Posted on 05/21/2024 8:08:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After Michael Cohen's disastrous testimony, it would seem that the case against President Trump over the bookkeeping entry in a hush-money payment case would be in tatters as it goes to the jury. Many legal eagles have said as much.
But the politically partisan New York justice in this case, Juan Merchan, doesn't give up that fast and clearly wants to salvage the case. He's instructing the jury to ignore the detail about the 'underlying crime' and treat the case the same way a burglary case is treated.
According to Newsweek:
A hush-money payment is not illegal, and under New York law, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanor unless it is done to conceal another crime, in which case it can be a felony.
Merchan said the prosecution did not need to prove that Trump committed additional crimes, like campaign finance or tax violations. Instead, it must show that Trump intended to commit or conceal these crimes.
"You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase," Merchan said, per Vance's blog. Merchan made the comment while discussing whether the defense could call an expert in campaign finance law.
We'll get to the burglary analogy in a minute from the character named Vance, but the bottom line is, Merchan is trying to slant the jury the prosecutor's way, telling them not to bother about the little detail about what the underlying crime was that makes the hush money payment a jailtime felony. They can make it up, if they like.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Figure out a way to put that corrupt greasy bastard into prison.
Way past time we started burning them with their own fire.
That's it in a nutshell. And that's why Merchan couldn't allow the former FEC Commissioner testify to that fact. They are going out on this extremely thin limb that Trump merely THINKING it was a crime is enough to promote the misdemeanor to a felony, and therefore Commissioner Smith's testimony was moot. Cohen litterally testified that he/Trump committed FECA crimes, and the judge prevented the defense from presenting a vigorous rebuttal.
Without Commissioner Smith testifying, the jury likely (wrongly) thinks Trump committed an FECA crime. Merchan might address this in jury instructions to try to avoid this glaring cause for appeal. I'm not sure if the jury instructions will be before or after closing arguments, but if before, (and Merchan covers FECA in Jury instructions) the defense can cover FECA in their closing.
Maybe this is why Merchan needs an 8 day break to consult the powers that be to find a way through this.
In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, William Roper asks Thomas More if he would give the devil the benefit of law. More replies, "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" Roper's response is "I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
The Democrats may not believe in the devil, but they believe that Trump is the devil.
Under NY law, the judge — as bad as he is — is responsible
for instructing the jury as to the applicable law. Merchan should have sustained the objections Cohen’s testimony in which case, Smith’s testimony is unnecessary. Quite frankly, in 38 years as a trail attorney, I have never witnessed or even heard of a judge allowing expert testimony to explain the law to the jury. That’s the judge’s job.
There needs to be an internet survey, asking how many years in prison the prosecutor and judge should spend?
You would think, and yet the NY legislature passed the law, some dem governor signed it into law, and Merchan and Bragg are using it against Trump with no indication of embarrassment.
The only way this garbage is going to stop is to find some of these rats guilty of official misconduct and throw them into prison, in general population. I would guess that a former judge would rank right up there with a pedophile in prison.
RE: Next Tuesday we will learn the DJT is a convicted felon.
Yawwwn… we’ve already learned that he is a racist, antisemitic, misogynist who fomented an insurrection, is a Russian candidate, and the reincarnation of Hitler.
Trump is under a "HEDGE of PROTECTION" from God which means NOTHING will come from this instance of ATTACK.
However.. prepare your self, before the smoke and dust settles from this debacle by the LEFT, for the their NEXT CONTRIVANCE to be launched in HOPES of AGAIN sinking Trump!
So.. if they find him guilty, what will they find him guilty of?
No actual crime was specified.
Falsifying business records in the first degree, penal law 170.10.
I’m tired of this “no crime was specified” argument. It’s wrong and proves the speaker is ignorant of what they speak.
A conviction of 170.10 requires there to have been an intent to cover up another crime. THAT crime doesn’t have to be proven, only the defendant’s intent to cover a crime up. And Bragg did identify 4 possibilities of what that underlying crime could be, 3 of which survived Trump’s motion to dismiss.
Of course the whole thing is a BS charade, but that’s a factual/proof issue, not a charge issue.
Trump paid a lawyer who was representing him and recorded it as “legal expense”. Just exactly why is that any kind of a “crime”?
I would like to see a trucker’s strike blocking all highways into NYC until this judge is corrected.
About a week with no food shipments should change his mind.
except that there was no crime for him to ‘intend’ to coverup.
“except that there was no crime for him to ‘intend’ to coverup.”
There doesn’t have to actually BE a crime though.
If you and I come up with a plan to embezzle from our employer, and I cook the corporate books to cover up your theft, but then you get cold feet and don’t actually steal anything, I’d still be guilty of trying to cover up your crime even though you didn’t actually commit one.
“Trump paid a lawyer who was representing him and recorded it as “legal expense”. Just exactly why is that any kind of a “crime”?”
I agree that it isn’t, which among many other reasons is why the case is BS. But that is based on the facts, not based on any kind of issue with the statute.
What you just stated is akin to sending “a strongly worded letter.” While it is good that they show their support there’s literally nothing legislatively they can do. If they did, that would go directly against any conservative stance on states rights. Many have already spoken out against the nonsensical case and it still goes forward unabated. That’s literally all they can do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.