Trump Trial

[GURPS]

Keeping up with the Trump trials is much like cat counting, and trying to report on all the cases is like trying to herd a pack of aloof but somehow still-lovable fuzzy critters around. Either way, it’s that time again, time for the latest in a long series of Trump prosecution events. It’s like Survivor; will Trump be voted off Riker’s Island this time?

The UK Guardian ran a terrifically tedious story yesterday headlined, “Donald Trump’s criminal trial over hush money to begin in New York.” This morning, despite Trump’s legal team’s best efforts to delay it, puffed-up Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will begin his farcical trial of Donald Trump for the victimless crime of “falsifying business records.” This case is even stupider and lamer than the last theory oozing out of New York’s courts about Trump’s undervalued real estate. Behold the genius who came up with this latest idea:






The case’s star witness is a now-disbarred criminal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who used to work for Trump back when people still thought Cohen was a real New York lawyer. And, when I said Cohen was a “criminal lawyer,” I don’t mean he practiced criminal defense. I mean that he was a lawyer who was also a criminal. That’s not a metaphor; Cohen wound up doing time.

And in Cohen’s case, there were actual victims.

Anyway, Cohen will testify that twelve days before the 2016 election, while Cohen was representing Trump, Cohen — not Trump — bought non-disclosure agreements from two … er, female performers, who at the time were going around shopping stale but sordid stories of having once grappled with the President ages ago. The alleged ‘Trump Tales’ were mild compared to other political Don Juans like Bill Clinton, Hunter Biden, or even John F. Kennedy, but Cohen will say he thought it could be politically damaging.

So he paid $280,000 for the two NDAs and the rights to the ladies’ stories.

As a lawyer, I must pause here and note that it would be unusual to the point of disbelief for any attorney to advance any significant amount of money for a client in the way Cohen claims. Lawyers aren’t banks.

Then after the election, Trump paid Cohen eleven monthly retainer checks which do not add up to $280,000, but apparently was close enough for District Attorney Bragg, so he and Cohen now claim Trump was really reimbursing the lawyer for the NDA money Cohen had paid to the two “actresses” (and I use that term loosely).

This is the point where Bragg’s case rockets away from Planet Reality. District Attorney Bragg’s criminal indictment complains not about any of the alleged facts I just mentioned. Bragg doesn’t care about Trump’s sex life, his paying to shut up a couple blabbering strippers, or even Trump’s repeated denials of the encounters (even if they happened).

No, Alvin Bragg’s mental toilet water drained down to just this: On the little memo line of the eleven checks he wrote to Mr. Cohen, Trump put something like, “for legal services.” Which apparently in New York is a major felonious event justifying upending the country. Here’s how the Guardian described the legal effect of Trump not writing something like “for reimbursing an NDA” in the memo line instead:

By casting these payments as compensation for legal work, President Trump “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”, prosecutors said. Trump did so “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof … ’​

Falsifying business records is only a felony if DA Bragg can prove that the “mischaracterization” was intended to facilitate another crime, which is also a felony. The larger crime Bragg is shooting for here, a crime with which he has never charged Trump, is failing to properly report campaign expenses. Bragg’s theory — if you can call it that — is that Trump’s intent — the intent inside his own brain — when he wrote down “for legal expenses” was to make sure the payments were left off his quarterly presidential campaign finance reports.

I am not making that up; that’s Bragg’s whole case.

Here’s your pretrial quick-reference checklist:

1. Prosecutors may have indicted many ham sandwiches, but nobody has ever criminally prosecuted a president or former president before, much less a State District Attorney.
2. Inexperienced DA Alvin Bragg has never prosecuted a campaign finance violation before.
3. DA Alvin Bragg has never prosecuted a “falsified business records” case before either.
4. Bragg’s novel legal theory has never been used to convict anyone else before, not in New York or anywhere else.
5. Bragg never even charged Trump with the campaign reporting violation, just the business records thing.
6. Bragg stretched the few facts like taffy into thirty four separate criminal counts.
7. To convict, Bragg must prove Trump’s internal mental intentions beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. DA Bragg is a grotesque, unqualified, woke, Soros-funded, democrat machine prosecutor who is new to the job and ran on a “Get Trump” platform.
9. This is Trump’s first … no, second … er, third … oh, nevermind. They’ve sued him a lot. This is the President’s first criminal case of four to go to trial. If it’s not political persecution, then nobody even knows what that is.
10. All four criminal cases against Trump, including this one, are founded on victimless process crimes.

In this case, Trump's team is expected to argue that the payments were personal expenses and not campaign-related expenses, that any alleged misclassification was unintentional, that the prosecution was politically-motivated, and that Bragg cannot prove the necessary intent to prove concealment of an actual crime as opposed to just an embarrassing but perfectly lawful personal expense that celebrities often encounter.

☕️ THE PUGILIST ☙ Monday, April 15, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

All you need to know about the latest Trump trial, which starts today; more intel on the WWIII-adjacent Iranian strikes confirms Biden meddling; and Bill Maher's conservative conversion continues.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Manhattan DA’s Office Asks Court to Impose $1,000 Sanctions For Each of Trump’s Social Media Posts for ‘Violating Gag Order’ – Threatens Jail Time​

The far-left judge overseeing the Stormy Daniels trial trampled all over Trump’s First Amendment rights with a strict gag order.

Juan Merchan earlier this month expanded Trump’s gag order and barred the former president from criticizing his family members.

The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is a far-left political operative who worked for the Biden-Harris campaign.

Earlier this month Trump threw down the gauntlet and blasted Judge Merchan in a series of Truth Social posts.

President Trump said he will continue to tell the truth and will “gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela,” and is willing to “sacrifice my Freedom for that worthy cause.”

“Now, we have Merchan, who is not allowing me to talk, thereby violating the Law and the Constitution, all at once. It is so bad what he is trying to get away with – How was he even chosen for this case??? I heard he fought like hell to get it, and all of the rest of them also! If this Partisan Hack wants to put me in the “clink” for speaking the open and obvious TRUTH, I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela – It will be my GREAT HONOR. We have to Save our Country from these Political Operatives masquerading as Prosecutors and Judges, and I am willing to sacrifice my Freedom for that worthy cause. We are a Failing Nation, but on November 5th, we will become a Great Nation again. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump said on Truth Social a couple of weeks ago.

Alvin Bragg’s office is now asking the court to impose sanctions and threatened Trump with jail time.

Per MSNBC: Manhattan DA’s office asks court to impose a $1k sanction for each of 3 prior posts, order him to take them down, and warn him that further violations will result in jail time. DA notes a 9:12 am post today, potentially made inside the courthouse, also violates the order.

 

[GURPS]

The Manhattan case against Trump is a travesty​

Trump instead used his own money through his lawyer to whom he paid monthly retainers. (Imagine the outcry if he had used campaign money.)

As businesses often do in these circumstances, Trump characterized the payments as an expense in his business records. The prosecution says that characterization was incorrect.

Maybe, and maybe not. But even if so, such a mischaracterization is only a misdemeanor, at most, for which the penalty would be a simple and small fine.

The Democrats want more than that. They want Trump in jail.

Enter the new District Attorney for Manhattan, a place that went 85-15 against Trump in the 2020 election. The DA explicitly campaigned on a promise to put Trump in jail, without ever telling the voters what crime he had committed. He must have concluded, apparently correctly, that the voters didn’t care what crime Trump committed so long as he was punished with a jail term.

But even in deep blue Manhattan they don’t send people to serve jail time without charging and convicting them of crimes. So, the DA ginned up a crime.

It goes like this. The DA says Trump’s campaign benefited from his personal payment to Stormy. Because Trump made the payment personally for this benefit to his campaign, he should have reported it as a campaign contribution under the federal campaign finance laws.

Consider the irony. The DA says Trump violated federal campaign finance laws because he didn’t use campaign money from donors for this payment, but instead did use his personal money.

The lesson is, if you’re running for office and pay someone to keep quiet about your affair, be sure to use campaign money from donors to make the payment.

As to whether this payment by Trump benefitted the campaign, I suppose it did in a sense. Whatever expenditures a candidate makes with his own money to make himself more palatable as a candidate, benefits his campaign.

A campaign is benefited when a candidate uses his own money to get a nice haircut or make a publicity-generating charitable donation. (The DA has taken no position yet on nice haircuts or publicity-generating charitable donations, because Trump didn’t commit those “violations.”)

But such expenditures have never been considered reportable campaign contributions. Nancy Pelosi’s face lifts to make her more palatable (maybe) as a candidate were never reported as campaign contributions.

Ah, but Trump is a special case. Sui generis. Orange Man Bad. Trump Derangement Syndrome. He’s such a threat to democracy that there is no alternative but to jail him for . . . whatever.

Ah but there’s another problem with the creative DA’s case, for which he has yet another solution. The problem is that the DA is a state prosecutor with no jurisdiction over federal campaign finance laws. Several of the Feds, who do have jurisdiction over the campaign finance laws, unanimously declined to bring charges.

The DA’s novel solution to that problem is as follows. Although he has no jurisdiction to bring a charge for violation of the federal campaign finance laws, he says that the trivial state law misreporting violation was a scheme to violate those federal laws.

That, he says, serves to elevate the state law violation from a misdemeanor to a felony that . . . [drum roll] . . . puts Trump in jail!

To succeed with these theories, the prosecutor must prove the federal campaign violation. That’s a violation he has not charged Trump with since he has no jurisdiction over it, and a violation that prosecutors who do have jurisdiction have declined to charge Trump with.

Unsurprisingly, the DA’s own predecessor expressly declined to pursue the current DA’s theories.

 

[GURPS]

Alan Dershowitz Reveals One Motion He Believes Trump’s Lawyers Must File ‘Immediately’​

Judge Juan Merchan threatened Trump with arrest if he did not attend the trial regarding a $130,000 payout to porn star Stormy Daniels as part of a confidentiality agreement during Trump’s successful run for the White House after Trump asked to attend the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on presidential immunity set for April 25. Dershowitz suggested Trump’s attorneys act immediately to address Merchan’s threat, which he viewed as a form of “election interference.”

“I would hope Trump’s lawyers bring a mandamus right now, at the very least, let Trump out of the courtroom, let him campaign,” Dershowitz told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow. “If he makes a decision that he would like to waive the right to be there, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives the prosecution the right to keep him there. It is only a defendant’s right.”

 

[GURPS]

The Morning Briefing: While Biden's World Burns, Dems Froth Over Trump's Kangaroo Trials

pjmedia.com

The first of the "Iron Curtain Comes to America" show trials got underway yesterday in Manhattan, and the Trump-haters are rejoicing.

It didn't take long for the plan to emerge in the courtroom, as Matt wrote:

Judge Juan Merchan delivered a firm ultimatum to former President Donald Trump regarding his presence on the first day of his criminal trial. According to MSNBC's Jesse Rodrigeuz, Merchan told Trump he has to be in the courtroom every day for the duration of his trial.
"If you do not show up, there will be an arrest," Merchan warned.
The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks. The judge is essentially preventing Trump from campaigning for president.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Merchan is essentially operating as a low-level Dem street thug. He wouldn't even say if he would adjourn court so that Trump could attend his son Barron's high school graduation. He's not only a lowlife who has no respect for the law, he's petty and small.

That describes most of the avowed Trump haters though.

This particular chapter of the Democrats' pre-election tampering saga was put into motion by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has been known to be rather kind and generous to real criminals. In another post that Matt wrote, a CNN legal analyst gives a side-eye glance to the merits of Bragg's case against Trump:

"Paying hush money is not a crime," Honig admits. "In fact, a hush-money agreement, though seedy, is legally no different from any other contract between private parties. So Trump knowing about the Daniels payoff — and he clearly did — is merely a starting point here and insufficient to prove anything criminal."

Bragg has been accused by many legal experts of torturing existing law and making up something just so he could get Trump, which is what he promised to do when running for the DA gig.

People who are cheering on what's happening to Trump don't realize that a justice system gone astray can turn on anyone. If the world keeps going the Democrats' way, a lot of smug people are in for a rude awakening. It's always the way when a society takes a hard leftward lurch.

 

[GURPS]

The BBC reported on the glacial progress of the Trump trial yesterday in a story headlined, “Trump trial: Dozens of jurors rejected as they say they cannot be impartial.” More accurately, sixty of 96 potential jurors pulled the ripcord in Manhattan yesterday, saying they could not be impartial in Trump’s trial. Sadly, the sixty who bailed were the honest and sane ones. ‘Honest’ because no one can be impartial in this case. ‘Sane’ because who in their right mind wants to become a target for malicious media or angry Antifa goon squads if the state doesn’t prove its case?



In a marvelous example of what all sixty were probably thinking, reporters overheard one prospective juror saying as she left court, “I just couldn't do it.”

The 36 leftovers who swore they could be unbiased began answering questions from the lawyers during voire dire. One man said he listened to NPR in the shower. Another said his girlfriend worked at a bank, “but I have no idea what she does.” A third, when asked what she does in her spare time, responded that she sings, watches TV, goes shopping and goes “to the club.”

She also said she gets all her news from TikTok and Al Jazeera. Then she was later struck from the jury pool anyway, after changing her mind about her ability to be fair and impartial (she decided she can’t).

Those are the leftovers. Absent a miracle, the selected jurors are likely to be crazy, or at least wildly reckless, because they are willing to walk into the political buzz saw this case will surely become. You can bet the selected jurors’ names will leak. And whoever remains is likely to be a liar. It is unbelievable they can be unbiased about a defendant the media has transformed into the most polarizing figure since the very first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.

If Lincoln had not been killed by an actor, but had survived the Civil War, could the 16th President possibly have gotten a fair jury of unbiased citizens? What about in South Carolina? Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Just imagine how easy it would have been for revenge-minded district attorneys in Southern states to come up with all sorts of creative crimes.

In many ways, Trump’s jury situation is remarkably similar to what Lincoln would have faced. Maybe this is yet another reason why we’ve never prosecuted presidents before. We can’t give them a fair jury.

Anyway, the BBC reported that at the current pace, jury selection could take two weeks. Those are two critical campaign weeks for Trump, now lost, since the judge ordered the President to attend trial every single day or be jailed. Trump asked for two exceptions: to be briefly excused for his son Barron’s high school graduation, and to be excused for his Presidential immunity arguments at the Supreme Court, which are both scheduled within the next few weeks.

Judge Juan Merchan denied both requests. The Judge didn’t say let’s wait to see how the trial is going or whether it might be a good day for a break anyway. So that’s how this is going to be.

It will be a little while before the interesting stuff happens.

☕️ ROBOT NAZIS ☙ Tuesday, April 16, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Trump trial going nowhere fast; Ukraine feels left out as Middle East hogs world's attention; fake war robots hide gross facts; FBI supports bridge theories; strong legal gains in trans battle; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

 

[somdwatch]

No One has ever said, "Democrats are so Smart".

 

[Hijinx]

BS charges and corrupt Judges, I never saw the like.

The American Justice system has turned to feces.

 

[Grumpy]

Interesting summary of the selected jurors

Trump on Trial: The Jurors

Jury selection has concluded in The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a long voir dire, six jurors have been selected: three men and three women. Here’s the brief summary, per media pool reports of the prospective jurors. Juror #1:

technofog.substack.com

 

[GURPS]

'Truly Un-American': Legal Expert Mike Davis Slams Use of Unconstitutional Gag Order​

The first criminal trial against former and potentially future President Donald is moving forward, with Tuesday bringing us more of jury selection. As Matt covered on Monday, the trial thus far has been incredibly unfair to Trump, and not merely because it's such a weak case. Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan, who has been criticized as "a Democratic operative in a robe," won't even let Trump attend his son's high school graduation. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is no better, though, as he's looking to punish Trump for violating the unconstitutional gag order thrust upon him.

The Article 3 Project's Mike Davis called out such a move from Bragg in his many posts shared to his X account, as well as with his many media appearances. This included an appearance with Jack Posobiec, who also shared coverage from The Post Millennial. As Davis has warned before, when the gag order was first announced back in late February, "these are republic-ending tactics by these Democrats."

 

[GURPS]

Jury Selection for Trump's Hush Money Trial Is a Total Trainwreck​

It is the weakest case against the former president, but like the bogus civil fraud case, it’s one where Trump could get screwed. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is arguing that Trump’s hush money arrangement with adult entertainment star Stormy Daniels, a supposedly critical piece of information for the wider public in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The former president is accused of falsifying records in what essentially is a super-sized campaign finance violation. It’s also a charge that district attorneys seldom bring to court. Those who do are rare cases, and in most cases where jail time was handed down, the sentence was no more than a month.

No jurors were selected yesterday, though around 100 were rejected due to partiality concerns. That was then, today, Judge Juan Merchan approved of a juror who reportedly posted a video of what is alleged to be an anti-Trump event in 2020. Judge Merchan looked into the eyes of this juror who thought “she could be fair.” Six jurors were selected for this circus today (via NBC News):

 

[GURPS]

Trump's trial will electrify the world. But his enemies, so desperate to see him locked up, may have made a monumental tactical blunder, writes ANDREW NEIL​

Many Democrats, who would love to see him go down for one or all the indictments, are dismayed that the first one up is the New York case that they, along with legal experts and political commentators, fear is the weakest — and that, even if Trump is found guilty, voters will struggle to understand that what he did was really criminal.

T his also plays to Trump's oft-repeated claim that he is the victim of political persecution by Democratic activists, including many in the Biden administration, who are using the law against him because they fear they can't beat him at the ballot box.

The way he sees it, the proceedings have all the hallmarks of a show trial. Trump will be judged by an overwhelmingly Democratic jury in a trial presided over by a Democratic judge and brought about by a Democratic District Attorney.

Manhattan, from where the jury will be drawn, voted 87 per cent for Joe Biden in 2020. Almost 100 prospective jurors were wheeled out on Monday only for 50 per cent to be dismissed immediately because, on a show of hands, they admitted they could not be fair or impartial.

The selection process will no doubt root out the most egregiously biased against Trump. But, in the end, the jury will still lean overwhelmingly Democrat.

The presiding judge, Juan Merchan, donated to the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020 and to other 'progressive' causes. The amounts were a pittance but it illustrates how he leans too.

On his way into court yesterday the defendant said Judge Merchan was 'Trump hating' and 'totally conflicted'.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing Democrat, campaigned for election pledging to 'get' Trump. He wasn't sure for what, but promised he'd find some charge to drag Trump into court. Since indicting Trump he's raised $850,000 (£680,000) for his re-election campaign.

 

[GURPS]

Bombshell Story From The Hill: 'Trump Just Looked at Something on a Cell Phone'​

 

[GURPS]

Slate: Skeptic of Stormy Daniels Case Now Thinks Alvin Bragg Is on Solid Legal Ground​

Twitchy's own lawyer, Aaron Walker, did a deep dive on the "hush money" case against Donald Trump in Manhattan and concluded that Trump may very well be proved the victim of extortion. How this ever ended up in court is beyond us, but as Joe Biden slips further in the polls (and mentally), Democrats are counting on this case to be the one the puts Trump behind bars.

Mark Joseph Stern has a piece in Slate admitting he was wrong when he thought Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case was on shaky legal ground. It sounds like he's trying to convince himself as well as his readers.

 

[stgislander]

Let me think. Do I believe someone like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz, or those crazy progs on SoMD Online.

 

[Kyle]

Let me think. Do I believe someone like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz, or those crazy progs on SoMD Online.

Tough one.

 

[GURPS]

The Wall Street Journal ran its update on the Trump “Mischaracterization” trial yesterday headlined, “Jury for Donald Trump’s Hush-Money Trial Takes Shape: An Oncology Nurse, a Software Engineer, a Teacher.” The short version is: things moved faster in the courtroom yesterday than was expected, (it happens), and the first seven jurors were selected. At this point, the first witness could be called as early as Monday in what might be the most important — and simultaneously the stupidest — criminal case in American history.





Things jurors reportedly said during voire dire suggested New Yorkers may be trying to sneak onto the Trump jury for reasons other than civic responsibility. Much of what they said was literally unbelievable.

One prospective juror, a social-media marketer, assured the lawyers she wasn’t into politics. “Obviously, I know about President Trump. I’m a female,” the woman ambiguously stated. When asked what she meant, she explained “I know that there have been opinions on how he doesn’t treat females correctly. Stuff like that.” She added, “I honestly don’t know the story. So I don’t have a view on it.”

Totally unbiased.

Another potential juror, a Transportation Authority retiree, insisted to lawyers that she had no idea what the case was even about, since she’d been staying at a lake without internet for the last couple months. When pressed for an opinion, she conceded she was no Trump fan: “There is very little we probably agree on policy-wise.”

She knows all Trump’s policy views, but never heard of the trial. Uh huh.

A third juror, the married IT consultant who was one of the seven selected, waxed eloquent, saying he personally found Trump “fascinating and mysterious.” When asked what he meant, the juror explained he marveled how polarizing Trump was: “He walks into a room and he sets people off one way or another,” the juror said. “Really, this one guy can do all of this.”

I may be judging too harshly, but to my trained ear, none of the three sounded genuine about their lack of bias. The effort to cover up their bias suggests dishonesty. Tellingly, none referred to Trump using his formal title, “president.” The IT consultant — obviously trying hard to seem neutral — gave away his real feelings by referring to Trump as “this guy,” which clearly telegraphed a kind of bottled-up disrespect.

Only twelve percent of Manhattan residents voted for Trump in 2020. The voter list is basically the same as the potential juror list. So.

To be honest, it’s difficult to imagine anyone could get on that jury by telling the truth. Everyone who votes has already formed an opinion about President Trump and has almost certainly expressed that opinion at the ballot box, if you believe the turnout numbers.

As I said yesterday, the jury system is a great fit for 99.9% of cases. But not for presidents.

Liberal media ran headlines yesterday blaring about Trump “dozing off” at one point during the long day. I suppose it was fair game, given how much entertainment is provided throughout the rest of the year by Biden’s bumbles and gaffes. But in this case, it meant nothing. For the participants, trial can at times be painfully dull. For example, lawyers often object and then go up to the front for whispered private talks with the judge. That happens over and over and over. Or sometimes the judge calls a recess and nothing happens for a while. Or the lawyers argue some tedious procedural motion.

It’s never dull for the lawyers. The lawyers are always doing something at trial. Trial time flies. It’s maximum adrenaline. Me, I never eat on trial days, since I don’t want to spare the energy for digestion. Trial is never boring for me, but that’s only because we lawyers are included in everything, like all those private conferences at the bench, where I’m scrambling to win or keep the other side from winning.

Meanwhile the client often has to sit around at the table doodling uncomplimentary sketches of the judge on their legal pad. So Trump rested his eyes, that’s all. I don’t blame him. Ho hum.

☕️ RADIO FREE AMERICA ☙ Wednesday, April 17, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Trump trial picks jurors at nap time; Soros snaps up American radio; terrifying new unnamed mpox variant; New York Times fish tale gets in hot water; how Russia beat Biden like a drum; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com