Trump could avoid trial this year on 2020 election charges. Hush money case a worthy proxy?

[Social Media]

 

While facing multiple cases, it's a trial in New York centered on hush money payments that could provide a crucial legal reckoning this year regarding Trump's actions surrounding the 2016 presidential election. Lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wasted no time in drawing a connection between the hush money case and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign during opening statements. He framed the payments to Stormy Daniels as part of "a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election," setting the stage for a trial that could have significant implications for Trump's future.

 

The charges against Trump in the New York case focus on falsifying business records, but their significance extends far beyond mere record-keeping. Prosecutors argue that these falsifications were part of an effort to cover up violations of state and federal election laws, elevating the charges to felonies. While Trump has dismissed the case as a form of election interference orchestrated by Democrats, legal experts are divided on its implications.

 

Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, asserted that attempting to influence an election is a fundamental aspect of democracy and not inherently illegal. This perspective challenges the prosecution's narrative that the falsified records were intended to undermine the electoral process. Some legal experts share Blanche's skepticism, cautioning against conflating the hush money case with more direct election-related charges Trump faces elsewhere.

 

Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor, draws a clear distinction between attempts to alter vote totals and failing to disclose information on a government form. He argues that characterizing the New York case as election interference may be a strategic move by prosecutors to elevate its visibility, given the likelihood of delays in other pending trials.

 

While Trump's defense maintains that the payments to Stormy Daniels were legitimate legal expenses, prosecutors argue that the falsification of business records was aimed at concealing damaging information from voters. Chris Edelson, an American University professor, believes prosecutors can successfully argue that Trump's actions deprived voters of crucial information needed to make informed decisions.

 

The trial centers on a $130,000 payment made to Daniels by Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to silence her allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump before the 2016 election. While candidates may seek to suppress negative information, the prosecution contends that Trump's efforts crossed the line into unlawful conduct designed to deceive voters.

 

As the trial unfolds, its outcome will be closely watched, not only for its legal ramifications but also for its potential impact on public perception. Whether Trump's actions are deemed criminal or merely political maneuvers remains to be seen, but the trial underscores the complexities of holding public figures accountable for their conduct, especially in the realm of electoral politics.

 

2024-04-25

Source

 

[jerrymahoney]

Also from the linked Source:

 

“When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor. 

 

Declaring the case a hush money trial made it seem less important than the others and “so they’ve styled it ... as a case about election interference. But again, what he’s charged with is falsifying business records.”

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Also from the linked Source:

 

“When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor. 

 

Declaring the case a hush money trial made it seem less important than the others and “so they’ve styled it ... as a case about election interference. But again, what he’s charged with is falsifying business records.”

Not quite the full story.

 

What Defendant Trump is charged with is recorded on the indictment. The wording of which on each count details fraud with intent to commit other crimes.

 

Felonies.

 

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not quite the full story.

I did not write that. That was a quote from Paul Butler at Georgetown Law. Maybe you would care to straighten him out.

 

pdb42 **** georgetown.edu

Edited April 25 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sez U. 

Says the indictment, the original document of which I quoted and provided a link to.

[jerrymahoney]

(Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases) said it still could be difficult to get jurors to agree that Trump should be convicted.

 

“I do believe that Bragg is going to be leaning very heavily on these other crimes, particularly the campaign finance crimes, and characterizing it as an attempt to interfere in the 2016 election,” he said. “Although there is evidence of another crime, and that’s something that’s going to have to be proven out, ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/08/falsifying-business-records-charges-trump-hush-money-case/

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I did not write that. That was a quote from Paul Butler at Georgetown Law. Maybe you would care to straighten him out.

 

pdb42 **** georgetown.edu

I didn’t say you wrote that.

 

You posted the opinion piece.

 

When you post an opinion piece in this discussion forum you invite discussion on your post.

 

I responded with a correction, adding a quote from the indictment (not an opinion) and a link to the indictment (also not an opinion).

 

 

Edited April 25 by Chomper Higgot

[jerrymahoney]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I responded with a correction, adding a quote from the indictment (not an opinion) and a link to the indictment (also not an opinion).

You didn't correct anything.

 

Sure you posted the indictment which references "intent to commit another crime" but the indictment does not say what is "another crime" he doesn't really have to say what is "another crime". Or as former Federal Prosecutor put it as above: 

ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.”

 

But according to the NY Times the Manhattan DA almost always does charge "another crime".

Edited April 25 by jerrymahoney

[Will B Good]

I know the case is about falsifying business accounts...but this was good.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

You didn't correct anything.

 

Sure you posted the indictment which references "intent to commit another crime" but the indictment does not say what is "another crime" he doesn't really have to say what is "another crime". Or as former Federal Prosecutor put it as above: 

ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.”

 

But according to the NY Times the Manhattan DA almost always does charge "another crime".

Indictment v NYT opinion piece.

 

I’ll go with the indictment.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

You posted the indictment. And the indictment very specifically details what it does NOT say 34 times.

[Walker88]

It's a worthy proxy if for no other reason it begins to hold trump accountable for his lifetime of crime and fraud. It also lets him be him, which means a whining little crybaby where everything is UNFAIR! and a WITCHHUNT!.

 

Other than the captured goober cultists, independents are already tiring of donny's constant whining, so this trial will give them yet more reasons to put him aside and toss him in the dustbin of history.

 

His projection is also on full display, as calling his opponent "Sleepy" just hands trump a mirror. His courtroom flatulence isn't winning him any accolades either. Jimmy Kimmel joked about "Gasolini" that "you have the right to remain silent and deadly".

 

When fart jokes become a component of your campaign, the end is nigh.

[jerrymahoney]

44 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

When fart jokes become a component of your campaign, the end is nigh.

I maybe see the opposite:

 

ttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-has-slight-edge-over-biden-us-swing-state-election-polls-2024-04-23/

 

(posted earlier) And I think that there may be enough voters in those swing states that see what's going on in NYC as a total humiliation of their preferred candidate and will cause them to be more likely to vote in November.

 

And in a Washington Post article entitled Nervous about November?, James Carville responded:

“You have to be an idiot not to be nervous,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist. “It’s uncomfortably close, and the alternative would be to end the Constitution.”

 

Edited April 25 by jerrymahoney