mark Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in the fake electors case there.

[silverscreenselect]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has announced charges against 11 fake electors. The charges include fraud, forgery and conspiracy.

Seven other people were indicted in Arizona besides the fake electors. The names are redacted for now, but based on the descriptions in the indictment, they are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Christina Bobb, Boris Epshteyn, and Michael Roman. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in Arizona. Giuliani, Eastman, Meadows, and Roman have been indicted in Georgia as well, and Jenna Ellis has already pleaded guilty in Georgia.

This marks the fourth state in which fake electors have been indicted. They were indicted earlier in Nevada and several fake electors in Georgia are among the defendants there (the others are testifying for the prosecution).

[silverscreenselect]

Trump has moved to dismiss two more of the counts against him in the Georgia case. These involve filing a fake certification by the electors and filing a lawsuit in federal court late in 2020 that contained numerous misstatements involving dead voters and other claims. He cites an 1890 Supreme Court case, In re Loney, which held that a state court could not try a witness for perjury based on testimony given in a federal proceeding regarding a contested election (there a Congressional election). Several co-defendants will probably join Trump's motion as well.

What I've found so far is that this Supreme Court case hasn't come up recently in the rudimentary research I've done, and the DA has yet to file any reply to this motion to dismiss. However, the same principle would seem to apply in all the state fake elector cases arising so far.

[silverscreenselect]

Trump had his day before the Supreme Court on his claims that Jack Smith's prosecution is barred by presidential immunity. It seems a majority of the court is unwilling to accept Trump's claim that presidents need absolute immunity to be free of the fear of possible politically motivated prosecutions after they leave office (except perhaps Alito). However, it doesn't look as if five justices are willing to reject the principle of presidential immunity in all circumstances. What seems most likely is that the court will announce some set of guidelines to determine whether immunity is possible in any particular case and then remand to either the trial court or Court of Appeals to determine if Trump's alleged conduct falls within those guidelines. If that's the case, the trial would be unlikely to take place before the election.

David Pecker concluded his direct examination in the hush money case. He testified that he paid Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet about her affair with Trump. (The usual National Enquirer hush money payoff was about $10,000.) He and Trump talked about McDougal a few times afterwards. She actually signed a contract with the Enquirer where they agree to publish some articles she wrote. Trump got very upset with Pecker when the Wall Street Journal broke the McDougal story shortly before the 2016 election, demanding to know how Pecker could have let that happen. When Stormy Daniels demanded hush money, Pecker refused to pay it himself, and Michael Cohen agreed to act as the bagman. Cohen told Pecker this arrangement was with Trump's approval.

On cross examination, which will continue tomorrow, Pecker confirmed that his friendship with Trump long predated these events and that publicizing Trump in his Apprentice days was good for business. Trump's attorney tried to pin Pecker down on whether these arrangements were "standard operating procedure" for the Enquirer. Pecker also confirmed that the Enquirer had killed an unfavorable article about actor Mark Wahlberg and that he had bought photos of TIger Woods to use as possible leverage against Woods.

Also today, the federal judge in Trump's second E. Jean Carroll defamation case (the $80 million verdict) denied his motion for a new trial saying that his arguments were entirely without merit. That decision won't affect his pending appeal in this case.

[jarnon]

As I understand it, the fake electors are the same Republicans who would have cast legitimate electoral votes if Trump had won in their states. In the early Republic, electors were knowledgeable and discerning men entrusted to cast presidential votes on behalf of their states. Today electors are merely figureheads, but it’s still a prestigious position, and state parties appoint well-respected citizens to be potential electors. So why did 53 individuals in five states join a criminal conspiracy? Did they believe Biden’s victory was a fraud that would be overturned, or did they mindlessly do the Trump campaign’s bidding? Somebody will write a book about them after all the litigation is done.

[Bob78164]

As I understand it, the fake electors are the same Republicans who would have cast legitimate electoral votes if Trump had won in their states. In the early Republic, electors were knowledgeable and discerning men entrusted to cast presidential votes on behalf of their states. Today electors are merely figureheads, but it’s still a prestigious position, and state parties appoint well-respected citizens to be potential electors. So why did 53 individuals in five states join a criminal conspiracy? Did they believe Biden’s victory was a fraud that would be overturned, or did they mindlessly do the Trump campaign’s bidding? Somebody will write a book about them after all the litigation is done.

Not all of Donny's original electors were on board. Some said no. They were replaced by others who were willing to participate in a criminal conspiracy to steal an election their candidate had lost. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

As I understand it, the fake electors are the same Republicans who would have cast legitimate electoral votes if Trump had won in their states. In the early Republic, electors were knowledgeable and discerning men entrusted to cast presidential votes on behalf of their states. Today electors are merely figureheads, but it’s still a prestigious position, and state parties appoint well-respected citizens to be potential electors. So why did 53 individuals in five states join a criminal conspiracy? Did they believe Biden’s victory was a fraud that would be overturned, or did they mindlessly do the Trump campaign’s bidding? Somebody will write a book about them after all the litigation is done.

Not all of Donny's original electors were on board. Some said no. They were replaced by others who were willing to participate in a criminal conspiracy to steal an election their candidate had lost. --Bob

Not that it matters to the lawfare perpetrators, but the facts are that there were legitimate legal questions about the 2020 election certifications in several states. If, like in Hawaii in 1960, the questions resulted in the election results being changed, there had to be a slate of electors designated for trump, or else there would be no electoral votes. All perfectly legal and with precedence.

This is another sham lawfare move to steal the 2024 election.

[jarnon]

Not all of Donny's original electors were on board. Some said no. They were replaced by others who were willing to participate in a criminal conspiracy to steal an election their candidate had lost. --Bob

By my count, four original electors in Georgia and two in Michigan refused to participate and were replaced. They aren’t being prosecuted (reminds me of Joshua and Caleb in Numbers 14). In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, the certificates stipulated that they would only be valid if Trump prevailed in those states.

[silverscreenselect]

By my count, four original electors in Georgia and two in Michigan refused to participate and were replaced. They aren’t being prosecuted.

One Georgia fake elector, now-Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (he wasn't in office at the time), is being investigated by a special prosecutor who was just named because Fani Willis was disqualified over a year ago because she hosted a fundraiser for one of Jones's possible Democratic opponents in the election. Several others cut deals with the prosecution and will testify for the State in the Trump trial here. That testimony could be very damaging for Trump and the others.

[jarnon]

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on MSNBC. They contend that conservative judges, from the Supreme Court on down, have a predisposition to take Trump’s side. One pundit railed that the courts have abandoned fairness and are totally partisan. A legal analyst argued that Alito and Thomas are desperate for a Republican president so they can retire instead of dying on the bench.

(This position is the mirror image of Fox News’ contention that special counsel Hur and Weiss’s investigations of the Bidens are a sham, and they’re really following Garland’s hidden agenda to clear the Bidens and prosecute their accusers.)

MSNBC is at it again. In their special coverage of the Supreme Court presidential immunity hearing, the dwelled on how several justices, particularly older ones, inquired about all aspects of the immunity defense, instead of focusing on the particulars of this case. Their interpretation was that the justices were stretching out the case till after the November election.

Here’s another explanation: They aim to write a definitive ruling that will be used as a precedent for decades. Such a decision could even cement their legacy the way U.S. v. Nixon defined the Burger court. A narrow ruling that only applies to this case would lead to future litigation, to be decided by other justices.

[silverscreenselect]

Here’s another explanation: They aim to write a definitive ruling that will be used as a precedent for decades. Such a decision could even cement their legacy the way U.S. v. Nixon defined the Burger court. A narrow ruling that only applies to this case would lead to future litigation, to be decided by other justices.

It's ironic that you mention a "precedent for decades" because we survived as a nation for almost 250 years without any need for a decision about presidential immunity. On the other hand, presidents have been claiming executive privilege since George Washington, and the issue still gets litigated. In all probability, the Supreme Court voted on this case already, and the only issue is who will write the majority opinion and how many concurrence and dissents there will be. My guess is that Barrett and Roberts will vote with the liberals to deny Trump's claim but whether they will want the trial court to make further rulings is an open question. But if Alito decides to write a minority opinion, he could drag his feet on this until the end of the term. The court decided US v. Nixon three weeks after oral argument, and they could issue a decision in this case next week if they want.

[flockofseagulls104]

It's ironic that you mention a "precedent for decades" because we survived as a nation for almost 250 years without any need for a decision about presidential immunity.

Yes, so ironic that no party has ever gone to the lengths that the democrats have gone to destroy the democratic system and try and disenfranchise half the country to obtain and retain power. Until now.

If your party retains control of the white house and congress, our country, as we know it, will cease to exist.

[silverscreenselect]

Today, Judge Merchan found that Trump violated the gag order in regard to nine of the ten posts brought to his attention by the prosecutors at the hearing last week. Some of those were "retweets" of original posts from others, which the judge said amounted to an affirmation of the posts' content. He fined Trump $1,000 on each post (the maximum allowable under New York law) and ordered Trump to take them down by the end of the trial's lunch break today. He also warned Trump that future violations could result in jail time. Another hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning (the next day the trial is in session) based on posts Trump made since the first hearing.

The testimony going on in the trial now is fairly technical and boring. Michael Cohen's banker is talking about the accounts he set up for Cohen in which the money used to pay Stormy Daniels was deposited. The account was set up in the name of a company called "Essential Consultants," controlled by Cohen and was set up the day before money was transferred to Daniels. Cohen withdrew money from his home equity account to fund the Essential Consultants account. The banker said he didn't know the account was for political purposes or that the money would be paid to someone in the adult film industry. He indicated the bank probably would not have authorized the account had they known, because they didn't deal with people in that industry. The banker also authenticated a wire transfer authorization signed by Cohen transferring $130,000 from this account to the trust account of Stormy Daniels' attorney. Cohen is expected to confirm later that he used that money to pay off Stormy Daniels and that Trump reimbursed him for fronting the money by means of bogus payments for "legal expenses.

On cross examination, the banker said that Trump's name was never mentioned in the discussions with Cohen about the new account and that, when asked, Cohen indicated that he was not acting as an agent for anyone in regard to the account.

[silverscreenselect]

Today's session of the Trump trial began with the judge specifically informing Trump that the gag order does not prevent him from testifying freely if he so chooses, contrary to what Trump claimed to the press yesterday.

Right now the DA office's forensic analyst is testifying to authenticate many of the Cohen text messages and emails so they can be entered into evidence. Usually, this material is admitted by stipulation of the parties, but Trump has apparently instructed his attorneys (as widely reported) to conduct a "scorched earth" defense and challenge everything. Yesterday, an archivist at C-Span was called to authenticate campaign recordings of Trump in 2016 claiming he didn't know Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal. The only thing these stunts accomplish is to cause the jury to pay more attention to what's being authenticated.

[jarnon]

The only thing these stunts accomplish is to cause the jury to pay more attention to what's being authenticated.

They also force Trump to waste a day during his presidential campaign sitting through this testimony. It doesn’t matter; Trump wants his lawyers to be combative.

My non-attorney’s impression of all the legal cases is that Trump’s lawyers act more professional when he’s not present and more argumentative when he’s watching.