NY: Trump on Trial!

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/stewartbishop/status/1787469917962346977

[Epaminondas]

Come on, Weissmann — it’s “coup de grâce”

Might have been multilingual humour, as coup de gras translates as "fat slap", exactly what she did to Trump.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1787475090780586245https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1787475465449394294https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1787476382265507885https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1787475434801930459

[emailking]

Are they reading too much into that? From the direct quote from Merchan it sounds like jail will be on the table next time, not that it's "likely" or that this was the final warning.

[brucejoel99]

Are they reading too much into that? From the direct quote from Merchan it sounds like jail will be on the table next time, not that it's "likely" or that this was the final warning.

Maybe but here's somebody who's in the courtroom's take:

https://twitter.com/jose_pagliery/status/1787480010510475510https://twitter.com/jose_pagliery/status/1787481470623232219

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1787487429856723259?https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1787490147140858134https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1787489183721828472

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

My understanding is that if there are more violations, Merchan can jail Trump for a short span, i.e. overnight, to demonstrate that he's serious, and then leave additional jail time as an option should more violations continue.

[Illiniwek]

My understanding is that if there are more violations, Merchan can jail Trump for a short span, i.e. overnight, to demonstrate that he's serious, and then leave additional jail time as an option should more violations continue.

For a finding of contempt, the judge can put him behind bars indefinitely. There is no set time that the judge has to hold to, it's really in the judge's discretion. But you would have to imagine that if the judge takes this step against trump, it is likely just for an overnight to start.

[VALibertarian]

I have to ask, objectively as possible, does Trump spending the night in jail over a truth social post hurt or help him in the court of public opinion?

[brucejoel99]

My understanding is that if there are more violations, Merchan can jail Trump for a short span, i.e. overnight, to demonstrate that he's serious, and then leave additional jail time as an option should more violations continue.

For a finding of contempt, the judge can put him behind bars indefinitely. There is no set time that the judge has to hold to, it's really in the judge's discretion. But you would have to imagine that if the judge takes this step against trump, it is likely just for an overnight to start.

There's a 30 day-per-violation cap for NY criminal contempt alongside the $1K/violation fine cap.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I have to ask, objectively as possible, does Trump spending the night in jail over a truth social post hurt or help him in the court of public opinion?

Those who think he's being jailed "just" for a social media post will be outraged.  Those who think he's being jailed for contempt of court and witness/jury intimidation will support it.  But there's going to be a lot of overlap between those two groups and those who already think well or poorly of Trump, so the net effect will probably be negligible.

[LBJer]

I have to ask, objectively as possible, does Trump spending the night in jail over a truth social post hurt or help him in the court of public opinion?

Those who think he's being jailed "just" for a social media post will be outraged.  Those who think he's being jailed for contempt of court and witness/jury intimidation will support it.  But there's going to be a lot of overlap between those two groups and those who already think well or poorly of Trump, so the net effect will probably be negligible.

The thing is, anything related to Trump seems to have no effect in terms of public opinion.  People's minds are already decided and won't be swayed by evidence, no matter how compelling. 

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1787545038278291919https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1787546002934939729https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1787548746084942032https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1787568399108678095

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1787527000070000697

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/jose_pagliery/status/1787578014328316106

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why are we back to the majority of posts just being reposting tweets with no commentary or context?

[emailking]

Because that's what we want to see. I don't always have time to crawl X so I like it.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1787579466002358652

Why are we back to the majority of posts just being reposting tweets with no commentary or context?

Please don't start this rehash, literally nothing has changed. We already went over the definition of an Atlas megathread with agreement from the Mods. News is being shared appropriately, & literally multiple in-depth analysis threads have been shared with sufficient contextualization ITT just within the last 24 hours alone by being quoted instead of embedded, complying with previous requests.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1787443699456123142https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1787428730710720615

To be clear: *if* Trump just written a check directly to Stormy (the hypothetical presented by the listener), he could have done that legally under FECA *if* he later disclosed the payment accurately (which of course he never would have done since he was trying to hide it).

IRL, what happened was the money was advanced by Cohen.  That made what happened *both* an illegal contribution (by Cohen over the legal limit) and a disclosure violation (failure to disclose the Cohen illegal contribution and the failure to disclose the reimbursement), which was a crime for which Cohen served federal prison time.

And that makes the falsification of business records a felony under New York law.

So, maybe it's my lack of knowledge about New York law or federal election law in general, but do I understand this to mean if that perennial skin Flint Trump had just cried open his wallet, written a check to Cohen, and Cohen had written a check to Daniel's, and created some paper trail trying to claim that it was to spare melania's feelings, he likely couldn't have or wouldn't have been charged with anything in this case?

[Badger]

My understanding is that if there are more violations, Merchan can jail Trump for a short span, i.e. overnight, to demonstrate that he's serious, and then leave additional jail time as an option should more violations continue.

For a finding of contempt, the judge can put him behind bars indefinitely. There is no set time that the judge has to hold to, it's really in the judge's discretion. But you would have to imagine that if the judge takes this step against trump, it is likely just for an overnight to start.

There's a 30 day-per-violation cap for NY criminal contempt alongside the $1K/violation fine cap.

Correct. The type of indefinite contempt laws Illiniwek referenced are for when Witnesses refuse to testify under court order or the like and can be jailed indefinitely until they yield and take the stand. Not sure what New York's law is about that, but the 30-day / $1,000 maximum penalty here is what applies.

IMHO, what Merchan should have done here was to impose both the $1,000 fine he did as well as the maximum 30-day jail sentence, but suspend the jail sentence and allow him to purge that portion of the contempt- not the fine- on the simple condition he not have any further violations for the duration of this trial or however long afterwards if at all the gag order can be extended. Make it explicitly clear that that 30-day suspended sentence can be imposed PLUS any additional maximum 30-day sentence for future violations. At that point Trump can argue a lot less effectively - outside of his personality Cult of course- that being incarcerated was for anything less than being given repeated non-stop warnings which he refused to adhere to.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1787443699456123142https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1787428730710720615

To be clear: *if* Trump just written a check directly to Stormy (the hypothetical presented by the listener), he could have done that legally under FECA *if* he later disclosed the payment accurately (which of course he never would have done since he was trying to hide it).

IRL, what happened was the money was advanced by Cohen.  That made what happened *both* an illegal contribution (by Cohen over the legal limit) and a disclosure violation (failure to disclose the Cohen illegal contribution and the failure to disclose the reimbursement), which was a crime for which Cohen served federal prison time.

And that makes the falsification of business records a felony under New York law.

So, maybe it's my lack of knowledge about New York law or federal election law in general, but do I understand this to mean if that perennial skin Flint Trump had just cried open his wallet, written a check to Cohen, and Cohen had written a check to Daniel's, and created some paper trail trying to claim that it was to spare melania's feelings, he likely couldn't have or wouldn't have been charged with anything in this case?

Correct, since FECA only applies to expenditures that are made for the primary purpose of influencing a federal election, Donald Trump could've gotten the money to Stormy Daniels by check with or without Cohen's involvement & the lack of FEC disclosure wouldn't be unlawful so long as the payment was being made for the primary purpose of keeping the affair a secret from Melania. John Edwards got off (no pun intended) because he claimed that the payments to his mistress were made to keep the affair a secret from Elizabeth irrespective of his candidacy in the presidential race that he was already dropping out of anyway. That may or may not have been true - his claim certainly wasn't credible enough to get the indictment dismissed & the charges blocked from being turned over to a jury that wasn't even convinced enough to acquit on all charges - which is why he had to go to the trouble of arguing the claim to a jury just like Trump gets the chance to now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1787527000070000697

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[emailking]

Well the goal isn't just to get him on anything. He (allegedly) broke the law to illegally influence the election and that is a crime worth prosecting, for the deterrent effect if nothing else. Who cares if it's technically illegal that he cheated on his wife?

[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.