NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[SteveRogers]

The judge doesn't have to set bail and I don't think will.

For a financial crime with no prior criminal history? The Judge will absolutely set bail. The real question is what bond conditions the judge will set (travel restrictions, etc.).

[SteveRogers]

Sorry to disappoint you OSR, but presidents are not god kings who answer to nobody.

We are a nation of laws, whether you like it or not.

Should Clinton have gone to prison for perjury then . This is literally the equivalent of that and the answer is obviously Clinton should not have .

Breaking decades of precedent over this is beyond moronic

Should he have been charged with perjury? Maybe. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed perjury, then yes. (People make fun of the “depends on what the meaning of is is” thing, but he actually had a viable defense).

Should Clinton have gone to prison over it? Maybe not. Probation for first time offenders is a thing.

[SteveRogers]

First of all , neither of my parents voted for Trump and second of all how the heck couldn’t you see I was using Trump supporter language to try to convince them to not vote for Trump in the primary .

I'd like to apologize for the unreasonableness from many fellow red avatars. The inability to see things from a blue avatar perspective is too common in us, taken as a whole.

*Makes wanking gesture*

If you don't see the value in talking to the other side using their own talking point style to get an outcome you want, you don't have the guts to defend our political order. Sorry, not sorry.

Feeding their delusions of persecution is not building bridges with people who will come around on America when its put in terms they can understand. "You're correct that this is a massive conspiracy by your enemies" is not defusing the situation and defending our political order.

We don't want the lunatics lured back into the attic and kept in a lie-fueled rage. Republicans are sick, twisted people for putting their coalition's need for this poison above America's wellbeing.

The people whose talking style is objective lies need to confront realities - legal and numerical. If they can't accept criminals going to jail or their ideas being outnumbered, they need psychological help. If they turn to violence, they are criminals. Suggesting OSR has guts for lying to get what he wants - the same lies destroying our country - is ludicrous.

I don’t think charging candidates for campaign finance violations is a good precedent to have given how much Grey areas candidates already fall into when it comes to campaign finance . Do we want a to start a trend where pretty much every candidate starts to get indicated over this as that’s not something I want started at all .

The responsible thing to do is not charge Trump

You don’t think campaign finance laws should ever be applied to… candidates for office? That’s kind of the WHOLE POINT of campaign finance laws.

[SteveRogers]

The third world is laughing at us:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1643343155574767617

In the countries that you’re talking about, do the prosecutors usually sit back and politely let said candidate finish serving out their entire term as President before filing the charges?

[SteveRogers]

Now the judge is a jackass because of the donation? I should have learned my lesson after what you said about the DA.

The guy broke the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct. We are counting on him to make decisions about people’s freedoms in Manhattan Supreme Court, and he is breaking his oath by donating to politics campaigns when he isn’t supposed to do. He is a jackass because he is supposed to be held at a higher standard, given the grave importance of his occupation

You may want to google what a “model code” is before you go on prattling nonsense.

[SteveRogers]

Sorry, Politico, this is not gonna happen.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/11/trump-alvin-bragg-trial-win-00151558

I mean, the part about asking for an instruction on a lesser misdemeanor offense is something any competent defense attorney would have to consider. That’s often a game-time decision for both sides in a criminal case during the charge conference after both sides have rested.

[SteveRogers]

There are so many things wrong with this case and I have some quite choice words for Mr. Bragg, but the most glaring problems are 1) Statue of Limitations and 2) NY doesn't have jurisdiction over a federal matter, and the Feds declined to prosecute this case. I think its incumbent upon SCOTUS to step in and shut the case down now. Usually, they don't get involved until the appeals process, but given the unprecedented nature of this case plus the horrific ramifications it could have on our body politic, its best to be shut down now.

In the meantime, I think it's incumbent upon GOP governors to use their powers to punish the state of New York. Shut down flights originating from NYC from landing in their states. The NY-FL air market is huge, so that would have an impact. Plus, you have huge airline hubs in TX and GA that would cause a harrowing effect on NY. Cancel all state-funded travel to NY. Not only does this apply to government employees, but also publicly funded universities. Any NCAA sporting events in NY would be effected. And make clear these sanctions will not be lifted until the case is dismissed.

There are indeed some thorny legal questions that still need to be resolved in this case, but these aren’t them.
1) The 5 year Statute of Limitations is tolled during periods when the Defendant was continuously outside of the state.
2) Trump is being prosecuted under New York State law for the state crime of falsifying business records.

[SteveRogers]

There are so many things wrong with this case and I have some quite choice words for Mr. Bragg, but the most glaring problems are 1) Statue of Limitations and 2) NY doesn't have jurisdiction over a federal matter, and the Feds declined to prosecute this case. I think its incumbent upon SCOTUS to step in and shut the case down now. Usually, they don't get involved until the appeals process, but given the unprecedented nature of this case plus the horrific ramifications it could have on our body politic, its best to be shut down now.

In the meantime, I think it's incumbent upon GOP governors to use their powers to punish the state of New York. Shut down flights originating from NYC from landing in their states. The NY-FL air market is huge, so that would have an impact. Plus, you have huge airline hubs in TX and GA that would cause a harrowing effect on NY. Cancel all state-funded travel to NY. Not only does this apply to government employees, but also publicly funded universities. Any NCAA sporting events in NY would be effected. And make clear these sanctions will not be lifted until the case is dismissed.

There are indeed some thorny legal questions that still need to be resolved in this case, but these aren’t them.
1) The 5 year Statute of Limitations is tolled during periods when the Defendant was continuously outside of the state.
2) Trump is being prosecuted under New York State law for the state crime of falsifying business records.

That is a very flawed interpretation of the Statute of Limitations and one that almost certainly won't hold up to scrutiny from SCOTUS.

That’s not even an interpretation. It’s just black letter law.

§ 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.
…
4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the
whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously
unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no
event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years
beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10
Most jurisdictions have such a provision for tolling the statute of limitations. What is the Constitutional argument against it that you think SCOTUS would bite at?

[SteveRogers]

There are so many things wrong with this case and I have some quite choice words for Mr. Bragg, but the most glaring problems are 1) Statue of Limitations and 2) NY doesn't have jurisdiction over a federal matter, and the Feds declined to prosecute this case. I think its incumbent upon SCOTUS to step in and shut the case down now. Usually, they don't get involved until the appeals process, but given the unprecedented nature of this case plus the horrific ramifications it could have on our body politic, its best to be shut down now.

In the meantime, I think it's incumbent upon GOP governors to use their powers to punish the state of New York. Shut down flights originating from NYC from landing in their states. The NY-FL air market is huge, so that would have an impact. Plus, you have huge airline hubs in TX and GA that would cause a harrowing effect on NY. Cancel all state-funded travel to NY. Not only does this apply to government employees, but also publicly funded universities. Any NCAA sporting events in NY would be effected. And make clear these sanctions will not be lifted until the case is dismissed.

There are indeed some thorny legal questions that still need to be resolved in this case, but these aren’t them.
1) The 5 year Statute of Limitations is tolled during periods when the Defendant was continuously outside of the state.
2) Trump is being prosecuted under New York State law for the state crime of falsifying business records.

That is a very flawed interpretation of the Statute of Limitations and one that almost certainly won't hold up to scrutiny from SCOTUS.

That’s not even an interpretation. It’s just black letter law.

§ 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.
…
4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the
whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously
unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no
event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years
beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10
Most jurisdictions have such a provision for tolling the statute of limitations. What is the Constitutional argument against it that you think SCOTUS would bite at?

Time is linear. If a crime happened on April 14n 2023 and the Statute of Limitations is one year, it expired yesterday. Doesn't matter if said offender wasn't in state everyday for the past year. The universe does not stop because someone left a jurisdiction. All of those states who have such interpretation are wrong and SCOTUS should strike it down. And given the makeup of the current SCOTUS, it's almost certain they will. Even some of liberals may join along.

You can’t just say “SCOTUS should strike it down” when you haven’t even attempted to mount a Constitutional argument. You’re just saying that you personally don’t like it, so SCOTUS should strike it down. Nothing in the Constitution requires any particular limitations period for any particular crime. Some crimes, in fact, have NO statute of limitations (usually murder and maybe sexual assault against children). This has never been held to be unconstitutional.

[SteveRogers]

I haven’t followed the details of each individual juror, but I’m surprised the prosecution is letting lawyers onto the jury.  I had thought it was common knowledge that lawyers were generally good for the defendant.  I myself was once seated as a potential juror in a criminal trial (I think a drug sale case), but was dismissed by the prosecution when I told them I had a law degree.

Lawyers usually get struck. As do engineers. Really anyone with an advanced degree. But each side only gets so many strikes, and sometimes there are just worse jurors in the pool that are a higher priority to use your strikes on.

[SteveRogers]

This is a very good observation, and clarifies why Trump is the worst client a lawyer can have.

An easy defense would be that Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star and paid money for her silence, but that the defense will prove why it isn't a crime. Instead, they have to satiate his ego and base their defense on contrived motivations and complete fabrications.

But if Trump cheated on his wife in New York, that -is- a crime, and falsifying business records to conceal adultery would then be a felony.  This seems like a much more straightforward argument to make any any tenuous connection to campaign finance.

Criminal adultery laws aren’t enforced for a reason and are of dubious constitutionality.

[SteveRogers]

Out of curiosity, would would be the lightest (realistically speaking) sentence Trump could get?

It looks like the length of probation for a Class E felony would be 3 to 5 years. Standard conditions of probation would likely include community service, regular reporting to a probation officer, proof of employment, drug and alcohol testing, a prohibition on possessing any guns, and any other classes or counseling programs the court seems appropriate. Probation also usually comes with a curfew and restrictions on travel (with random home visits to check curfew compliance). His probation supervision could probably be transferred to Florida, but he might not be able to leave his county of residence without prior approval from his probation officer.

In short, felony probation is no cakewalk.

[SteveRogers]

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

Not a lawyer but doesn't it seem like a no brainer for the prosecution to mention that fact?
So many people were involved in this case and yet nobody stepped up to defend Trump and explain why he is innocent.

The prosecution is not allowed to mention that.

The prosecution can argue in closing about the absence of specific witnesses or evidence that the defense brought up themselves but failed to produce. But the prosecution absolutely cannot remark on the Defendant’s refusal to take the stand or shift the burden by arguing that the defense declined to call any witnesses.

[SteveRogers]

Assuming misdemeanor only becomes allowed and they convict on misdemeanors and not felonies, I think it means either they don't understand that part of the law or they don't believe Cohen. Because if you believe Cohen's testimony, seems clear Trump was only worried about the effect on the election. Pecker also spoke to that somewhat, but it was more based on his impression of Trump's intentions, whereas Trump made it more explicit with Cohen.

You’re ascribing a certain level of intellectual rigor to the jury deliberation process when in reality juries will opt to split the baby if given the option simply because it’s the path of least resistance.

 It remains to be seen whether either side wants to give the jury that option (I guess we’ll find out shortly when the charge conference begins). If you’re the prosecution, it’s a gamble because you may not want to give the jury that easy out. You’d expect the average defendant to want the instruction in there, but obviously Trump wants total exoneration.

[SteveRogers]

Are we assuming that will be allowed? Isn't the charge solely a felony one?

I don’t know the ins and outs of New York criminal procedure, but generally in most jurisdictions either side in a criminal case can ask that the jury be instructed to consider a “lesser included offense” if they find a defendant not guilty (or are hung) on the charged offense.

In Texas courts, the prosecution always has the option of requesting the instruction on a lesser-included offense. Likewise, the defense can get the instruction in (even if the prosecution doesn’t want it) if the court finds that there’s evidence from which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of only the lesser offense.

[SteveRogers]

Yep, it’s something that prosecutors need to prime the jury on (ideally starting with voir dire), but it’s part of the job. If you want to know what’s going on in a snake pit, you’re going to have to call some snakes as witnesses.

[SteveRogers]

What about a conviction on misdemeanors? What do you think the impact would be then?

Unless I missed something, it doesn’t sound like an instruction on the misdemeanor was discussed at the charge conference, was it?

[SteveRogers]

What do you think, will the defense ask for misdemeanors to be included?

Jury instructions were finalized last Thurs. & they didn't:

Can they still change their minds?
I believe they can.

They cannot.

[SteveRogers]

What do you think, will the defense ask for misdemeanors to be included?

Jury instructions were finalized last Thurs. & they didn't:

Can they still change their minds?

I believe they can.

Jury instructions are finalized & provided to the parties before summations so that the parties can tailor their summations to the instructions that'll be given to the jury they're arguing before.

I was curious about this myself, so I texted an attorney friend and this is what she said.  My Atlas legal eagles, please feel free to correct or clarify.  

"I practice in (state), so I don't know the specifics of NY law, but my understanding is that the defense can technically request a change up until the jury starts deliberating.  But doing so around* closing arguments would be very rare and unusual.

*EDIT (oops, there was another part to her message): "Plus it wouldn't just be a simple 'hey changed our minds, we want the misdemeanor charges considered'.  In short, it'd be a messy request to make at this stage.

Yeah, I can’t speak to the particulars of NY procedure either, but obviously you can’t wait and see how closing arguments go and then decide you want an instruction on the lesser charge. If the Judge entertained such a request in the *middle* of closing arguments, it would mean re-opening the charge conference, re-doing the reading of the jury charge to the jurors, and then starting closing arguments all over again based on the new jury instructions.

[SteveRogers]

Given the politics of the current SCOTUS, what are the odds that they take up the case immediately, bypassing NY court of appeals, and overturn a conviction?

Low I think. I doubt they want to touch this at all or even take the case but it would go up through the chain first.

Please explain it to me, why they wouldn't take this up immediately?

If Trump is convicted and they consider the charges unconstitutional, they should immediately intervene to prevent election interference.

I think you have a loose grasp on how the court system works.

There is a possibility for them to intervene immediately.
Therefore, what I'm suggesting here is well within the notion of "how the court system works".

There isn’t. You may be thinking of Trump’s federal court cases where SCOTUS was asked to step in to rule on a district court decision early, bypassing the court of appeals. But state court cases have to go to the state’s highest court before being appealed to SCOTUS.

[SteveRogers]

I think I agree this means they are focusing on intent but I don't think that necessarily means they're leaning towards convicting him. Maybe they think there's not enough evidence he had intent and want to make sure they didn't miss something.

I think it’s a good indication that at least some of the jurors are leaning towards conviction. But they may want the instructions read back because they’re trying to prove a point to one or more holdouts.

[SteveRogers]

Are to complete jury instructions posted online anywhere?

here:

The full instructions are here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf.  Merchan is re-reading pages 6 to 35 to the jury.

Thanks!

It’s bizarre to me that the jury can’t get a printed copy of the instructions.  Like, they can’t even get a print out of the actual elements of the crime they are asked to convict on? Instead, the judge literally repeats about a dozen pages of instruction verbatim just to help the jury remember (the sections starting on pp. 27 and 40).

Based on these instructions I think I might very well vote to convict Trump.  But I would also likely vote to overturn that conviction as an appellate court judge.

Based on…???

[SteveRogers]

Even Mitt Romney is opposed to this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna152420

 

that the president “made an enormous error” by not pressuring New York prosecutors to drop their case against Trump. (Presidents can pardon only in federal cases.)

"He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney said, referring to Biden. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”

Pressed by Ruhle whether that is Biden’s job to pardon Trump, Romney said he believes that Biden should have taken a cue from former President Lyndon B. Johnson, saying that the president could have stepped in and urged New York prosecutors to drop the case.“I have been around for a while. If LBJ had been president, and he didn’t want something like this to happen, he’d have been all over that prosecutor saying, ‘You better not bring that forward or I’m gonna drive you out of office,’” he said.

This a pretty naive take, even for a fairly naive politician like Romney.

Biden isn't LBJ. No President in the modern party system has institutional power like LBJ had in Washington. And LBJ had it just in Washington! This is a New York State case, after all.

Bragg should be publicly shamed by the Democratic Party . I mean this is a guy who lets far worse crime go on a daily basis . Also you can issue a pardon on these charges and thus remove any incentive to bring the case to begin with

The President cannot pardon state crimes. How do some of y’all still not get this?

[SteveRogers]

Even Mitt Romney is opposed to this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna152420

 

that the president “made an enormous error” by not pressuring New York prosecutors to drop their case against Trump. (Presidents can pardon only in federal cases.)

"He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney said, referring to Biden. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”

Pressed by Ruhle whether that is Biden’s job to pardon Trump, Romney said he believes that Biden should have taken a cue from former President Lyndon B. Johnson, saying that the president could have stepped in and urged New York prosecutors to drop the case.“I have been around for a while. If LBJ had been president, and he didn’t want something like this to happen, he’d have been all over that prosecutor saying, ‘You better not bring that forward or I’m gonna drive you out of office,’” he said.

This a pretty naive take, even for a fairly naive politician like Romney.

Biden isn't LBJ. No President in the modern party system has institutional power like LBJ had in Washington. And LBJ had it just in Washington! This is a New York State case, after all.

Bragg should be publicly shamed by the Democratic Party . I mean this is a guy who lets far worse crime go on a daily basis . Also you can issue a pardon on these charges and thus remove any incentive to bring the case to begin with

The President cannot pardon state crimes. How do some of y’all still not get this?

The governor of New York can

Should the other 34 defendants in Manhattan that have been charged by Bragg's DA office with felony counts for falsifying business records be granted pardons too?

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1796370294858490027

What Romney is saying is presidents should not  be charged for stuff like this .

At the very least if you are gonna, then you should require them to be allowed an auto appeal to the state Supreme Court or SCOTUS(depending on whether it’s a state or federal charge) and let them decide if they should get immunity for that particular charge

Trump was not president when he committed this crime, and he’s not president now. By what tortured logic could an appellate court recognize “immunity” in this case?

[SteveRogers]

The vast majority of voters dont care about this either, just like they didnt care about Clinton committing perjury.

Heck its why the average voter really didnt care about Iran-Contra either

Clinton wasn't convicted for a felony.
Thanks for playing.

Clinton gave up his law license:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/politics/clinton-reaches-deal-to-avoid-indictment-and-to-give-up-law-license.html

Yes, he did. Should he not have? I’m confused, are you for or against presidents suffering consequences for their actions?