SwigAg11 said:

---

I'm still struggling to understand how it's permissible that they haven't stated what the other crime is. That feels like due-process issues to me, but IANAL.

---

The 3 object crimes have been on paper for a long time

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I'm still struggling to understand how it's permissible that they haven't stated what the other crime is. That feels like due-process issues to me, but IANAL.

---

The 3 object crimes have been on paper for a long time

---

So it's one of those 3 object crimes that is the mythical other crime we've been harping over on this thread?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I'm still struggling to understand how it's permissible that they haven't stated what the other crime is. That feels like due-process issues to me, but IANAL.

---

The 3 object crimes have been on paper for a long time

---

This is true, but I think he is saying they haven't explained to the jury what the crime is.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's like the Tom Robinson trial in To Kill a Mockingbird: the facts won't matter to this jury.

It's disgusting and sickening, but they are going to convict him.

---

Jury instructions will go a long way in how the jury frames their deliberations.

---

Question one: is defendant orange?
Question two: does defendant identify as a man?

If you answer yes to both questions one and two then you must find that orange man is bad and guilty of whatever crimes he is charged.

All 3 are linked here:

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

Poster's note: this is not an endorsement of any theory or the evidence thereof. Merely sharing information! lol

Can you point me to the witnesses that were called to address any of those three options?

aggiehawg said:

---

Can you point me to the witnesses that were called to address any of those three options?

---

(1) Would be Cohen's word.
(2) I guess is Cohen's word?
(3) I'm not an accountant.

aggiehawg said:

---

Can you point me to the witnesses that were called to address any of those three options?

---

What in the world makes you think I believe they have? I literally addressed this a few minutes ago!

Her personal residence?

Holy.

Loomer just exposed Democrat Congressmen sending payments to Judge Merchan’s daughter as recently as weeks ago

Is this entire NY trial a pay-for-play bribery scheme?

How does Judge Merchan stay on this trial when his daughter is getting paid by the same people prepping… https://t.co/f5ZnUU6FGT

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 17, 2024

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Can you point me to the witnesses that were called to address any of those three options?

---

(1) Would be Cohen's word.
(2) I guess is Cohen's word?
(3) I'm not an accountant.

---

Replying to myself since I'm still so confused on all of this.


This is where I think the jury will still come back with a conviction. During closing arguments, the prosecution can muddy the waters and, I guess, discuss at length about election interference. Maybe they can subtly make inferences about convicting Trump so he won't be able to win reelection? I'm guessing the defense will be on a hair-trigger for objections during closing arguments (even though that's generally frowned upon).

The state hasn't really even addressed the other crime, it's just Michael Cohen's word that Trump was covering something up. They don't even intend to prove this other crime, just that Trump was involved in a cover up.

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Can you point me to the witnesses that were called to address any of those three options?

---

What in the world makes you think I believe they have? I literally addressed this a few minutes ago!

---

Just checking if I had missed something big. I remember Pecker's testimony touched upon a corporate contribution to the campaign for the McDougal contract but that contract is not part of the indictment and the state didn't even call McDougal to testify. There were no reimbursements from anyone, not the campaign, not the Trump Org, not Cohen, not Trump for that McDougal contract which had many other obligations on McDougal's part aside from staying silent. Indeed, Pecker made money by putting McDougal on the covers of various of his publications. IOW, there were other reasons for the contract than just concerns for the campaign on Pecker's part.

Nor do I recall any testimony of tax returns for NY state being discussed other than McConney testified he 1099ed Cohen as a vendor for those invoices Cohen submitted. How Cohen treated those on his tax returns is beyond anyone else's control other than Cohen's personal accountant.

As to the state claim about possible election intereference, again the grand jury did not make any detrmination upon that issue and it is not contained in the indictment.



So the question becomes whether there has been sufficient evidence adduced at trial?

A hush money gag order seems a bit redundant.

I vaguely remember that earlier in this thread, TXAggie2011 mentioning that sufficient evidence had been entered on the tax issue to preclude dismissal on directed verdict. I think it had to do with Trump Org. accountant/bookkeeper? At least in the sense that taxes had been paid, but valid 1099s had been issued for those.

However, I don't think we had further discussions after that.

Number 3 wasn't even close to what went on and it is a misdemeanor, not a felony that they would be covering up. I just don't get this case.

They have to prove Trump intentionally concealed another crime. I haven't seen any evidence Trump did anything except sign some checks that were put in front of him.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

Number 3 wasn't even close to what went on and it is a misdemeanor, not a felony that they would be covering up. I just don't get this case.

---

I looked up the language of NY Tax Law 180(a)(3).

Quote:

---

(3) knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent
information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or
proceeding or fails to supply information within the time required by or
under the provisions of this chapter or any regulation promulgated under
this chapter;

---

I guess this is once again Cohen's word that the money he was paid because of the NDA? My question then becomes, to be as factually correct and accurate as possible, what should the payments have been classified as?

Edit: I actually think that's a great place to start from someone who knows tax law (not me). For repaying your lawyer, who negotiated an NDA and paid for it out of his own pocket, what should that payment be classified as in the Trump Org. ledgers? I mean that in a legal sense without knowing corporate tax law.

Casual Cynic said:

---

They have to prove Trump intentionally concealed another crime. I haven't seen any evidence Trump did anything except sign some checks that were put in front of him.

---

Under the 6th Amendment they should have to prove that. Under NY law? They claim they don't.

Now FNC is reporting Merchan wants attorneys to be prepared to make closing arguments on Tuesday?

WOOF!

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

Number 3 wasn't even close to what went on and it is a misdemeanor, not a felony that they would be covering up. I just don't get this case.

---

It is lawfare meant to tie Trump up.

It worked. Anything else is gravy. This is the world the dims want.

SwigAg11 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

---

A campaign expense

As to Merchan's version of the jury instructions, he needs to finalize them and get them to the atorneys ASAP if he has any intention of holding a charging conference on Monday or early Tuesday morning for summations later on Tuesday.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

---

A campaign expense

---

Was campaign expense even an option on the spread sheet where this payment was recorded?

Casual Cynic said:

---

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

---

A campaign expense

---

Was campaign expense even an option on the spread sheet where this payment was recorded?

---

I don't think so. I'm guessing there is probably a "Miscellaneous" or "Other" option the prosecution would argue over.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

---

A campaign expense

---

It's a campaign expense to save your family humiliation? Weird.

aggiehawg said:

---

As to Merchan's version of the jury instructions, he needs to finalize them and get them to the atorneys ASAP if he has any intention of holding a charging conference on Monday or early Tuesday morning for summations later on Tuesday.

---

I'm guessing defense has already told Merchan the witnesses (or lack therefore) they intend to call. With that timeline, it must be zero or 1-2 quick witnesses.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

As to Merchan's version of the jury instructions, he needs to finalize them and get them to the atorneys ASAP if he has any intention of holding a charging conference on Monday or early Tuesday morning for summations later on Tuesday.

---

I'm guessing defense has already told Merchan the witnesses (or lack therefore) they intend to call. With that timeline, it must be zero or 1-2 quick witnesses.

---

Your guess is as good as mine as to that. I do think the defense team should be debating hard about putting on even a truncated defense case in chief is required here.

Nor do I like the way the judge is rushing them even before cross is finished on Cohen. Especially true with Costello waiting in the wings doing his best Horshack, Oooh! Oooh! Call me! Call me!

What I fully expect Merchan to do sometime over the weekend is suggest time limits for the summations and other procedures for how those will be conducted and time split for the prosecution between their first closing argument and then their rebuttal closing argument.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

Is it true that the prosecution does not have to prove the other crime? Just that Trump was intending to cover up something?

---

There is no requirement to prove Trump committed the object crime. In fact, the defendant can be found not guilty of the other crimes by the jury and still be guilty of the charge Trump is charged with.

Multiple New York appellate court cases that say that, I posted links to two of them earlier in the thread.


And I believe the jury does not have to agree on a single object crime. They could be split as to what he covered up and he'd still be guilty

---

As an attorney, are you
A. Ok with this arrangement? Even if you think it's legal, do you think it's right?
B. Of the belief it was the intent of the original statue?

So will the jury be given a menu of options for the other crime and told to just pick one? Or will have the prosecution have to zero in on something specific in closing arguments?

Casual Cynic said:

---

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It doesn't seem that the information was hidden or withheld. We can debate on if it should have been labeled legal expenses or another label. What information was provided to who that was knowingly false? It is almost like they are accusing Trump of labeling it as something that would make it harder for them to find. I don't think that is what the statue intends and he obviously turned over everything so they found it.

---

That was my final point: if, legally speaking, "legal expenses" was an incorrect listing, then what should it be for us non-lawyers and -accountants?

---

A campaign expense

---

Was campaign expense even an option on the spread sheet where this payment was recorded?

---

On Revocable Trust account? Doubtful. Now it could be arguable as to the checks coming ou of Trump's pesonal account. But again, during 2017, Cohen was Preseident Trump's personal attorney. So that releation ship was in place before Cohen started sending invoices/billings. But how would the Controller or AP person know they were for something other than legal fees since there no detail and payment was requested by Michael Cohen, Esquire? Which is an attorney entity?

aggiehawg said:

---

You are not the only one confused here. When experienced attorneys like McCarthy, Turley, Dershowitz, John Yoo, even the CNN legal analyst, Honig, are confused by the state's theories (since there are multiple ones) of the case.

It's a mess.

---

But 2011 said this is well tested case law and happens all the time.

I really still don't understand how only intent to cover up uncharged crimes can be the predicate for misdemeanors that are past the statute of limitations.

1 Doesn't make sense. Not even a little bit. The crime there is cohen and pecker violating campaign finance laws. The payments from Trump to Cohen have zero to with Pecker violating campaign finance laws so that part is out. Payment from Trump to Cohen means that cohen didn't actually over contribute because he was repaid. I'm thinking of that kind of like a candidate receiving an illegal donation and returning it.

2 is the same damn thing. That he violated state election law by conspiring to violate FECA and intentionally mischaracterize repayments to avoid taxes. Ok….say trump called it payment for retainer but it's really repaying money cohen fronted for the nda payment. How does that change the tax status of the payment? Did cohen tell Trump that he wanted it sent as payment for a retainer so he can avoid taxes? Because money coming in from a client to pay an expense wouldn't be taxed. So this doesn't even make sense.

3 makes even less sense. It was grossed up to include taxes? That wouldn't need to be taxed because it's client money coming in to cohen's law firm to pay expenses it paid. Wasn't the $130k what cohen paid stormy's attorney so the $130k wouldn't actually be "grossed up." There's other money on those repayments for other things and they haven't really introduced evidence otherwise.

So (1) feels moot, (2) they haven't introduced evidence that Trump classified the repayment as money for a retainer agreement to help cohen avoid paying taxes, and (3) still no evidence that Trump added taxes to gross up the payment. The predicate crime fails here and you don't get to whether the 34 counts even matter.

Casual Cynic said:

---

So will the jury be given a menu of options for the other crime and told to just pick one? Or will have the prosecution have to zero in on something specific in closing arguments?

---

Good question. Don't know until we hear the jury instructions.

Reality Check said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

---

I am with you. As one of the resident 'moderates' here, I dislike Trump but I am very skeptical this trial would be happening right now if Trump had decided not to run in 2024. This is a political sham as you said.

Here is the thing though, this election campaign strategy by the Dems to hang a felony conviction on Trump before the election…perhaps costing him some critical votes in the middle voter pool… 'might' very well work. But the GOP voters in the primary knew the Dems were going to play this card - the charges were on deck - and still went with Trump as the horse they wanted to ride, so it is what it is if he's not acquitted.

---

So one of two major political parties in the United States should SIMPLY ACCEPT that if the other party is in power, they should not nominate the candidate whom the other party fears the most and against whom they are using corrupt federal and state prosecutors to completely eviscerate his civil rights and drag him through a series of Stalinesque show trials?

That sounds like an EXCELLENT way for the American federal government to operate.

I mean, this is EXACTLY what out founding fathers envisioned when they risked execution for treason from Britain in order to create a nation in which all men are created equal.

---

You apparently missed his point completely.

All of this lawfare is bull**** and the Democrats are bad people for pushing it. It should not be accepted and Trump does NOT deserve any of this.

That can be separated from actually nominating him for POTUS again...

You can hate the lawfare and still think that nominating Trump is a bad idea.