I really hate that this is the pre-election case because it's the weakest and most tangential to his real danger, which is the threat to the foundations of the Republic.
The prosecution's case seems a little better than I thought, but you are correct that it all hinges on proving that he did it to interfere with the election and cover up what he thought was criminal activity. That may be a tall order to prove.
Well, what they need to prove is that there was fraud committed - and that said fraud was committed to cover-up another crime. The prosecution is - I think - putting a good basis for proving that Trump knowingly committed fraud in regards to reimbursing Cohen, and that it covered up Cohen's criminal activity.
It's a bit tenuous in that NY is prosecuting the fraud felony based on violating a federal election law violation that we never prosecuted by the feds. There's no telling how the jury will see it.
The thing is is that the NY law doesn't state the crime that was being covered-up by the alleged fraud needs to be committed by the same person: it simply states that the fraud is in furtherance of another crime - which could be someone else's, in this case Michael Cohen's.
True, but the legal element of mens rea still applies. You can’t stumble into a crime, especially when you’ve got lawyers committing the crime you’re accused of abetting and covering up, and especially if it’s a politically motivated crime.
One angle I hadn’t considered is Bragg is “leaning into” the fact that Cohen is crooked to show that a crooked Trump needed a dirty lawyer to commit dirty deeds. Read this by David French and Co (including Popehat/Ken White) at NYT.
That's true, which is where the evidence presented - which includes a number of items from Trump himself - comes into play. I think they've done a good job of showing that Trump intended to cover up his payoff of Stormy Daniels (which would be legal if he'd just paid her directly) due to political concerns triggered by the Access Hollywood tape.
"4 Liars." Amazing synopsis of this trial. The highlight would truly be putting the loudest, and most audacious of the bunch on the stand and letting him lie his way out of it. If only justice were that simple, all of ours lives would be so much better. Blind indeed eh?
i was initially going to say 5, but i read back your list and this one threw me:"A presumption that the tryst between Trump and Stormy Daniels happened. Trump maintains it didn’t." Then in the second one, Stormy was mentioned again. The nuances of the numerical equation are less significant than having trump climb into the witness box and profess his innocence to the whole butt ugly mess.
Is there really anyone who believes trump didn't boink her? And more importantly, is boink allowable to use on this site (asked with a smile)?
I think that's a good synopsis. If a unanimous not guilty vote is required for acquittal, I predict a hung jury. Trump hate runs so deep, especially among liberal women, that I can't imagine twelve not guilty votes in NYC. I don't know how many retrials might be required before Bragg either finds more concrete evidence or decides to give it up.
I really hate that this is the pre-election case because it's the weakest and most tangential to his real danger, which is the threat to the foundations of the Republic.
The prosecution's case seems a little better than I thought, but you are correct that it all hinges on proving that he did it to interfere with the election and cover up what he thought was criminal activity. That may be a tall order to prove.
Well, what they need to prove is that there was fraud committed - and that said fraud was committed to cover-up another crime. The prosecution is - I think - putting a good basis for proving that Trump knowingly committed fraud in regards to reimbursing Cohen, and that it covered up Cohen's criminal activity.
But we shall see.
It's a bit tenuous in that NY is prosecuting the fraud felony based on violating a federal election law violation that we never prosecuted by the feds. There's no telling how the jury will see it.
The thing is is that the NY law doesn't state the crime that was being covered-up by the alleged fraud needs to be committed by the same person: it simply states that the fraud is in furtherance of another crime - which could be someone else's, in this case Michael Cohen's.
True, but the legal element of mens rea still applies. You can’t stumble into a crime, especially when you’ve got lawyers committing the crime you’re accused of abetting and covering up, and especially if it’s a politically motivated crime.
One angle I hadn’t considered is Bragg is “leaning into” the fact that Cohen is crooked to show that a crooked Trump needed a dirty lawyer to commit dirty deeds. Read this by David French and Co (including Popehat/Ken White) at NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sE0.UR4e.PjT8aNKc1wtI&smid=url-share
That's true, which is where the evidence presented - which includes a number of items from Trump himself - comes into play. I think they've done a good job of showing that Trump intended to cover up his payoff of Stormy Daniels (which would be legal if he'd just paid her directly) due to political concerns triggered by the Access Hollywood tape.
"4 Liars." Amazing synopsis of this trial. The highlight would truly be putting the loudest, and most audacious of the bunch on the stand and letting him lie his way out of it. If only justice were that simple, all of ours lives would be so much better. Blind indeed eh?
That would make it 5 liars.
i was initially going to say 5, but i read back your list and this one threw me:"A presumption that the tryst between Trump and Stormy Daniels happened. Trump maintains it didn’t." Then in the second one, Stormy was mentioned again. The nuances of the numerical equation are less significant than having trump climb into the witness box and profess his innocence to the whole butt ugly mess.
Is there really anyone who believes trump didn't boink her? And more importantly, is boink allowable to use on this site (asked with a smile)?
I think that's a good synopsis. If a unanimous not guilty vote is required for acquittal, I predict a hung jury. Trump hate runs so deep, especially among liberal women, that I can't imagine twelve not guilty votes in NYC. I don't know how many retrials might be required before Bragg either finds more concrete evidence or decides to give it up.