Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!” - CONVICTED!!

[chancery]

I dunno, and I haven't been following the trial closely, but I suspect that the evidence shows that it was the regular course of the Trump Organization's business to maintain records of Trump's "personal" checking account. And I imagine that this would satisfy any admissibility issue* as well as the "business records" element of the charged offense.

The charged offense is "falsifying business records," Penal Law § 175.05, "of an enterprise," Penal Law § 175.05(1). The relevant definitions, contained in Penal Law 175.00, are broad:

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

2. "Business record" means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity.

There may be relevant caselaw, but I'm not in a position to research it.

Sure, a skillful lawyer might be able to plant seeds of doubt by focusing on the word "personal," but it could be an uphill battle against the charge. I don't presently think that this represents the prosecution's most challenging vulnerability.

_________
* It's not clear to me what "the truth of the matter asserted" means in the context of a check, apart from a statement in the memo field along the lines of "we sure pulled the wool over the election officials with the scheme carried out with this check." But so far as I know, there aren't any such a statements. Also, too, there is caselaw (although I haven't looked at it for decades) to the effect that carefully maintained personal checking account records can be admitted as the records of a regularly conducted activity, even when it's not "business activity." And I can't recall encountering any particular difficulty in getting checks admitted.

Edit: fixed citation to § 175.05(1)

[keith]

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

New word learned today!

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
eleemosynary
/ˌɛlɪiːˈmɒsɪnəri,ˌɛlɪiːˈmɒzɪnəri/

adjective FORMAL

relating to or dependent on charity; charitable.

Susie Dent come on down and tell us all about it and its history.

[Sam the Centipede]

Checks, personal or otherwise: organizations typically allow directors and staff to purchase items or services with personal funds and later be reimbursed by the organization. So a personal payment is not direct evidence of a payment by the company.

But but but … if the organization's records show a payment then either (a) such a payment was made by the organization, or (b) the records are false, either (b1) accidentally, or (b2) deliberately.

So it seems to this non-lawyer (trying to think as a juror) that the personal payment argument is not a "stay out of prison" card, although it requires a longer and more fragile chain of evidence and argument.

[Sam the Centipede]

To be honest, I’m surprised more trials don’t end in acquittals. But I don’t think jurors really understand (or care about) reasonable doubt.

Not a lawyer, not a juror, not a jurist, but that might well be true. I'm not a complete fuckwit but I'm sure I'd struggle with managing the evidence and arguments during a long trial with stilted questions, objections, delays, etc.

My lay interpretation of the civil and criminal criteria (that I suspect would guide me) is that in a civil case I'm asking myself "which side better proved its case?" whereas in a criminal case it's "am I sure, really sure, that the prosecution proved its case, with no plausible refutation by the defendant?" Strict legal criteria converted to how my brain actually works.

And that fits with the fact that we make decisions emotionally, with reason/logic as a backup and reality/sanity check.

It is assumed here that dirty dealings by Trump and his gang happened to cover up his sordid conduct. The jury surely understand that too. That will color how much jurors care about legal-shmegal arguments about who signed the check – "look, it's a person called Donald Trump and an organization called Donald Trump, the guy mixes personal, business, political and (fake) charity affairs, the account name on the check is a red herring."

[p0rtia]

The Lawfare folks take a whack at answering the "where's the criminal conspiracy?" questions.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... s-ny-trial

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?
Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.

Quinta Jurecic, Tyler McBrien Tuesday, May 7, 2024, 7:30 AM

On April 23, in Justice Merchan’s courtroom, former president Donald Trump’s defense counsel Emil Bove objected to a line of questioning pursued by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass.



Bove continued: “As the Court knows, there is no conspiracy charged in the indictment. Statements by a campaign staff member doing normal campaign work do not further any alleged conspiracy that the People are relying on as a predicate act.”

Steinglass, in his response, offered a meta-commentary. “I think there is a misperception about the law and about what this case is about,” he said.

No kidding. Misperceptions about the law and this case have abounded since District Attorney Alvin Bragg handed up the indictment in March 2023, thanks to either the case’s novelty, a dearth of New York state law expertise outside of New York state, or both.

While the indictment alleges no conspiracy, as Bove correctly mentioned, Bragg charged Trump under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree, a felony “stepped up” from the misdemeanor charge under § 175.05, by alleging that Trump cooked the books with the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” Justice Merchan has permitted the prosecution to pursue three theories related to that underlying crime, known as the object offense, but the prosecution seems to be zeroing in so far on one, in particular: New York Election Law § 17-152, a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” As Steinglass said in court on April 23, “while it's true that there is no conspiracy in the second degree charge on the indictment, it is not true that a conspiracy has not always been alleged to be part of this case.”

But even after laying out mechanics of the case as Bragg is prosecuting it, several questions—or misperceptions—remain.

Chief among these questions are: Do prosecutors have to prove that Trump committed one of the three object offenses? And if so, does the jury have to agree on which one? And to what standard of evidence? In addressing these questions, we’re not aiming to endorse nor refute the prosecution’s legal theory, nor the case law around New York Penal Law § 175.10. Rather, we’re aiming to clear up a few “misperceptions.”



This distinction might seem nitpicky. But given the high burden of proof in a criminal case—proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the lower preponderance of evidence standard in civil cases—it could be crucial. If Bragg must prove both A and B beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury retains some uncertainty as to whether the object offenses under B actually occurred, that could sink the entire case. On the other hand, if Bragg must only prove A beyond a reasonable doubt, along with the intent to commit B, that potentially leaves prosecutors with more wiggle room to secure a conviction. Jurors might not buy with 99 percent certainty that the object crime was committed, but they could still vote to convict if they believe the intent was there.

The full discussion is fascinating and easy for this IANAL to follow.

[New Turtle]

Stormy Daniels is the second witness for today.

[andersweinstein]

[johnpcapitalist]

Almost as bad as the people who are allegedly wearing Depends and marching around with signs saying "Real Men Wear Diapers" (potentially real but potentially a case of Poe's Law at work) is this:

https://boingboing.net/2024/05/07/an-in ... lding.html

An incarcerated Trump would focus on bodybuilding

Fox News's Jesse Watters predicts that if Donald J Trump is incarcerated, he will focus on bodybuilding and personal fitness rather than his immense failures or self-reflection.

Fox News intellectual giant Jesse Watters seems to have a bizarre idea of jail; it is not likely Judge Merchan will order the Orange Blimp put away for longer than it takes to lose some water weight. Watters also seemingly forgets who he is talking about when he suggests that Donald J. Trump is going to get jacked in jail. Trump is on a 77-year bulk and doesn't intend to stop now. The man who brought hamberders to the White House!

Anything to shore up the idea of this flatulent blob as an Alpha Male^TM, no matter how bizarre it seems to non-cultists.

[Dr. Ken]

gag

[neonzx]

This is getting fun.

[Chilidog]

Yikes.

That's brutal.

And

[pipistrelle]

I’ve seen “poor jury.”

[andersweinstein]

Interesting observation from TPM's Josh Kovensky:

Here’s a problem with Daniels’ testimony, as I see it at the current moment: it’s at least somewhat obvious that she is taking joy in belittling Trump.

This doesn’t necessarily go to the veracity of what she’s saying. It could all be true, she could remember all of the details, down to the magazine spank.

But she’s taking the chance to mock Trump where she doesn’t necessarily need to. At the end of the infamous spank anecdote, Daniels added: “And he was much more polite.” It drew laughs from the gallery, but does it help her credibility?

Source

[Foggy]

Ol' Wifehorn is dying of laughter, reading about my gal Stormy.

[p0rtia]

Well, Mr. Honeybunch is not having a good day.

[MN-Skeptic]

I thought this comment was interesting -

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

From afar, I would be surprised if Trump's lawyers don't move for a mistrial when Stormy Daniels is off the stand, given the level of detail Daniels went into that even seemed to bother the judge — and even after he warned prosecutors to steer clear.

[Foggy]

I don't know why the judge is allowing a lot of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, but I'm enjoying the show. However, I disagree with the Kovensky analysis - while she is clearly mocking it up for the court, IMHO her recall of details is going to bolster, not detract from, her credibility.

[p0rtia]

So InTouch didn't run the story they got from Stormy in 2011. Though presumably they paid her the $15 K for it. And interviewed her.

Did not know that before.

Shortly after which we have the story about her being threatened in the parking lot.

No evidence of a connection (as of today), but those two vignettes do add up to InTouch being bought off, don't they.

ETA Later in testimony it comes out that she was not paid. InTruth aired the story asnd her interview in 2018 when WSJ made the encounter public.

[p0rtia]

News media butchering Stormy's motivation. Not helped by various tweets coming through with errors.

All part of live coverage.

[noblepa]

It looks like they’re saying even his personal checks are part of the Trump Organization.

Why not? He never distinguished between his personal property or dealings and those of any organization he was involved with. Not his business, not his trust, not his charity, not Trump U., not even the Presidency.

[Estiveo]

Estiveo_20240507_100059.jpg (84.88 KiB) Viewed 472 times

[noblepa]

If part of the defense is that the checks in question were drawn on Trump's personal accounts, but that the accounts were managed by Trump Org. personnel, don't they run a risk of admitting to co-mingling of corporate and personal funds?

IANAL, but in the couple of Business Law 101 type classes I took in college, it was explained that co-mingling funds was one of the surest ways to give the IRS or a court the power to "pierce the corporate veil".

While such co-mingling is not part of the indictment, at least as I understand it, this would raise other problems for him, would it not?

[MN-Skeptic]

Trump is more than welcome to take the stand and rebut Stormy's testimony.

[Foggy]

I'm sure he'll insist.

My gal Stormy most thoroughly INDICATED him today.

[Suranis]

Uh, he has in his pants the thing that will prove that Ms Daniels is lying. Does he have the courage?