Quote:

---

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.

---

Persuasive analysis.

However, I will say that those "other crimes' would make more sense were there conspiracy counts within the indictment. Using conspiracy gets one to those questions, in my view. But there are not any conspiracy counts to provide a bridge to get there, although the state and the judge keep pretending there are.

And Merchan should know better because he was the supervising judge over the grand jury that handed down this indictment. (Personally I don't see how in the world that grand jury was persuaded Trump should be charged for Michael Cohen creating and sending invoices as an attorney billing for services.)

His bias kinda blinds him.

I was just posting what I understand or know the law of New York is. I don't think I've ever expressed any opinion or endorsement either way on whether the law is "just" or the judges were "correct" about the law.

I've expressed skepticism repeatedly the State can win this case.

If you want to observe and understand the happenings of this case not via the actual law but from some kind of legal fantasy land, go for it. Or if you want to argue with me about statements I never made, tilt at those windmills. I'm not bothered one bit.

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They were internal financial records never meant for publishing.

---

Hence where is "the intent to defraud or aid or conceal"?

---

Its like being prosecuted for using a vague transaction description to yourself in your own private checkbook register.

---

A few decades ago, I was business partners in a company where one of the other owners was the bookkeeper for the operational accounts. But even then we had monthly reconciliation of the accounts by outside accountants and then all tax returns were prepared by an outside CPA. They never caught her embezzlement.

The other partners and I noticed some peculiarities with the financial statements but we never thought she was stealing just sloppy and relied that the two outside accountants would catch them and correct them as necessary. But when the discrepancies became larger and larger we demanded to see the cancelled checks.

That is how we caught her. Fake vendor account but the deposit info on the back of the check went to her personal bank account among other artifices. So she was concealing her embezzlement from the outside accountants as well as the other partners.

But who would Trump be deceiving? Himself? His company.

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.

---

They have told Merchan they would only possibly call Bradley Smith, and they said that was unlikely if not a solid "no."

They had a lengthy discussion with Merchan at the end of they day about what Smith could testify about. They tried to get Merchan to change his earlier ruling. Merchan declined to do so. That leads me to believe he won't be called to testify.


They have told Merchan that they've not decided whether Trump will testify but I think we all know that answer.

aggiehawg said:

---

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!

---

If it was a jury of peers, my defense argument is: Cohen is a convicted liar that is making money off of this. And he was frustrated by a rando 14 year old so bad that he tried to tell on him. Thank you.

But here we are with a muddled bunch of tangential evidence and Trump will be found guilty of signing checks.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

They have told Merchan they would only possibly call Bradley Smith, and they said that was unlikely if not a solid "no."

They had a lengthy discussion with Merchan at the end of they day about what Smith could testify about. They tried to get Merchan to change his earlier ruling. Merchan declined to do so. That leads me to believe he won't be called to testify.


They have told Merchan that they've not decided whether Trump will testify but I think we all know that answer.

---

Yes, imagine being told that you're being tried for bogus charges, and can't use a campaign finance expert to explain your innocence.

This is Stalinist. And some of you love it.

---

I still want to understand the justification to so severely limit what Smith is allowed to talk about.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

They have told Merchan that they've not decided whether Trump will testify but I think we all know that answer.

---

I'm pessimistic, but if dumb**** demands to testify after all this and they crater to him, he deserves all he gets in this goat rope.

Quote:

---

I still want to understand the justification to so severely limit what Smith is allowed to talk about.

---

It is a general rule that certain types of experts can testify as to their opinions but not about the law. There are several legal fictions to support that.

For example, a Medical Examiner can testify as to biological cause of death, but their opinion as to manner of death (homicide, accident, suicide or undetermined) is not a binding legal conclusion despite juries routinely assuming they are.

Another example is use of force experts in trials of police officers. They can testify as to their opinions as to legal use of force or excessive use of force but that is not considered a legal opinion but of course the jury tends to believe it is.

And the ways those are handled is the battle of the experts and which one the jury gives the most weight. State was free to call their own election campaign finance law experts to counter. But the state apparently could not find one, nor made the effort. And THAT should be telling.

Matthew Colangelo, number 3 in DOJ, was ordered to take a pay cut to arrive in Bragg's DA office several weeks after Trump announced his candidacy the month before. Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

Is that not a tell?

ETA: Bolded and then, Marc Elias was not available? LOL.

Quote:

---

Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

---

Not true. The State had Adav Noti as an expert on campaign finance and he was on the list of witnesses presented to the jurors during voir dire

Noti was a general counsel and litigator at the FEC for 10 years.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

---

Not true. The State had Adav Noti as an expert on campaign finance and he was on the list of witnesses presented to the jurors during voir dire

Noti was general counsel at the FEC for 10 years.

---

Why didn't they call him, then? Which credibility problems did he have?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I still want to understand the justification to so severely limit what Smith is allowed to talk about.

---

It is a general rule that certain types of experts can testify as to their opinions but not about the law. There are several legal fictions to support that.

For example, a Medical Examiner can testify as to biological cause of death, but their opinion as to manner of death (homicide, accident, suicide or undetermined) is not a binding legal conclusion despite juries routinely assuming they are.

Another example is use of force experts in trials of police officers. They can testify as to their opinions as to legal use of force or excessive use of force but that is not considered a legal opinion but of course the jury tends to believe it is.

And the ways those are handled is the battle of the experts and which one the jury gives the most weight. State was free to call their own election campaign finance law experts to counter. But the state apparently could not find one, nor made the effort. And THAT should be telling.

Matthew Colangelo, number 3 in DOJ, was ordered to take a pay cut to arrive in Bragg's DA office several weeks after Trump announced his candidacy the month before. Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

Is that not a tell?

ETA: Bolded and then, Marc Elias was not available? LOL.

---

oh I'm sure there's an offshore bank account with colangelo's name on it and with many zeros.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

---

Not true. The State had Adav Noti as an expert on campaign finance and he was on the list of witnesses presented to the jurors during voir dire

Noti was general counsel at the FEC for 10 years.

---

Why didn't they call him, then? Which credibility problems did he have?

---

I'm still coming back to the prosecution trying to dazzle with BS during closing and give misleading (even untrue?) interpretations of the law. If no expert witnesses testified, then lawyers on both sides will have to sell what the law actually says.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I don't think I've ever expressed any opinion or endorsement either way

---

Exactly. That's why I asked you to man up and state your position.

No windmill tilting here. I'm just curious to see if you're the type of guy to actually take a stand on the application - or misapplication - of the law; or, whether your happy to slip the knife in as you piously proclaim " I'm just following the law".

And FTR, you've been exceedingly smug in your responses throughout this thread for me to buy your little "I'm just providing legal analysis" schtick. You're not quite as clever as you think you look.

Quote:

---

I'm still coming back to the prosecution to try and dazzle with BS during closing and give misleading interpretations of the law. If no expert witnesses testified, then lawyers on both sides will have to sell what the law actually says.

---

That gets touchy. Standard instruction is that what attorneys argue during opening and closing is NOT evidence they may consider. They are told not to. Repeatedly.

I was third chair in a federal trial early on in my career. Complicated antitrust case. No freakin' way the jury remotely understood what was going on. When a case is complicated on obscure laws of which the jury is not familiar (they understand theft, murder, assault and battery pretty easily) but a very niche area of the law?

I had a client who was a lawyer but spent his entire career as a public utilities lawyer. Things got screwed up during his new build house when the contractor took his money but never paid the subs. Liens filed all over. Contractor files for bankruptcy protection. A stay.

He doesn't understand that either. Zero clue what that meant. Finally asked him where he went to law school...you can fill in that blank.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Even he could not find an expert willing to take on the former FEC head.

---

Not true. The State had Adav Noti as an expert on campaign finance and he was on the list of witnesses presented to the jurors during voir dire

Noti was a general counsel and litigator at the FEC for 10 years.

---

Wasting nearly three days on Stormy? Wasting days on Cohen?

This not a tight well thought out prosecution. It is train wreck.

Who was Trump allegedly intending to defraud?

This article has a clear bias to it. But even it seems to have a tough time (credibly) pointing to that answer.

All of the cases have the person presenting some record to somebody else. The closest case which is not exactly clear is the Khalil case which cites to Ramirez and Elysian. Both of those SPECIFICALLY have some other person or entity as the intended target. So it's hard to say Khalil wavered from at least that requirement.

Recall that in the sham civil fraud trial, everyone was saying "this isn't criminal….there doesn't have to be intent or a victim of the fraud" blah blah blah (which wasn't completely accurate even in that case). Well here we are in a criminal case where "intend to defraud" is an element and still no victim of the alleged fraud.

https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/

IIIHorn said:

---

A hush money gag order seems a bit redundant.

---

Shhhhh!

These Jury instructions are gonna be a damn mess

The only crimes that have been adjudicated are the ones that Cohen plead guilty to

Had they not been going after him for other issues would he have coopt that plea and fought that charge? Moot at this point and they would have nailed him for something else


1000percent Cohen enacted most of this scheme to get back under Trumps Favor, he desperately wanted to be wanted.

If Trump was hiding things, it wasn't from anyone in his company, definitely had a past history of "capture and kill" that predates any Whitehouse bid

No one tried to cheat the Tax Man here except for maybe Daniels

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

---

Nice.

So just throw **** at the wall and whatever sticks puts people in jail.

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

You apparently missed THE point completely.

Not nominating Trump because of the Democrats' lawfare is rewarding a party engaged in illegal and immoral behavior.

You saying the Republicans shouldn't have nominated Trump because he's the victim of the Democrats' lawfare scheme is simply rewarding illicit behavior -- and there's no reason to pretend the Democrats won't do the same thing to whomever the next frontrunner for the GOP nomination is.

Kind of odd to be convicted solely of the crime of "intending to commit a crime".

Casual Cynic said:

---

Kind of odd to be convicted solely of the crime of "intending to commit a crime".

---

You mean "conspiracy to commit an unspecified crime via time travel, as attested under oath by serial perjurers/felons/porn star witnesses."

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?

---

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

---

In what world outside of North Korea, China, USSR could this be true?

I mentioned the fill-in-the-blank jury instructions many pages back. But you're actually stating it's worse? Not only can they pick the crime, but as long as all 12 think he committed one of the 3 crimes, that's good enough???

Reality Check said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

You apparently missed THE point completely.

Not nominating Trump because of the Democrats' lawfare is rewarding a party engaged in illegal and immoral behavior.

You saying the Republicans shouldn't have nominated Trump because he's the victim of the Democrats' lawfare scheme is simply rewarding illicit behavior -- and there's no reason to pretend the Democrats won't do the same thing to whomever the next frontrunner for the GOP nomination is.

---

Oh lovely...

Don't nominate the candidate on their policies.

Nominate them because the other party is a bunch of d-bags.

Your other paragraph is just a collection of strawmen...

How shook are they at the realization that Trump ain't gonna take the stand?

Trampled every other one of the man's fundamental constitutional rights, seem like they'd let him slide on just this one, no?

Currently on CNN- the Karen McDougal Interview. From 2018.

lol

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I don't think I've ever expressed any opinion or endorsement either way

---

Exactly. That's why I asked you to man up and state your position.

No windmill tilting here. I'm just curious to see if you're the type of guy to actually take a stand on the application - or misapplication - of the law; or, whether your happy to slip the knife in as you piously proclaim " I'm just following the law".

And FTR, you've been exceedingly smug in your responses throughout this thread for me to buy your little "I'm just providing legal analysis" schtick. You're not quite as clever as you think you look.

---

He already admitted, on this thread, to trolling by being obtuse and disingenuous when another poster asked him a question. I ignorelisted him at that point and the thread has gotten a lot quicker and easier to read.

nevermind, see it was answered

prosecution thinks they have about 1 hour of redirect with Cohen.

if the finish with the evidence on monday as trump's lawyer indicted he thinks is a possibility, then pre-charge conference (where the lawyers and judge talk about the instructions and questions given to the jury) will be at end of the day monday. each side has already submitted their proposed charge

the formal charge conference (where the formally make objections to the instructions and questions given to the jury) will happen tuesday morning, then they will give their closing arguments. don't know how much time they will each get, but mecrchan rightfully doesn't want them to be on different days.

this is not a rushed timeline, it is standard.