Posted on 06/07/2024 9:45:04 AM PDT by bitt
Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld, a prominent legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, privacy rights, and the First Amendment, has provided a legal roadmap for Donald Trump’s attorneys to potentially overturn the former president’s ‘guilty’ verdict before the crucial 2024 election.
In a recent video, Rubenfeld begins by explaining the complexities of the case.
“Nobody wants it to be the rule in America that if you’re a former president or if you’re running for President, you become a target for criminal prosecution,” said Rubenfeld.
Trump was found guilty of allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a second crime. The crux of the prosecution’s argument was that Trump’s reimbursements to his lawyer, Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer, for hush money paid to Stormy Daniels were falsely recorded as legal expenses. The prosecution argued that these payments were campaign expenses meant to influence the 2016 election.
For the record, Jed Rudenfeld represented Robert Kennedy’s Children Health Defense, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, and several other independent voices in an antitrust lawsuit against members of the Trusted News Initiative back in 2023.
Rubenfeld points out that while paying hush money is not illegal, falsifying business records is. The complication arises from the necessity of proving a second crime that Trump was allegedly trying to conceal.
The prosecution suggested multiple theories, including New York tax violations and federal campaign finance violations, but did not definitively commit to any single one during the indictment.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Can they file an appeal before the sentence is read? I don’t think that would make sense.
"Better?" You think Bragg and Merchan would not twist whatever they picked into a "crime?"
Actually I don't know what the jury believed. I know how they voted.
The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
That really burns my britches. Hillary did the same exact misreporting of a legal expense to hide a payout to somebody (Steele), but this time it really was used to try to influence an election.
The Stormy Daniels payment was not election related, but Hillary's definitely was. She did exactly what Trump is accused of doing, but a thousand times worse.
Not disagreeing with you, but that seems literally insane. If true, that law should be taken up to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the 6th Amendment. Since, as I understand it, the whole "falsifying business documents" is predicated on the commission of some other felony, it seems pure madness to be able to convict when the other felony has not been proven.
Yes, it sounds insane to me. Other posters are telling me that such prosecutions are completely normal. I don't understand why ethical lawyers and judges would want the law to work that way. Maybe it's some kind of legal trick that was originally used against terrorists or mobsters.
“Better?” You think Bragg and Merchan would not twist whatever they picked into a “crime?”
You missed the point I was trying to make.
I am not saying that what you suggest is a bad idea, but there is no guarantee one way or the other. Gensler submitted the Steele crap as “legal expenses,” and neither he nor Hillary was charged, as you may have heard. “No reasonable prosecutor...”
“Not disagreeing with you, but that seems literally insane. “
It does seem weird but according to the articles I’ve read, that is the way it is
Yale law professor says Trump isn’t a convicted felon despite guilty verdict — here’s why
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.