NY vs. Trump - Hush Money Trial

[Smoove_B]

ENTER Washington state:

It turns out Washington has a law on the books against convicted felons running for office.

It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today.

Any registered voter can “challenge the right of a candidate to appear on the general election ballot” for any of five causes, state law says. One of those causes is flashing in bold neon lights today: “Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person’s civil rights restored after the conviction.”

Of course:

I asked the Secretary of State’s Office if there was some reason this provision allowing ballot challenges against convicted felons might not apply in this case. For example, is it only for state and local candidates, not federal?

They answered: “Whether that provision applies would be a question for courts to decide.”

[Blackhawk]

Which court would that end up being?

[em2nought]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

[waitingtoconnect]

ENTER Washington state:

It turns out Washington has a law on the books against convicted felons running for office.

It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today.

Any registered voter can “challenge the right of a candidate to appear on the general election ballot” for any of five causes, state law says. One of those causes is flashing in bold neon lights today: “Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person’s civil rights restored after the conviction.”

Of course:

I asked the Secretary of State’s Office if there was some reason this provision allowing ballot challenges against convicted felons might not apply in this case. For example, is it only for state and local candidates, not federal?

They answered: “Whether that provision applies would be a question for courts to decide.”

They need to pick their battles. The Supreme Court will kill it.

[Kraken]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

The billionaire grifter thanks you for your gullibility.

They need to pick their battles. The Supreme Court will kill it.

It's not like WA is going to fall to the forces of darkness anyway I mean, banning trump would be gratifying but it will only piss people off without changing the outcome.

[waitingtoconnect]

Which court would that end up being?

The same court that will rule the hush money trial, the classified documents trial and the election integrity trial are all official acts?

[hepcat]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

Just further proof that a fool and his money are soon parted.

If you hadn’t already signed your condo and retirement funds over to your lord and master Trump, you might have some cash left to live on.

Also, please use the correct titles. It’s FORMER President and convicted felon Donald Trump.

p.s. Did you get a chance to update your review of 2000 Mules yet now that the distributor has been forced to apologize for all the lies in it?

[Holman]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

E. Jean Carroll will appreciate your contribution.

[Smoove_B]

Meanwhile, the stochastic terrorism continues:

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1797227994655727742

A warning from Trump on Fox if he's jailed or put under house arrest:

TRUMP. I don't know that the public would stand it, you know. I don't— I'm not sure the public would stand for it with a—

REPORTER: House arrest?

TRUMP: I think, I think it would be tough for the public to take, you know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point.

[Blackhawk]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

Don't worry - I'm sure your Nigerian prince will get you the money soon.

[GreenGoo]

I'm just going to go on record saying that I don't give a thought to what Em does with his money. Even after he tells me.

[hepcat]

Even if it helps Trump eventually invade Canada and make you all live in what he'll come to call "Mar-a-Lago North"?

[Carpet_pissr]

Unfortunately, I have to wait until I get my hands on some more dinero before I can send some to President Trump this year.

E. Jean Carroll will appreciate your contribution.

Funny bc it’s true!

[GreenGoo]

Even if it helps Trump eventually invade Canada and make you all live in what he'll come to call "Mar-a-Lago North"?

Yes. There are limits to my concerns about butterfly effects.

[waitingtoconnect]

Even if it helps Trump eventually invade Canada and make you all live in what he'll come to call "Mar-a-Lago North"?

Like Alexander the Great he’ll name all the cities he conquers after himself. trumpopolis, trumpville, trump city …

[hepcat]

That's almost worth it for Trumpalvania. Home of Count Dumbula.

[Zaxxon]

Catchy.

[Jaymann]

Musk will take that down in 3,2,1...

[Kraken]

Even if it helps Trump eventually invade Canada and make you all live in what he'll come to call "Mar-a-Lago North"?

Like Alexander the Great he’ll name all the cities he conquers after himself. trumpopolis, trumpville, trump city …

To be uncharacteristically fair, trump is an isolationist. He won’t invade Canada; American refugees will...if we can get out. Border lockdowns work both ways.

[waitingtoconnect]

They’ll be singing O Trumpanada the first time a few truckers get “oppressed”, a Vermont maple syrup farmers lobbyist visits the White House or an American pharmabro loses money because of free health care.

[Grifman]

Meanwhile, the stochastic terrorism continues:

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1797227994655727742

A warning from Trump on Fox if he's jailed or put under house arrest:

TRUMP. I don't know that the public would stand it, you know. I don't— I'm not sure the public would stand for it with a—

REPORTER: House arrest?

TRUMP: I think, I think it would be tough for the public to take, you know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point.

All of this post trial talk by Trump is insane. Any of this stuff would lead to a stiffer sentence for any normal defendant, judges don’t like defiant, non-repentant convicted people. You hear them all the time at sentencing mentioning when a convicted person is not repentant or remorseful and how that impacts their sentencing. The question now is whether the judge will take that into account.

[Punisher]

Legal eagle review




If I understand correctly even if he is given jail time it won't actually matter since he won't be jailed until after his appeals are done.
If he is also elected in nov then it really won't matter.

Also it sounds like if he had just been himself in the 1st place and just taken credit for having sex with a porn star none of th8s would have happened and I doubt it would have affected the election anyway. Certainly not with his base.

[ImLawBoy]

It's only when we classify that hush money payment as a "campaign expense" that was funded by an undisclosed campaign contribution from Trump to his own campaign that we venture into any illegality. And that is really a technical campaign contribution disclosure issue considering that a candidate doesn't face any limits or caps on his or her own contributions to their campaign.

You say you don't have an issue with the law, but this is precisely what the law does. He's making illegal contributions to his campaign by funneling money from his business. You're right that he could have written a personal check and been done with it but he didn't. He went the illegal route instead.

I don’t know why we’re missing each other here: I say I don’t have issues with the law because I don’t. What Trump did is and should be a crime. Campaign finance disclosure laws are important, generally speaking, and so are laws against falsifications of business records. The statutory scheme seems to allow enough latitude to the sentencing judge to decide here between probation and up to 4 years in prison (assuming concurrent sentences on all counts).

No issue with the law. Objectively, I’d probably have an issue with the judge if he sentences Trump to jail time for this first offense. I’d be open to explanation and could be convinced, but my gut reaction would be that jail time here would be inappropriate.

But that wouldn’t mean I have an issue with the law. Only with its application in this case.

Been away from the forum for a few days, but wanted to come back to (hopefully) close the loop on this one. To the extent you think that, in the totality of the circumstances, convicted felon Donald Trump's crimes are not worthy of jail time, that's fine. It's a reasonable, justifiable position.

I think where we're missing each other is where you have a few times referred to the campaign finance violation as "technical". Something about that characterization sticks in my craw, as it seems to be an attempt to minimize the behavior which is a clear violation of the law as written and intended. It's similar in my mind to when people talk about a criminal defendant getting acquitted on a "technicality", when the reality may be that the police blatantly violated the defendant's civil rights to coerce a confession or to obtain evidence. Civil rights aren't technicalities, and laws that work as written and intended aren't technicalities, at least not in my mind.

Anyway, I don't mean to restart anything but I at least wanted to address your comments.

[El Guapo]

It's only when we classify that hush money payment as a "campaign expense" that was funded by an undisclosed campaign contribution from Trump to his own campaign that we venture into any illegality. And that is really a technical campaign contribution disclosure issue considering that a candidate doesn't face any limits or caps on his or her own contributions to their campaign.

You say you don't have an issue with the law, but this is precisely what the law does. He's making illegal contributions to his campaign by funneling money from his business. You're right that he could have written a personal check and been done with it but he didn't. He went the illegal route instead.

I don’t know why we’re missing each other here: I say I don’t have issues with the law because I don’t. What Trump did is and should be a crime. Campaign finance disclosure laws are important, generally speaking, and so are laws against falsifications of business records. The statutory scheme seems to allow enough latitude to the sentencing judge to decide here between probation and up to 4 years in prison (assuming concurrent sentences on all counts).

No issue with the law. Objectively, I’d probably have an issue with the judge if he sentences Trump to jail time for this first offense. I’d be open to explanation and could be convinced, but my gut reaction would be that jail time here would be inappropriate.

But that wouldn’t mean I have an issue with the law. Only with its application in this case.

Been away from the forum for a few days, but wanted to come back to (hopefully) close the loop on this one. To the extent you think that, in the totality of the circumstances, convicted felon Donald Trump's crimes are not worthy of jail time, that's fine. It's a reasonable, justifiable position.

I think where we're missing each other is where you have a few times referred to the campaign finance violation as "technical". Something about that characterization sticks in my craw, as it seems to be an attempt to minimize the behavior which is a clear violation of the law as written and intended. It's similar in my mind to when people talk about a criminal defendant getting acquitted on a "technicality", when the reality may be that the police blatantly violated the defendant's civil rights to coerce a confession or to obtain evidence. Civil rights aren't technicalities, and laws that work as written and intended aren't technicalities, at least not in my mind.

Anyway, I don't mean to restart anything but I at least wanted to address your comments.

Plus some people really enjoy technicalities.

[Kurth]

It's only when we classify that hush money payment as a "campaign expense" that was funded by an undisclosed campaign contribution from Trump to his own campaign that we venture into any illegality. And that is really a technical campaign contribution disclosure issue considering that a candidate doesn't face any limits or caps on his or her own contributions to their campaign.

You say you don't have an issue with the law, but this is precisely what the law does. He's making illegal contributions to his campaign by funneling money from his business. You're right that he could have written a personal check and been done with it but he didn't. He went the illegal route instead.

I don’t know why we’re missing each other here: I say I don’t have issues with the law because I don’t. What Trump did is and should be a crime. Campaign finance disclosure laws are important, generally speaking, and so are laws against falsifications of business records. The statutory scheme seems to allow enough latitude to the sentencing judge to decide here between probation and up to 4 years in prison (assuming concurrent sentences on all counts).

No issue with the law. Objectively, I’d probably have an issue with the judge if he sentences Trump to jail time for this first offense. I’d be open to explanation and could be convinced, but my gut reaction would be that jail time here would be inappropriate.

But that wouldn’t mean I have an issue with the law. Only with its application in this case.

Been away from the forum for a few days, but wanted to come back to (hopefully) close the loop on this one. To the extent you think that, in the totality of the circumstances, convicted felon Donald Trump's crimes are not worthy of jail time, that's fine. It's a reasonable, justifiable position.

I think where we're missing each other is where you have a few times referred to the campaign finance violation as "technical". Something about that characterization sticks in my craw, as it seems to be an attempt to minimize the behavior which is a clear violation of the law as written and intended. It's similar in my mind to when people talk about a criminal defendant getting acquitted on a "technicality", when the reality may be that the police blatantly violated the defendant's civil rights to coerce a confession or to obtain evidence. Civil rights aren't technicalities, and laws that work as written and intended aren't technicalities, at least not in my mind.

Anyway, I don't mean to restart anything but I at least wanted to address your comments.

Welcome back, and thanks for the explanation.

But this doesn’t make any sense to me. There are more and less egregious violations of laws. They are still all violations and literally (technically), all are crimes which, if proven, should result in conviction and sentencing within the statutory framework.

This could not be any more different than a defendant escaping conviction because a cop blatantly violated his or her civil rights. Trump wasn’t acquitted. He’s a convicted felon and, barring an unlikely successful appeal, will remain so. And a cop violating someone’s civil rights - especially “blatantly” as in your example - should never be considered a “technicality.” That example is a more egregious violation of the law, and it’s action the law is specifically designed to prohibit.

And in any event, we’re talking about sentencing and whether Trump deserves a lighter sentence within the statutory framework or a harsher one.

Calling what Trump did a “technical” violation does not mean, in my mind, it’s a misapplication of the law. But it is, as has been explained by many legal experts and talking heads, a “novel” application of the law. Trump, as is his nature, was engaged in shady shit. But it’s really not the kind of shady shit the law was designed to get after.

That, combined with his lack of priors, no real victim impact statement, and age and poor (I mean, absolutely the best) health, and there’s a compelling case for probation.

All, well within the law, even if not the outcome I’d like to see in my heart of hearts.

[ImLawBoy]

And in any event, we’re talking about sentencing and whether Trump deserves a lighter sentence within the statutory framework or a harsher one.

Calling what Trump did a “technical” violation does not mean, in my mind, it’s a misapplication of the law. But it is, as has been explained by many legal experts and talking heads, a “novel” application of the law. Trump, as is his nature, was engaged in shady shit. But it’s really not the kind of shady shit the law was designed to get after.

That, combined with his lack of priors, no real victim impact statement, and age and poor (I mean, absolutely the best) health, and there’s a compelling case for probation.

Again, all reasonable and justifiable reasons for arguing for probation. I just have issues calling it a "technical violation". It is or it isn't a violation, even if it's a novel application of the law. You don't have the same issue with the term "technical violation" that I do, and that's fine - I don't need you to interpret everything the same way that I do.

[El Guapo]

And in any event, we’re talking about sentencing and whether Trump deserves a lighter sentence within the statutory framework or a harsher one.

Calling what Trump did a “technical” violation does not mean, in my mind, it’s a misapplication of the law. But it is, as has been explained by many legal experts and talking heads, a “novel” application of the law. Trump, as is his nature, was engaged in shady shit. But it’s really not the kind of shady shit the law was designed to get after.

That, combined with his lack of priors, no real victim impact statement, and age and poor (I mean, absolutely the best) health, and there’s a compelling case for probation.

Again, all reasonable and justifiable reasons for arguing for probation. I just have issues calling it a "technical violation". It is or it isn't a violation, even if it's a novel application of the law. You don't have the same issue with the term "technical violation" that I do, and that's fine - I don't need you to interpret everything the same way that I do.

Also FWIW I get the sense from NY law experts that the state law structure is unusual, but that this is not an unusual application of the state law.

In addition, I think the lack of remorse and standing of the defendant do matter. Probation obviously would achieve no deterrence, and on the contrary would be widely perceived as a meaningless joke.

[Kurth]

The lack of remorse and the very real possibility that Trump will say or do something so outlandishly offensive or contemptuous of the court and the justice system are my only real source of optimism that he might see jail time.

Mr. Fed’s “Serious Troubles” podcast did an episode on Saturday on this. I’m pretty much where he is. Judge Merchan is going to do his absolute best to sentence Trump like he would any other similarly situated asshole, but there’s always a chance Trump pushes him too far.

We can only hope!

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I really don't know. Using the mentality of treating him like any other similar defendant is difficult (but appropriate). Even with all the general things working in his favor (nature of the crime, age, health, etc...) I don't know how you can completely discount his behavior before, during and after the trial when considering the sentencing. Sure, his status as TFG sits over all of it, but if he isn't held accountable for his behavior then no one should ever be held accountable for how they act in front of a judge or as part of a courtroom proceeding. He's off the charts.

[Zarathud]

Most other defendants would not be so brazen in their defiance of the court and obviously likely to reoffend.

[Pyperkub]

And in any event, we’re talking about sentencing and whether Trump deserves a lighter sentence within the statutory framework or a harsher one.

Calling what Trump did a “technical” violation does not mean, in my mind, it’s a misapplication of the law. But it is, as has been explained by many legal experts and talking heads, a “novel” application of the law. Trump, as is his nature, was engaged in shady shit. But it’s really not the kind of shady shit the law was designed to get after.

That, combined with his lack of priors, no real victim impact statement, and age and poor (I mean, absolutely the best) health, and there’s a compelling case for probation.

Again, all reasonable and justifiable reasons for arguing for probation. I just have issues calling it a "technical violation". It is or it isn't a violation, even if it's a novel application of the law. You don't have the same issue with the term "technical violation" that I do, and that's fine - I don't need you to interpret everything the same way that I do.

Also, they KNEW it was illegal at the time. They had to fill out multiple forms to attest that all of this wasn't being done illegally. Every single time, they chose the illegal cover up.

Intentionally. Every time. This wasn't a technical mistake, this was 100% done with intent to illegally gain by breaking the law.

[Zarathud]

Michael Cohen was doing what was requested - “fix” a Trump problem to make it go away while being hidden. The intent was corrupt from the start, even if the violation was more technical. It’s how Michael Cohen worked, and Trump operates. Both privately and publicly.

We should not be surprised if in 10 years we find out the Trump led GOP is terribly corrupt.

[YellowKing]

We should not be surprised if in 10 years we find out the Trump led GOP is terribly corrupt.

Don't we already know that?

[LordMortis]

Michael Cohen was doing what was requested - “fix” a Trump problem to make it go away while being hidden. The intent was corrupt from the start, even if the violation was more technical. It’s how Michael Cohen worked, and Trump operates. Both privately and publicly.

We should not be surprised if in 10 years we find out the Trump led GOP is terribly corrupt.

We should not be surprised 3 years ago if we find out the Trump led GOP is terribly corrupt.

[Zarathud]

Sorry, was running to a meeting. By “find out” I meant have juries make findings that the GOP is openly corrupt.

TFG has had terrible results when his claims go before a jury charged with making a decision based on the facts.

[GreenGoo]

Intentionally. Every time. This wasn't a technical mistake, this was 100% done with intent to illegally gain by breaking the law.

All in order to keep the American people in the dark with regard to a candidate in a presidential election, a position that some call the most powerful position in the world. A position he was trying to achieve in (very aware and intentional) part by fraud. And this is just the part that we know about and he was convicted on.

The idea that he is still a threat is unconscionable. Presidents have been assassinated for far less.

[YellowKing]

As I told a friend the other day - which candidate has the endorsement of Russia, China, and Proud Boy white supremacists? That's all you really need to know to make an informed decision.

[Blackhawk]

We (including me) keep bringing up the fact that it's his 'first offense'. How much does that matter in the eyes of a judge when the first offense is nearly three dozen charges? Are all of them seen as the 'first' offense, or do they view it as multiple offenses?

Sorry, was running to a meeting. By “find out” I meant have juries make findings that the GOP is openly corrupt.

Which is probably why they're so desperate to take control now. They've built a machine that's got the potential to take over the world, but they know that their machine is built on a foundation of sand, and that the rains are coming. They either push the button now so that 'ten years from now' doesn't matter, or they sink.

[Kurth]

We (including me) keep bringing up the fact that it's his 'first offense'. How much does that matter in the eyes of a judge when the first offense is nearly three dozen charges? Are all of them seen as the 'first' offense, or do they view it as multiple offenses?

All of them are a first offense. There are 34 separate counts, but this is obviously one unified criminal act. It’s not like he did this with 34 different people, disguising 34 different payoffs. I have to laugh at the dramatic way that most of the news media covered the announcement of the verdict, like there was a significant chance he’d be convicted on 28 of the 34 counts or something. I suppose they could have treated the checks Trump signed himself differently from the other payments and ledger entries, but, in the end, these charges were going to live or die together.

So, no, I don’t think there’s any chance Judge Merchan looks at the 34 counts and that sways him to sentence Trump more harshly. He is still, in the eyes of the law, a first offender with no priors.

[ImLawBoy]

Yeah, I initially thought the 34 counts would be a factor. Then I looked more closely at the counts and realized that it was really just how they charged it. They could have theoretically charged it as one count with 34 separate elements, but I think prosecutors tend to break things up more to give themselves a little wiggle room.