David, I thought you were better than this. Your tone is gloating. Trump may be as crooked as you claim, but this was not a just trial. There was no crime. Democrat politicians have been acquitted of the same allegation. It was a NYC jury, and the best Trump could expect was a hung jury. It is obvious that there has been democrat collusion at the federal, state and local level to interfere with the presidential election by weaponizing the justice system. I hope an appeals court can quickly reverse this injustice. I had resigned myself to a second disastrous Biden term but now I am hoping for revenge because this might be my last election cycle before I sink into whatever mental abyss Joe Biden occupies.
Curtis, I don’t think David commending the jurors for courage is gloating. I pity any juror who had to sit through that trial then put their lives in danger (they will be public) either by convicting or acquitting a former president.
And…like it or not, Trump did “have it coming.” He’s been flirting with felonies for decades and skating by because he’s rich and famous.
I’ll give you all your arguments about an unjust trial. Merchan does hate Trump. The jury instructions were only a hair short of a directed verdict. The judge made it easy for them to convict him. It was a political prosecution in every way—Bragg campaigned on making this happen.
However, Trump knew all this and chose the political over the legal. Even lawyers who defend him—Andrew McCarthy—say that Trump handcuffed his own legal team preferring to take the political narrative over a sound defense. Trump helped in his own conviction by going with the “corrupt system” argument for his supporters. How cynical is that!?
This case was really set up 6 years ago. Trump knew it was coming. He moved to Florida to get out of New York. He let his own CFO go to jail over false records. He knifed Cohen (who richly deserved it) in the back. Trump plans to use this verdict to raise money while not being in any particular jeopardy of prison. The “system” is just a tool to Trump, like everything else.
Is he happy he’s a felon? No. But he did have it coming.
Bragg did not campaign on the matter: after his election he stated that the investigations running under his predecessor would proceed. You might recall he actually ended one or both of those investigations, to the fury of liberals and others.
The question re jury instruction is whether it differs from any other case where the same charges have been brought - and they have been, many times. If there is in fact something improper then the decision could be reversed on a technicality.
FWIW, the article didn't come across as gloating whatsoever to me (and, believe me, there is plenty of gloating around the internet tonight).
The law is the law. The judge was fair, the prosecution followed the expectations and rules of the court, and the jury was engaged and focused. Just b/c you disagree with the result doesn't mean it was unjust. NY was (largely) where the crime took place, and it was NY laws broken. The jury are Trumps peers and I've heard no claims of bias against Trump that held up to any objective scrutiny. Trump was treated more than fairly--both the judge and the prosecution were loath to respond to his repeated attempts to taint the proceedings... he received deference any other defendant would surely not have been afforded.
There was a crime: it's one that has been charged almost 10k times in the past decade or so. Bragg himself charged it 166 times as felonies against 34 defendants during his first 15 months in office.
Trump's team was involved in jury selection, per the law.
The jury of random New Yorkers found him guilty.
He has the right to appeal, and that will follow the process as set in law too.
It relies on evidence presented during a criminal trial. Which was just held, and the jury found unanimously that it was so. That means the prosecution provided sufficient evidence, and the defense did not sufficiently discredit or otherwise counter that evidence.
Trump knew that Cohen was being reimbursed for NDA. So what. To Trump it was a legal expense. It’s no different than paying an attorney for travel or for the services of an expert witness. How the attorney reports the payments is not Trump’s concern. He’s not responsible for auditing Cohen’s tax return.
Not everyone agrees with you or Patterico. I recommend an alternative analysis.
It's all pretty clear cut Curtis; he fought the law and the rule of law won. It won't be overturned and in fact trump will bury himself before sentencing by attacking the jurors. God help him if one of them is harmed by his goofy followers.
Everything about this sham trial was political, and had zero to do with anything remotely criminal. Just because 12 people who have it in for the defendant voted to convict doesn't make Trump a criminal. Have this same trial in 46 other states in the union and Trump is acquitted. I have said since 2015 that there are very many reasons to not vote for Trump that we don't have to resort to lies, sham trials, and political witch hunts to keep him from the oval office. Mr. Thornton, you have just lost what little respect I had for you. Your piece shows complete bias and hatred for an innocent man who was in every sense of the word railroaded in this fake, phony trial.
“To file”? No. It’s a crime to “record” fraudulent transactions in company records. Those transactions were never filed with anyone. They covered up the crime of NOT filing the payments as campaign contributions. If Cohen weren’t hauled off for tax evasion those transactions would never have seen the light of day and nobody would be the wiser they even existed.
It does make me wonder if the Trump Org deducted those payments from their taxes improperly - but that wasn't part of the charges so perhaps is irrelevant at the moment.
The jury was culled from a pool who are registered voters, 90 percent of whom are registered democrats. The Trump legal team was hamstrung from the start in that respect. Furthermore, you had a judge who at the very least should be investigated for judicial misconduct in the shoddy, and possibly criminal way he handled the case. At the very least, he should have recused himself from the case, and a fair judge could have dismissed it before it saw the light of day. But look at what I'm saying, a fair judge in NYC, pshaw.
Regarding the jury, all it would have taken was for the defense to convince ONE juror to side with them, and the case would have ended in a mistrial, with the gov't unlikely to retry the case (as we saw in the John Edwards case). Trump's history of stiffing folks that work for him has been catching up with him lately, as competent attorneys decline to work for him.
As for the judge recusing himself, if that's the standard, just wait for Trump to attack all the judges as he repeatedly attacked Merchan. Then there would be no judges left to try Trump (or only the ones he chose himself by not attacking).
Seriously, though, you have to be a COMPLETE MORON if you think holding a press conference after each day of the trial bashing the overseeing judge does you any favors in the courtroom. Instead of keeping his trap shut and letting his B-team lawyers do their job, Trump had to Trump, and is now angry and pouting that he has to sit in the hole he spent the entire course of this trial digging.
The crimes occurred in NY: so are you recommending that criminals only commit crimes in jurisdictions that favor them politically? Or are you stating that you'd prefer that only members of one political party be able to judge those of the same party? Sounds pretty wrong to me.
The Trump team will be filing an appeal, and if they can prove such misconduct then Mr. Trump will be vindicated - on a technicality.
I'm saying that more fairness be injected into the system, especially in NYC. Of course, if anyone involved in this sham were interested in fairness, it would have been dismissed as the political farce it was.
Trump got as much, if not MORE, due process than any of us "little people" would have gotten in the same situation. He repeatedly violated his gag order, and got slaps on the wrist for it.
If the treatment Trump received for his actions is "unfair", sign me up!
The "fair" thing is to have a random pool of jurors; to allow for both sides to be involved in jury selection; and to allow for objections to specific jurists.
Cut CS some slack SGman, i'm sure he has written volumes on Judge Cannon and how unfair she has been in the documents case and how she should recuse herself rather than act as a trump lackey.
On a lighter and brighter note, Mitch's words are still ringing in my ears: ""We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."
Oddly enough, now he has joined the trump train and decided the rule of law only matters if his guy is found innocent. He wasn't.
David, I thought you were better than this. Your tone is gloating. Trump may be as crooked as you claim, but this was not a just trial. There was no crime. Democrat politicians have been acquitted of the same allegation. It was a NYC jury, and the best Trump could expect was a hung jury. It is obvious that there has been democrat collusion at the federal, state and local level to interfere with the presidential election by weaponizing the justice system. I hope an appeals court can quickly reverse this injustice. I had resigned myself to a second disastrous Biden term but now I am hoping for revenge because this might be my last election cycle before I sink into whatever mental abyss Joe Biden occupies.
Curtis, I don’t think David commending the jurors for courage is gloating. I pity any juror who had to sit through that trial then put their lives in danger (they will be public) either by convicting or acquitting a former president.
And…like it or not, Trump did “have it coming.” He’s been flirting with felonies for decades and skating by because he’s rich and famous.
I’ll give you all your arguments about an unjust trial. Merchan does hate Trump. The jury instructions were only a hair short of a directed verdict. The judge made it easy for them to convict him. It was a political prosecution in every way—Bragg campaigned on making this happen.
However, Trump knew all this and chose the political over the legal. Even lawyers who defend him—Andrew McCarthy—say that Trump handcuffed his own legal team preferring to take the political narrative over a sound defense. Trump helped in his own conviction by going with the “corrupt system” argument for his supporters. How cynical is that!?
This case was really set up 6 years ago. Trump knew it was coming. He moved to Florida to get out of New York. He let his own CFO go to jail over false records. He knifed Cohen (who richly deserved it) in the back. Trump plans to use this verdict to raise money while not being in any particular jeopardy of prison. The “system” is just a tool to Trump, like everything else.
Is he happy he’s a felon? No. But he did have it coming.
Bragg did not campaign on the matter: after his election he stated that the investigations running under his predecessor would proceed. You might recall he actually ended one or both of those investigations, to the fury of liberals and others.
The question re jury instruction is whether it differs from any other case where the same charges have been brought - and they have been, many times. If there is in fact something improper then the decision could be reversed on a technicality.
So the end does justify the means.
FWIW, the article didn't come across as gloating whatsoever to me (and, believe me, there is plenty of gloating around the internet tonight).
The law is the law. The judge was fair, the prosecution followed the expectations and rules of the court, and the jury was engaged and focused. Just b/c you disagree with the result doesn't mean it was unjust. NY was (largely) where the crime took place, and it was NY laws broken. The jury are Trumps peers and I've heard no claims of bias against Trump that held up to any objective scrutiny. Trump was treated more than fairly--both the judge and the prosecution were loath to respond to his repeated attempts to taint the proceedings... he received deference any other defendant would surely not have been afforded.
There was a crime: it's one that has been charged almost 10k times in the past decade or so. Bragg himself charged it 166 times as felonies against 34 defendants during his first 15 months in office.
Trump's team was involved in jury selection, per the law.
The jury of random New Yorkers found him guilty.
He has the right to appeal, and that will follow the process as set in law too.
What was the crime? Was it a felony? Does it rely on assumption of intent?
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."
As I thought. The assumption of guilt relies on an assumption of Trump's motives.
It relies on evidence presented during a criminal trial. Which was just held, and the jury found unanimously that it was so. That means the prosecution provided sufficient evidence, and the defense did not sufficiently discredit or otherwise counter that evidence.
I highly recommend reading Patterico's analysis at https://patterico.substack.com/p/legal-commentators-looking-at-you, which predates the start of the trial. He's a prosecutor, a conservative, and lays out the theories of the case very well.
Trump knew that Cohen was being reimbursed for NDA. So what. To Trump it was a legal expense. It’s no different than paying an attorney for travel or for the services of an expert witness. How the attorney reports the payments is not Trump’s concern. He’s not responsible for auditing Cohen’s tax return.
Not everyone agrees with you or Patterico. I recommend an alternative analysis.
https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/
It's all pretty clear cut Curtis; he fought the law and the rule of law won. It won't be overturned and in fact trump will bury himself before sentencing by attacking the jurors. God help him if one of them is harmed by his goofy followers.
Everything about this sham trial was political, and had zero to do with anything remotely criminal. Just because 12 people who have it in for the defendant voted to convict doesn't make Trump a criminal. Have this same trial in 46 other states in the union and Trump is acquitted. I have said since 2015 that there are very many reasons to not vote for Trump that we don't have to resort to lies, sham trials, and political witch hunts to keep him from the oval office. Mr. Thornton, you have just lost what little respect I had for you. Your piece shows complete bias and hatred for an innocent man who was in every sense of the word railroaded in this fake, phony trial.
NY State law and the almost 10k times that same law has been charged say that it is in fact a real crime to file fraudulent business documentation.
The jury was random people called for jury duty. The Trump legal team was involved in jury selection.
He is not innocent, per the jury's findings.
“To file”? No. It’s a crime to “record” fraudulent transactions in company records. Those transactions were never filed with anyone. They covered up the crime of NOT filing the payments as campaign contributions. If Cohen weren’t hauled off for tax evasion those transactions would never have seen the light of day and nobody would be the wiser they even existed.
A bit pedantic, but sure.
It does make me wonder if the Trump Org deducted those payments from their taxes improperly - but that wasn't part of the charges so perhaps is irrelevant at the moment.
The jury was culled from a pool who are registered voters, 90 percent of whom are registered democrats. The Trump legal team was hamstrung from the start in that respect. Furthermore, you had a judge who at the very least should be investigated for judicial misconduct in the shoddy, and possibly criminal way he handled the case. At the very least, he should have recused himself from the case, and a fair judge could have dismissed it before it saw the light of day. But look at what I'm saying, a fair judge in NYC, pshaw.
Regarding the jury, all it would have taken was for the defense to convince ONE juror to side with them, and the case would have ended in a mistrial, with the gov't unlikely to retry the case (as we saw in the John Edwards case). Trump's history of stiffing folks that work for him has been catching up with him lately, as competent attorneys decline to work for him.
As for the judge recusing himself, if that's the standard, just wait for Trump to attack all the judges as he repeatedly attacked Merchan. Then there would be no judges left to try Trump (or only the ones he chose himself by not attacking).
Seriously, though, you have to be a COMPLETE MORON if you think holding a press conference after each day of the trial bashing the overseeing judge does you any favors in the courtroom. Instead of keeping his trap shut and letting his B-team lawyers do their job, Trump had to Trump, and is now angry and pouting that he has to sit in the hole he spent the entire course of this trial digging.
Where did I misplace that tiny violin?
The crimes occurred in NY: so are you recommending that criminals only commit crimes in jurisdictions that favor them politically? Or are you stating that you'd prefer that only members of one political party be able to judge those of the same party? Sounds pretty wrong to me.
The Trump team will be filing an appeal, and if they can prove such misconduct then Mr. Trump will be vindicated - on a technicality.
I'm saying that more fairness be injected into the system, especially in NYC. Of course, if anyone involved in this sham were interested in fairness, it would have been dismissed as the political farce it was.
Trump got as much, if not MORE, due process than any of us "little people" would have gotten in the same situation. He repeatedly violated his gag order, and got slaps on the wrist for it.
If the treatment Trump received for his actions is "unfair", sign me up!
The "fair" thing is to have a random pool of jurors; to allow for both sides to be involved in jury selection; and to allow for objections to specific jurists.
That happened.
Cut CS some slack SGman, i'm sure he has written volumes on Judge Cannon and how unfair she has been in the documents case and how she should recuse herself rather than act as a trump lackey.
On a lighter and brighter note, Mitch's words are still ringing in my ears: ""We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."
Oddly enough, now he has joined the trump train and decided the rule of law only matters if his guy is found innocent. He wasn't.