4 ms·

> Fair trials of political leaders is a hallmark of functioning democracy. Yet this is the first time a US president has ever been brought to trial. And one c

by thunky 2y ago

> Fair trials of political leaders is a hallmark of functioning democracy. Yet this is the first time a US president has ever been brought to trial. And one could argue that the case against him was based on a legal technicality, where the crime itself is hard to define (and the prosecution wasn't required to fully define it, or the jurors required to agree on it).

acdha 2y ago
The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person: it could have been related to the tax evasion or attempted election influence but since Michael Cohen had already plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws as well as tax fraud, all prosecutors had to do was show that this crime was committed in part to cover up Cohen’s uncontested crimes. I doubt they’d have had trouble getting an additional conviction on election interference since it’s so clear that was his concern (c.f. Trump’s stated fears about alienating women voters) but a prosecutor is almost always going to take a given rather than having to risk something going wrong.
- thunky 2y ago
  > The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person Yeah, so not cut and dry. And the "confusing" part is required to arrive at a guilty verdict. The falsifying records charge cannot stand on it's own because the statute of limitations (2 years) has passed. Prosecutors had to engineer the charges into a felony via accusing Trump of violating NY election law (or maybe tax law?), which is anything but cut and dry.
rsynnott 2y ago
> where the crime itself is hard to define Huh? It seems fairly clear-cut, as a crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#Elements_and_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#El... It's a form of fraud.
- thunky 2y ago
  The jury had multiple options for the "second crime" and they didn't have to agree.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    Because those are not what he was charged for. He was charged for falsifying business records.
    - thunky 2y ago
      Right. But the only way the jury could find him guilty of the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records was to conclude that Trump had done such falsification with the goal of committing another (second) crime. And my point is, he was not tried or convicted of that second crime. Rather, the prosecution gave the jurors options to select from, and it was up to each juror to conclude that he was guilty of one of them. The prosecution didn't have to demonstrate that he was guilty of a specific crime, and the jurors didn't have to agree with eachother on the second crime. Not saying the jurors got it wrong. They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict.
      - HaZeust 2y ago
        "They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict." Because it was, based on the criteria and definition of the charge, as another member has kindly linked you. Full stop.
        thunky 2y ago
        Yeah, and like I said, the jury was probably correct given the way the charges were structured. That doesn't make these novel charges legitimate, and it doesn't mean they'll survive appeal. From https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-trial-new-york/ https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-t... From the moment Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced charges against Trump more than one year ago, people doubted his unconventional strategy. “It cheapens the term election interference to call this election interference,” says Richard Hasen, a professor of law at UCLA. Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, called the case “an embarrassment” that pushed the boundaries of prosecutorial ethics. It is not illegal to pay someone “hush money.” On its face, Bragg’s evidence pointed to 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records, for all of which the statute of limitations had passed. Bragg’s novel approach bumped each of those misdemeanors up to first-degree felony charges by alleging they were all committed to bolster another crime related to violating election laws, but Bragg didn’t have to prove that second crime.

by thunky 2y ago

acdha 2y ago

The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person: it could have been related to the tax evasion or attempted election influence but since Michael Cohen had already plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws as well as tax fraud, all prosecutors had to do was show that this crime was committed in part to cover up Cohen’s uncontested crimes. I doubt they’d have had trouble getting an additional conviction on election interference since it’s so clear that was his concern (c.f. Trump’s stated fears about alienating women voters) but a prosecutor is almost always going to take a given rather than having to risk something going wrong.

thunky 2y ago
> The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person Yeah, so not cut and dry. And the "confusing" part is required to arrive at a guilty verdict. The falsifying records charge cannot stand on it's own because the statute of limitations (2 years) has passed. Prosecutors had to engineer the charges into a felony via accusing Trump of violating NY election law (or maybe tax law?), which is anything but cut and dry.

rsynnott 2y ago

> where the crime itself is hard to define Huh? It seems fairly clear-cut, as a crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#Elements_and_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#El... It's a form of fraud.

thunky 2y ago
The jury had multiple options for the "second crime" and they didn't have to agree.
- mcphage 2y ago
  Because those are not what he was charged for. He was charged for falsifying business records.
  - thunky 2y ago
    Right. But the only way the jury could find him guilty of the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records was to conclude that Trump had done such falsification with the goal of committing another (second) crime. And my point is, he was not tried or convicted of that second crime. Rather, the prosecution gave the jurors options to select from, and it was up to each juror to conclude that he was guilty of one of them. The prosecution didn't have to demonstrate that he was guilty of a specific crime, and the jurors didn't have to agree with eachother on the second crime. Not saying the jurors got it wrong. They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      "They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict." Because it was, based on the criteria and definition of the charge, as another member has kindly linked you. Full stop.
      - thunky 2y ago
        Yeah, and like I said, the jury was probably correct given the way the charges were structured. That doesn't make these novel charges legitimate, and it doesn't mean they'll survive appeal. From https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-trial-new-york/ https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-t... From the moment Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced charges against Trump more than one year ago, people doubted his unconventional strategy. “It cheapens the term election interference to call this election interference,” says Richard Hasen, a professor of law at UCLA. Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, called the case “an embarrassment” that pushed the boundaries of prosecutorial ethics. It is not illegal to pay someone “hush money.” On its face, Bragg’s evidence pointed to 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records, for all of which the statute of limitations had passed. Bragg’s novel approach bumped each of those misdemeanors up to first-degree felony charges by alleging they were all committed to bolster another crime related to violating election laws, but Bragg didn’t have to prove that second crime.