This will be Key: What are the Most Incriminating things that Michael Cohen Said in his Testimony Today?

[Care4all]

Cohen was sentenced to three years for several crimes that he committed for Trump. He was also found guilty of some of his own.

So, the orange loser should be sentenced to at least a year on this particular charge. Let's see how it shakes out.

Even if guilty, he's not going to be put in jail imo.

He might get probation, .again in my opinion.

Putting an ex president in jail for a smaller, though felonious, crime like this... just won't happen, and shouldn't happen imo.

Probation or maybe a House arrest for a short time, would be appropriate.

Guilty of the 1/6 election subversion self-coup attempt, or the Classified documents espionage act case would be different, perhaps?

He could go in to exile, like most leaders would for something similar, or house arrest....but likely not jail for those serious crimes either.... I don't think....?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Pretty sure your OP fails based on its face. It was explained multiple times on here that Trump is guilty if Michael Cohen's testimony is true (which was the framework you laid out). You know how you can be sure? The defense isnt going to stipulate what he said is true, they will paint it as a lie because they know if he is telling the truth Trump is guilty.

If everything Cohen said is true, the prosecution can make a very convoluted argument about a campaign finance violation, that will fail at its first questioning in the jury room.

But it will go to the jury, which seems to be the only goal at this point.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are trying so hard to pretend your question has not been answered.

But, it is getting boring.

Yet you obsessively reply.

 

[DGS49]

While "real" attorneys don't operate this way, if I were Trump's attorney I would have stipulated on the first day (or before) that:

• Trump ordered Cohen to seek an NDA from the one or two women in question, so that they would desist in their claims of sexual adventures with Trump,
• The compensation for the NDA's was paid indirectly by Trump,
• It was classified as "legal expenses," but the motive was two-fold - personal and political.
• We will stipulate that it should have been classified as a political contribution, which was a misdemeanor (for which the Statute of Limitations has expired).

So fuck you very much, Mr. D.A. Where is the crime?

 

[Seymour Flops]

While "real" attorneys don't operate this way, if I were Trump's attorney I would have stipulated on the first day (or before) that:

• Trump ordered Cohen to seek an NDA from the one or two women in question, so that they would desist in their claims of sexual adventures with Trump,
• The compensation for the NDA's was paid indirectly by Trump,
• It was classified as "legal expenses," but the motive was two-fold - personal and political.
• We will stipulate that it should have been classified as a political contribution, which was a misdemeanor (for which the Statute of Limitations has expired).

So fuck you very much, Mr. D.A. Where is the crime?

Exactly right.

Even the most deranged TDS cultist on this this thread admits Trump tried to silence Stormy for reasons having nothing to do with any campaign.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did Cohen ever say who Trump intended to defraud, or whether Trump made the entries in question?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are trying so hard to pretend your question has not been answered.

But, it is getting boring.

Your answer to the most incriminating thing that Cohen testified to was that Trump wanted the Stormy story killed due to the election?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I have concerns that the hatred of Trump by the leftists overseeing and prosecuting this trial that the juniors will feel pressured to convict .

I know you hate factual evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Tough to be you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Did Cohen ever say who Trump intended to defraud, or whether Trump made the entries in question?

Not required.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your answer to the most incriminating thing that Cohen testified to was that Trump wanted the Stormy story killed due to the election?

Nope, not at all.

 

[para bellum]

The prosecution must be counting on the judge to read the jury a set of instructions that makes it clear that the court expects a guilty verdict. I'm guessing there will be some statement to the effect that if they find not guilty, it would be for political reasons and maybe with a vague threat.

I don't see what else they can try, their presentation of "facts" having fallen so flat.

I think the judge gives a fairly standard instruction on the falsification charge, with emphasis that the intent to defraud does not require an expectation of monetary gain. But he can't leave out the requirement that some State authority had to be frustrated by calling the payments "legal expenses"- the records have to have some material impact, or it's just a bookkeeping argument.

I think the two corporate lawyers on the jury will be looking at the "falsification with intent to defraud", and wondering what specifically was false about the entries, and who the target of the fraud was supposed to be.

I think on the "underlying crime", the jury will be given the smorgasbord of choices, and they will only have to find there was a conspiracy to violate one or another of the election laws or the NY tax law.

I expect the judge will neglect the fact that the election law violations are offenses that could not be brought by the State against Trump or any of the "co-conspirators", since he allowed the DA to go forward with those theories at the start. That will be a question for the appeals court, if it gets to that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think the judge gives a fairly standard instruction on the falsification charge, with emphasis that the intent to defraud does not require an expectation of monetary gain. But he can't leave out the requirement that some State authority had to be frustrated by calling the payments "legal expenses"- the records have to have some material impact, or it's just a bookkeeping argument.

I think the two corporate lawyers on the jury will be looking at the "falsification with intent to defraud", and wondering what specifically was false about the entries, and who the target of the fraud was supposed to be.

I think on the "underlying crime", the jury will be given the smorgasbord of choices, and they will only have to find there was a conspiracy to violate one or another of the election laws or the NY tax law.

I expect the judge will neglect the fact that the election law violations are offenses that could not be brought by the State against Trump or any of the "co-conspirators", since he allowed the DA to go forward with those theories at the start. That will be a question for the appeals court, if it gets to that.

Great post!

It had never occurred to me that the judge might allow the jurors to pick from multiple proposed “another crime“candidates. No wonder they have never said what the another crime is.

Unless the two attorneys on the jury are stealth, Trump deranged types, surely they will tell the other jurors “They’re supposed to tell us what the crime is, not have us guess.”

But, yes. If any judge would do something like that, Merchan is the guy to do it.

 

[para bellum]

Cohen was sentenced to three years for several crimes that he committed for Trump. He was also found guilty of some of his own.

So the tax evasion and bank fraud charges were just incidental? The "real" crimes were the campaign finance violations?

Okay...

So, the orange loser should be sentenced to at least a year on this particular charge. Let's see how it shakes out.

I hate to break it to you, but the standard sentence for a Class E non-violent felony for an offender with no priors is:

no jail, probation 1-1/3 to 4 years.

New York State Penal Law - Felony Classes Sentences | NY Law

New York Penal Law - Felony Classes and Sentences, All Felonies range in classification from A to E with the A crimes as the most serious | NYS Laws

ypdcrime.com

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I expect the Judge will carefully and clearly explain why the election law violations are offenses that can be brought by the State against Trump or any of the "co-conspirators", since he allowed the DA to go forward with those theories at the start.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I expect the Judge will carefully and clearly explain why the election law violations are offenses that can be brought by the State against Trump or any of the "co-conspirators", since he allowed the DA to go forward with those theories at the start.

Yes.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hypothetical question:

suppose a candidate for office was told that the fact that he had an outstanding student loan debt could be held against him by voters since he is campaigning on canceling student loan debt. Supposed to avoid that perception, he paid off his student loan.

Did he just make an illegal contribution to his own campaign? Would it violate the law if he wrote “payoff student loan” in his checkbook?

 

[para bellum]

I expect the Judge will carefully and clearly explain why the election law violations are offenses that can be brought by the State against Trump or any of the "co-conspirators", since he allowed the DA to go forward with those theories at the start.

Already explained this to you once. The federal preemption is absolute. "Any provision of State law" encompasses all State election laws. (exclusive of "times, places, and manner" laws which are Constitutionally mandated to the States)

There is plenty of case law that establishes this. e.g. Minnesota passed a law to establish public financing for Senators and Representatives, and it was struck down because it was related to a federal election.

Merchan allowed the election laws as predicate crimes, but he knows that Trump (or the others) can't be charged with violating either FECA or 17-152 by the State of New York because it was a federal election.

Had they done the same acts in a State election, the federal law would not preempt the charge.

52 U.S. Code § 30143 - State laws affected

(a)In general

Subject to subsection (b), the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.

(b)State and local committees of political parties

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State or local committee of a political party may, subject to State law, use exclusively funds that are not subject to the prohibitions, limitations, and reporting requirements of the Act for the purchase or construction of an office building for such State or local committee.

 

[para bellum]

Hypothetical question:

suppose a candidate for office was told that the fact that he had an outstanding student loan debt could be held against him by voters since he is campaigning on canceling student loan debt. Supposed to avoid that perception, he paid off his student loan.

Did he just make an illegal contribution to his own campaign? Would it violate the law if he wrote “payoff student loan” in his checkbook?

Off the top of my head, I would say no. He might be required to report it as a contribution to his own campaign, but I can't see a problem with his doing it. As the candidate, he is not bound by any personal funding limits.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Off the top of my head, I would say no. He might be required to report it as a contribution to his own campaign, but I can't see a problem with his doing it. As the candidate, he is not bound by any personal funding limits.

Yes, I agree.

So, what is the meaningful difference between paying off student loan and paying off a person who claims to have had an affair, if either is done with an election being a factor in the decision?

The answer is this: paying off a person alleging an affair is a much more salacious story than paying office to the loan.
MThat is a true purpose of introducing the porn story in a case supposedly about book keeping. Put out embarrassing personal information about Trump, and hope that it causes the jury to want to find him guilty of something, and causes the voters not to want to vote for him.

Luckily, neither of those goals are going to be met by this trial.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Already explained this to you once. The federal preemption is absolute. "Any provision of State law" encompasses all State election laws. (exclusive of "times, places, and manner" laws which are Constitutionally mandated to the States)
<snip>

You explained you don't have a clue about this.