And the verdict is... not... that important
The jury is out in the Trump porn star payoff trial in New York. I've been skeptical of the prosecution's case from the beginning, and my view hasn't changed now that the presentation of evidence is over. The whole thing rests on the theory that Trump was making fake business entries in connection with another crime, and I've never quite understood what the other crime was supposed to be.
Apparently it was supposed to be either tax fraud or election fraud. The tax fraud, I'm simply not buying. He may have been setting up an aggressive position on his tax return, but even if that position was wrong, I doubt it would have been charged as fraud.
And if the underlying crime was supposed to be election fraud, the media sure aren't explaining it. If I don't get this crucial element of the state's case, I'm going to assume that at least one of the 12 jurors isn't going to get it, either. At least not beyond a reasonable doubt.
But more importantly, even if Trump is found guilty, I don't see it causing enough of his supporters to jump ship. The polls say he's going to win in November. I'm told that most people in Washington, D.C. are working under the assumption that's he's going to win in November. If he does, all federal charges against him, which is where the really serious crimes are, will be dropped.
Our country is in an awful mess, conviction in New York or not. Not that we deserve much better.
Doubt it would have been charged as tax fraud sounds weaker than doubt it was tax fraud. Is there an argument that hush money to porn star is a legitimately deductible business expense to protect the brand? If so, then I’ll buy ‘aggressive position.’
ReplyDeleteYou can argue it's deductible, you can argue it isn't. Unless it's clearly not deductible, it's not a crime to deduct it. Tax fraud crimes require knowledge of the illegality. You can't take a sharp picture of a fuzzy object.
DeleteSoviet show trials had more creditability.
ReplyDeleteCredibility
DeleteSpoken like someone who has no comprehension of what Soviet show trials actually entail. I suggest you listen to the latest episode of This American Life if you’d like a picture of what justice in conservative Mecca Russia looks like under Putin today.
DeleteFew of my supporters would leave me either if I committed a crime. Not sure how that is relevant to breaking the law. Unless it only depends on what law is broken by whom......
ReplyDeleteWhat polls? Most of any validity are showing Biden winning big. Also, you’re being told wrong. Most in DC are expecting a Biden win.
ReplyDeleteBiden is losing the swing states. I guess we are talking to different people in D.C. Or maybe you’re just a troll.
DeleteThe futures market lean toward Trump. There is some confirmation bias baked into the values, but the market is probably too large to be bought.
Deletehttps://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-the-2024-US-presidential-election
That’s basically a coin flip. 50/50 Trump betting futures to win/lose vs 46/51 for Biden. We’re 6 months out from the election. It’s all a lot of noise now but basically all we know is it looks to be close in November.
DeleteWhat about the false 1099's to Cohen. The reimbursement wasn't income, and they knew it.
ReplyDeleteSo they faked it to pay more tax than was owed? That may not even be a crime, but if it is, good luck with that theory in the jury room.
DeleteDon’t forget the Cheshire cat’s control of the room.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be linking the idea that the motive for making the false report had to be one that is rational, but the law seems to permit a jury to connect the crime to a different motive - it’s still a criminal act. The jury may not buy it, but it doesn’t seem that the case was quite as lightweight as the punditerati claimed.
ReplyDeleteI just posted the above and then see this:
Deletehttps://open.substack.com/pub/wonkette/p/convicted-felon-donald-trump-guilty?r=f8mt&utm_medium=ios
I am troubled that the statute requires a jury to find an intent to commit a crime based on the prosecution’s theory of a proposed crime. The statute doesn’t appear to require the court to instruct on the elements of the crime. The crime could be this or that or this other one, as the prosecutor and individual jurors see fit, based on a layperson’s knowledge of the this or that or some other crime. Compare this statute with the federal 1028A’s intent to commit a crime element. The crime is a specified unlawful act pulled, along with its elements, from a money laundering statute, all of which must be proved. Here, ultimately it might have been prudent to charge misdemeanors.
DeleteHis convictions will not deter most of his supporters, who will now feel he has suffered, and is a worthy martyr. I'm sure he'll rake in plenty of $ as well.
ReplyDelete