Wow. Another amazing break down of events. Thank you Jay! tRump is slicker than snot and I believe he will find a way to weasel his way free. But if people like you and if the main stream media would get off their arses and continue to shine a light on how tRump and his minions are the absolute worst for this nation and the world, we might be able to pull some voters from the darkside. Thank you for fighting the fight and giving us knowledge in a way we can absorb and understand.
It’s doubtful that those voters on “the dark side” are likely to care much, er…at all, given their likely attitude that all’s fair in love and the advancement of Donald Trump and their shared ignorant politics.
Despite tRump's attorney Emil Bove trying his damnedest to impeach David Pecker's testimony, there's enough right there to sink tRump on the conspiracy charges...the "protect his family" argument was effectively blown up by Pecker's assertion that the hush-money payoffs were in aid of the campaign - first, last, and always. Stormy, Michael Cohen, and the rest of the witnesses for the prosecution are for corroborative purposes, and as much as the defense will try to turn Cohen into a piñata, it'll little matter for DA Bragg's case, they have the POS nailed dead-to-rights.
I'm not surprised Bragg has a solid case; it would be too risky for him professionally if he didn't. He has another thing going for him; the defense is ham-strung by a nightmare client that insists that they deny everything including the Daniel's encounter. The defense is going to be testing the jury's credibility on too many points to have any of their arguments be effective.
Gratitude and kudos go to you for doing the homework and teasing out the case.
This case has assumed a great deal more importance than was first thought. The hit-job on Fani Willis, Aileen Cannon's jury instruction roadblockery, and the SC(R)OTUS deliberations over presidential immunity have left this case as the single pre-election rope still dangling from Trump's gibbet. Your breakdown lays out just how powerful a case the prosecution has. What remains is whether or not a ringer sneaked onto the jury who will not vote to convict no matter what the evidence shows. While that circumstance that could be ruled a mistrial, it would almost certainly put the case outside of the election window, which is Trump's "goal line."
I can't help but note the contradictions between the defense arguments in the separate cases against Trump. In the arguments over his (in)eligibility under the 14th amendment, the defense argued that the voters should get to decide if Trump should get to be president again on the basis of the evidence rather than through a decision made by the courts . The pattern by the defense in the other court cases, up to and including the Supreme Court, has been one of obfuscation by delay of the very evidence that they claimed those voters need in order to make their decision. This has been a legal bait-and-switch on the American voting public right down the line; a con that Trump has perfected through assiduous practice over the past fifty years.
She does say that the jury's interpretation is what will matter; and that from the way things are going in the court, Trump is more likely than not to be convicted.
She's presumably speaking of felony convictions, because it looks like misdemeanors will certainly be proven. That alone will let Biden's team brand Trump in every ad as e.g. "34 Criminal Convictions". So good, and maybe better.
I read her dissection of the prosecution's case as well. I don't think that she logically links the actions together in the manner that Jay has. Those discontinuities cause some of the actions to seem unrelated to one another legally, even if they were related in actuality. I'll stick with Jay's conclusion, although I do agree with Kanefield that what the jury decides is what's going to determine this.
There are two lawyers on the jury, who will need some solid legal convincing. Bragg was confident enough to use his peremptory challenges on others. Maybe he has evidence making his election law felony case stronger than we know now. The possibility of working in tax law violations has also occasionally come up.
We'll see. I'm counting on at least the misdemeanors for a big "Convicted Criminal" stamp.
Prosecution was very careful to establish that Pecker's job was to be the EYES AND EARS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
That in and of itself demonstrates that he didn't give a flying **** about what Melania or the kids thought, unless of course it would lessen their support of his run.
I don't think Melania was a concern from the outset of this plot; after all, If Melania hadn't married Trump, she might have ended up acquainted with Stormy Daniels through another avenue. Trump knows this and would hang it over her head.
I was also mentally comparing Teri's analysis with Jay's. I think Jay has answered her implied question: what was the crime committed that makes falsification a felony.
It is interesting that the election law is relevant both for promoting or PREVENTING a candidate for election, so his involvement in the Hillary Clinton stories, etc. are also illegal.
Pecker was certainly liable - but struck a deal to testify and was given immunity. (I am not a lawyer, btw - but that's how I understand it.) And this is the least of Trump's illegal shenanigans ....
So there were no associated falsified business records in relation to the Hilary stories, but there was still a conspiracy and an illegal campaign contribution, right? Seems like Pecker may have been given immunity but Trump wasn't and he's on the receiving end of this deal.
Thank you again for clarity and understanding. As stated by President Biden at this Saturday Journalist dinner: I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake,” he said. “Every single one of us has…a serious role to play in making sure democracy endures…. I have my role, but, with all due respect, so do you.”
We need you and every other person with a brain and a voice to rise up and stand against the distractions and destruction being unleashed on our democracy.
Per Glenn Kirschner, being found in contempt of court could cause a problem with Trump's terms of release for the other cases. Not committing a crime is part of the terms of release, so violating that could land Trump in jail. Do I expect it to happen? No because God hates me.
As long as the prosecution doesn't "drop the ball," or fail to walk the jury through the box score as clearly as you just did, with the bases thus loaded, this should be a grand slam.
He’ll certainly appeal and will also have his attorneys file the paperwork to keep him out on bail, pending the outcome of the appeal(s). Having said that, there’s a couple of “what-if” scenarios in play that are the real kickers. Judge M. could find him in contempt for his many gag order violations and after running up several $1000 fines times number of violations slap him with up to thirty days in jail, suspended to the end of the first trial. That could get him in the slammer for a short period of time while the appeals are pending. News has also leaked that the Secret Service has been making plans and is in discussions with New York if he is jailed.
Give his state of mental and physical health, I'd say chances he goes to prison are pretty low. He'll probably run out the clock with appeals the way Kenneth Lay of Enron infamy did.
In this case, that may well be the better outcome - being exposed as the criminal he is in court and the history books is far more important than actually going to prison.
Nice sentiment, but I want them to deliberate this very carefully. Every criminal defendant is entitled to that, no matter how much we hate them. Convicting right off the bat reeks of a biased jury and may well make the conviction politically suspect, and possibly even be grounds for appeal.
I fully agree, Kevin. However, my post originally appeared immediately underneath Rich Gopen's baseball puns (above) and got separated by other comments.
Epiphany. My favorite word. My favorite day each year. It means light. It's the illumination that clears out all darkness and reveals ultimate truth. May it be so, Jay. May this be the light at the end of darkness and not an oncoming train traveling toward us on the same track.
In the words of Captain Picard, make it so.
I wish I could give you a million likes!
Engage!
Wow. Another amazing break down of events. Thank you Jay! tRump is slicker than snot and I believe he will find a way to weasel his way free. But if people like you and if the main stream media would get off their arses and continue to shine a light on how tRump and his minions are the absolute worst for this nation and the world, we might be able to pull some voters from the darkside. Thank you for fighting the fight and giving us knowledge in a way we can absorb and understand.
It’s doubtful that those voters on “the dark side” are likely to care much, er…at all, given their likely attitude that all’s fair in love and the advancement of Donald Trump and their shared ignorant politics.
Despite tRump's attorney Emil Bove trying his damnedest to impeach David Pecker's testimony, there's enough right there to sink tRump on the conspiracy charges...the "protect his family" argument was effectively blown up by Pecker's assertion that the hush-money payoffs were in aid of the campaign - first, last, and always. Stormy, Michael Cohen, and the rest of the witnesses for the prosecution are for corroborative purposes, and as much as the defense will try to turn Cohen into a piñata, it'll little matter for DA Bragg's case, they have the POS nailed dead-to-rights.
I tend to agree.
I'm not surprised Bragg has a solid case; it would be too risky for him professionally if he didn't. He has another thing going for him; the defense is ham-strung by a nightmare client that insists that they deny everything including the Daniel's encounter. The defense is going to be testing the jury's credibility on too many points to have any of their arguments be effective.
Gratitude and kudos go to you for doing the homework and teasing out the case.
This case has assumed a great deal more importance than was first thought. The hit-job on Fani Willis, Aileen Cannon's jury instruction roadblockery, and the SC(R)OTUS deliberations over presidential immunity have left this case as the single pre-election rope still dangling from Trump's gibbet. Your breakdown lays out just how powerful a case the prosecution has. What remains is whether or not a ringer sneaked onto the jury who will not vote to convict no matter what the evidence shows. While that circumstance that could be ruled a mistrial, it would almost certainly put the case outside of the election window, which is Trump's "goal line."
I can't help but note the contradictions between the defense arguments in the separate cases against Trump. In the arguments over his (in)eligibility under the 14th amendment, the defense argued that the voters should get to decide if Trump should get to be president again on the basis of the evidence rather than through a decision made by the courts . The pattern by the defense in the other court cases, up to and including the Supreme Court, has been one of obfuscation by delay of the very evidence that they claimed those voters need in order to make their decision. This has been a legal bait-and-switch on the American voting public right down the line; a con that Trump has perfected through assiduous practice over the past fifty years.
Same tactic used by McConnell to prevent Garland being appointed to the Court and then turning around and putting Barrett there. Despicable.
Upvoting for "gibbet." :-)
Defense lawyer Teri Kanefield looks at the same arguments and comes to a very different conclusion:
https://terikanefield.Com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/
She does say that the jury's interpretation is what will matter; and that from the way things are going in the court, Trump is more likely than not to be convicted.
She's presumably speaking of felony convictions, because it looks like misdemeanors will certainly be proven. That alone will let Biden's team brand Trump in every ad as e.g. "34 Criminal Convictions". So good, and maybe better.
I read her dissection of the prosecution's case as well. I don't think that she logically links the actions together in the manner that Jay has. Those discontinuities cause some of the actions to seem unrelated to one another legally, even if they were related in actuality. I'll stick with Jay's conclusion, although I do agree with Kanefield that what the jury decides is what's going to determine this.
There are two lawyers on the jury, who will need some solid legal convincing. Bragg was confident enough to use his peremptory challenges on others. Maybe he has evidence making his election law felony case stronger than we know now. The possibility of working in tax law violations has also occasionally come up.
We'll see. I'm counting on at least the misdemeanors for a big "Convicted Criminal" stamp.
Prosecution was very careful to establish that Pecker's job was to be the EYES AND EARS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
That in and of itself demonstrates that he didn't give a flying **** about what Melania or the kids thought, unless of course it would lessen their support of his run.
I don't think Melania was a concern from the outset of this plot; after all, If Melania hadn't married Trump, she might have ended up acquainted with Stormy Daniels through another avenue. Trump knows this and would hang it over her head.
I love "gold plated bucket of slime" :)
I was also mentally comparing Teri's analysis with Jay's. I think Jay has answered her implied question: what was the crime committed that makes falsification a felony.
Committing a misdemeanor intended to hide other misdemeanors then becomes a felony. Nice.
Defense lawyers never concede defeat.
Thank you for the link. Very sobering (and infuriating) post.
It is interesting that the election law is relevant both for promoting or PREVENTING a candidate for election, so his involvement in the Hillary Clinton stories, etc. are also illegal.
So why no charges? Is there no clear paper trail proving a conspiracy so Pecker can claim freedom of the press so he and Trump can get away with it?
Pecker was certainly liable - but struck a deal to testify and was given immunity. (I am not a lawyer, btw - but that's how I understand it.) And this is the least of Trump's illegal shenanigans ....
So there were no associated falsified business records in relation to the Hilary stories, but there was still a conspiracy and an illegal campaign contribution, right? Seems like Pecker may have been given immunity but Trump wasn't and he's on the receiving end of this deal.
Pecker had no dealing in the payoff to the ladies - only the catch and kill piece.
Thank you again for clarity and understanding. As stated by President Biden at this Saturday Journalist dinner: I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake,” he said. “Every single one of us has…a serious role to play in making sure democracy endures…. I have my role, but, with all due respect, so do you.”
We need you and every other person with a brain and a voice to rise up and stand against the distractions and destruction being unleashed on our democracy.
Per Glenn Kirschner, being found in contempt of court could cause a problem with Trump's terms of release for the other cases. Not committing a crime is part of the terms of release, so violating that could land Trump in jail. Do I expect it to happen? No because God hates me.
Hates me, too.
As long as the prosecution doesn't "drop the ball," or fail to walk the jury through the box score as clearly as you just did, with the bases thus loaded, this should be a grand slam.
I am cautiously optimistic! Things could change, but this is how the case looks to me currently.
If he does get convicted what are chances the chances he goes to prison you think?
He’ll certainly appeal and will also have his attorneys file the paperwork to keep him out on bail, pending the outcome of the appeal(s). Having said that, there’s a couple of “what-if” scenarios in play that are the real kickers. Judge M. could find him in contempt for his many gag order violations and after running up several $1000 fines times number of violations slap him with up to thirty days in jail, suspended to the end of the first trial. That could get him in the slammer for a short period of time while the appeals are pending. News has also leaked that the Secret Service has been making plans and is in discussions with New York if he is jailed.
Give his state of mental and physical health, I'd say chances he goes to prison are pretty low. He'll probably run out the clock with appeals the way Kenneth Lay of Enron infamy did.
In this case, that may well be the better outcome - being exposed as the criminal he is in court and the history books is far more important than actually going to prison.
The jury should convict right off the bat!
Nice sentiment, but I want them to deliberate this very carefully. Every criminal defendant is entitled to that, no matter how much we hate them. Convicting right off the bat reeks of a biased jury and may well make the conviction politically suspect, and possibly even be grounds for appeal.
I fully agree, Kevin. However, my post originally appeared immediately underneath Rich Gopen's baseball puns (above) and got separated by other comments.
I was thinking the same thing - hoping that the orosecution can be as clear as Jay.
Take me out to the ball game!! I’m already rooting for the home team (by which I mean justice and fairness). Go, Alvin!
YOU hit a home run with this explanation, Jay! Thank you!!!!
Epiphany. My favorite word. My favorite day each year. It means light. It's the illumination that clears out all darkness and reveals ultimate truth. May it be so, Jay. May this be the light at the end of darkness and not an oncoming train traveling toward us on the same track.
The whole Cohen credibility thing reminds me of that scene from Oceans 11.
"I only lied about being a thief".
Cohen only lied to initially protect Trump, his coconspirator. Once Cohen found his way, he recanted and went to jail.
So, Cohen is only a liar because of Trump's conspiracy and only an excon because he was guilty of being part of that conspiracy.
Besides, in a mob trial, all the witnesses are gangsters. Just a fact of life. Not disqualifying.
Use this interactive visualize guide to follow Trump’s ‘Catch And Kill’ election interference scheme. (I'll update it with Jay's comments from today).
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/04/22/catch-and-kill-visual-guide-to-trumps-election-interference-scheme/
I need your guide to keep all the bad actors and their roles, clandestine payments, mob tactics, and damning communications straight! Tyvm!
Are you on the prosecution team? If not, why not?