ex-President Trump

My overall view on this whole thing is that this trial is ultimately fairly meaningless. I have zero doubt that Trump has done countless illegal things throughout his business career and that plenty of them overlapped with his political career. This specific case is the equivalent of a major drug baron being convicted for minor tax offenses. It was a pretty flimsy thing to prosecute him for but I have no issue with them trying it simply because there are so many illegal things he has done that he will never have to face any consequences for. This would be my attitude towards anyone with a business record similar to Trump, regardless of where their political affiliations lie.

While it was somewhat flimsy, from my layman's perspective there's only really one thing that it seems like there is a decent chance of challenging at appeal, which is the question of whether a federal crime can be a predicate crime for a state prosecution.

There's also the interesting issue of the jury not having to agree on which of the theories of how state law was violated were proven.

Almost a good analogy with cricket giving someone out (or not) if you know they were lbw or caught but you can't be reasonably certain about either.

A conviction isn't necessary at all. It isn't even necessary for the crime to have happened, just for the fraud to be done with the INTENT to commit, aid, or conceal the predicate crime.

I think an interesting consequence of this verdict is how it affects sentencing in the other 3 cases against him, which are all much more serious and are even more straightforward.

It's probably a good strategy because he effectively gets the bench trial if he loses the jury one.

My understanding of this is that while it might be interesting from a layman's perspective, as far as the law is concerned it's not at all interesting - it's just simply how the law works and there's not really anything to challenge in how the judge instructed the jury regarding it.

if he still has 3 cases against him after the election it means he has lost the election which means he would get many other cases against him and be buried from there no matter what.

And even without a guilty verdict in the hush money cases the other federal cases would mean the equivalent of a life sentence anyway (given his age).

So question is what happens if he wins the election. The two federal cases get dismissed immediately.

The Georgia case at the very least suspended until his term ends I suppose.

That can mean the prosecutor can change and drop charges and a lot of other stuff.

So this case is immaterial for his other 3 cases anyway imho. He is either locked up GG if he loses the election, or free if he wins.

This, unless he gets actually sentenced to jail in July AND not given bail while appealing, which people here think is an extremely unlikely scenario but I guess at this point it might depend on polls in July.

If Biden position deteriorates further Merchan might gamble and incarcerate Trump

I've seen a few mention this, but most say it is absolutely a non-issue and the instructions are perfectly in-line with the statute. Which is easily verifiable.

The instructions re the predicated crimes aren't the issue (the "you don't have to agree among yourselves about which predicated crime was hidden by the falsification"), the potential issue is that the judge didn't instruct enough about the details of the predicated crimes (but this is the ultra technical appeal things part we have no way to discuss among ourselves I think).

How is a juror to judge about intent to commit x if he doesn't know in detail what x would or wouldn't entail? As I said there is the "unduly" about interference with elections in state law.

How much does the judge have to cover about case law in excruciating detail for election interference during instructions about judgement for another crime potentially predicated on election interference? I don't think there is a plain rule covering that specific case.

It's appeal stuff no one among us has a clue about tbh

because the Biden DoJ decided they didnt want to put their thumb on the scale. if he had been tried for that people would have been saying its just politically weaponizing going after your opponent.

there is some interest in the fact that the underlying crimes are mostly federal in nature. but my uneducated on that topic guess is that NY would simply say they have an interest in protecting their own elections as well.

edit- if they would have gone after trump federally maybe they would have ended up in front of gym jordan's subcommittee on weaponizing the federal government where they actively try to weaponize the federal government against people..

After a bit more reading I think the idea that there are three potential predicate crimes is actually not quite accurate. What actually appears to be the case is that there is one specific predicate crime, that being

[QUOTE=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152]Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[/QUOTE]

What there are three of are the forms that the "unlawful means" may have taken i.e. the potential federal campaign finance violations, other business record falsifications, or tax fraud were the unlawful means by which the crime of conspiracy to promote or prevent election may have been committed.

This by no means solves all the issues that might come up on appeal but I think does entirely resolve the issue of jurors not needing to be unanimous about what form the crime took. It's akin to jurors not being able to agree on the specific method by which a group who showed up with a knife, a gun, and a baseball bat were intending to commit a murder (that didn't end up happening) but being able to convict them for conspiracy to commit murder anyway.

i think we are also forgetting that the government DID prove a lot of the basis of these crimes. Michael Cohen was guilty for his part in the underlying offenses.

https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance-hub...

By identifying and categorizing these underlying offences, authorities can trace the flow of illicit funds and unravel the intricate web of money laundering schemes. Recognizing the diversity and evolving nature of predicate offences is crucial for effectively investigating and preventing money laundering.

Unravelling the Link: Predicate Offences and Money Laundering

Predicate offences and money laundering share an inseparable relationship. Money laundering serves as the mechanism through which the proceeds of predicate offences are concealed, transformed, and integrated into the legitimate financial system. Criminals engage in money laundering to obscure the illicit origins of their funds, making them appear legitimate and avoiding suspicion.

Understanding the link between predicate offences and money laundering is essential for authorities to disrupt and dismantle criminal networks. By targeting predicate offences and subsequent money laundering activities, law enforcement agencies can effectively combat organized crime and disrupt the financial infrastructure supporting it.

The Significance of Identifying Predicate Offences in Investigations

Identifying predicate offences plays a pivotal role in money laundering and organized crime investigations. Recognizing the underlying crimes allows investigators to establish connections, gather evidence, and build cases against the perpetrators.

By focusing on predicate offences, investigators can trace the financial transactions, follow the money trail, and uncover the networks involved. This information not only aids in apprehending criminals but also helps dismantle their operations and seize their illicit assets.

Moreover, identifying predicate offences provides valuable insights into the nature and scope of criminal activities. It enables law enforcement agencies to anticipate emerging trends, adapt their strategies, and implement preventive measures to mitigate the risks posed by these crimes.

What are the 22 Predicate Offenses in the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD)?

On 3 December 2020, the EU Sixth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD) came into play for the member countries. The directive identified 22 predicate offences to look for. The 22 predicate offences constitute a roster of illicit acts that have the potential to generate illicit gains that can subsequently be employed in the process of money laundering. These predicate offences were established in the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD) and encompass the following:

Terrorism
Drug trafficking
Arms trafficking
Organized crime
Kidnapping
Extortion
Counterfeiting currency
Counterfeiting and piracy of products
Environmental crimes
Tax crimes
Fraud
Corruption
Insider trading and market manipulation
Bribery
Cybercrime
Copyright infringement
Theft and robbery
Human trafficking and migrant smuggling
Sexual exploitation, including of children
Illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiquities and works of art
Illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters
Illicit arms trafficking

I didn’t hear of anything I thought was clear error but the Defendant is a millionaire with plenty of incentive to have his high priced attorneys fight over every little issue. I won’t speak in absolutes about how the evidence went in or the jury instructions.

Uh? I meant NYS itself. I mean I tend to agree with Wild and others that Trump mist have done a ton of illegal business -related stuff, but why didn't NYS prosecute him for that? federally it's far less clear that he actually committed crimes in his career tbh maybe he did but what obvious ones would you point to?).

And btw again as others have mentioned, he was a democrat for a long while, it wouldn't even have been going after a political opponent.

I hope the idea isn't he was spared state prosecution in the last because he was a dem...

I think that's solved already at least in this forum (ofc on social media there are the wildest claims about that), every expert in centrist/neutral media was fine with that part of the instructions

I suppose we all agree the people who make policy decisions are like, corporate big shots, billionaires, lobbyists, elected officials, higher ups in bureaucracies, top people within the GOP and DNC etc.

These people are far smarter and more capable than average, but pursue policy that is bad for everyone but themselves out of self interest. So for you they aren't elite.

So the problem here isn't intelligence. I think its obvious that the dumb masses would make better drug policy, e.g. than do the smart and successful. They have done so with referendums.

That's why many think good policy comes from balanced interests. But you think it comes from smarter policy makers.

So you have to solve the moral problem. How do you get elites who think "i could make $$$$ of student loans, but it would gut the middle class and that’s bad?"

You could have a despot and get lucky with a Marcus Aurelius or the Singapore guy. But it seems most despots are bad.

You could be make special classes of people to rule, who cannot gain much from it. Like, they get a nice life but are prohibited from any additional wealth.

What's your solution?

i thought you were still talking about the underlying crime of the current case.

i have no idea how you are surprised that white collar criminals aren't prosecuted as much as they should be. he was spared state prosecution in the past because he was a rich white guy that probably donated to campaigns and hobnobbed with other influential people currying favors. standard rich white person stuff.

i dont think anyone would argue against the idea that rich people escape justice far too often in this country.

I reject your assumption that a high percentage of smart people would choose a policy that they knew was worse for most but better for them. Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting that we leave decisions to the ultra smart. It was to ignore those of the ultra dumb.

I don’t know why you think ethical automatically equal smart .
Maybe we don’t have the same definition of being smart or what it implies .

I think that is wrong. I believe that judges in America who declare a defendant not guilty before it gets to the jury have to feel that the not guilty verdict is the slam dunk correct one rather than just the way he would vote if there was no jury. How could it be otherwise? If it was, it would mean that letting it go to the jury meant that the judge would vote guilty. That could sway the jury. In other words, there are instances when the jury would convict when a judge wouldn't have. (Lawyers can tell me if I am wrong about this, but it seems logically impossible.)

But that doesn't mean that D2 is automatically right when he says that if Lucion's contention that the case is too complicated for a jury to possibly realize that Trump should be acquitted for technical reasons that only the judge would understand, the lawyers should have asked for a bench trial. That might be true in general. But if the judge is deemed biased against the defendant, the probabilities could switch. Thus, making the correct play to be asking for a jury in a case where the better play would normally be to ask for the judge.

I said the reverse. And I said usually. And I said the unethical ones were not "elite".

In a jury trial, judges are arbiters of law and juries are finders of fact. Judges can direct a not guilty verdict if, at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the defense moves for a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient for any reasonable juror to return a verdict of guilty and the judge grants the motion. Judges can't direct guilty verdicts as that would violate the defendant's right to a jury trial. In a bench trial, the judge serves as both the arbiter of law and as the finder of fact.

In other words, no, the judge can't direct the jury to return a verdict based on how he would vote if he were on the jury, unless it's a not guilty verdict under the "no reasonable juror" standard. This is very rare, simply because those cases are very rarely prosecuted.

I didn't say I thought it was a good idea for Trump to opt for a bench trial. I said that the option was always there if his defense team thought it was a good idea, in response to Luciom's point that the jury would not be able to understand the complexities of this case.

D2 gave a good answer. A judge can make a legal determination if there is no dispute of material facts or if there are no facts presented on an element of the case. If facts are disputed, it's the jurys role to decide the facts by weighing the competing evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses. In some states, if expert testimony is required and the competing experts agree on facts, judges can order the jury to deem such facts as true.