Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

To keep the discussion going, I guess the question on everyone's mind is, "Who are Haley voters going to vote for?" Are they going to vote for Trump now, or will they vote for Biden? Many Haley supporters would never vote for Trump; her endorsement will not change that. I honestly don't see that her endorsement makes much difference in the general election, and again, it was all about her remaining relevant in the Republican party. Sadly, she had to do that to remain pertinent, but such is the nature of politics.

I'm not going to vote for Trump, but as you observe, I am not going to hold Haley's endorsement against her (or Rubio's VP overtures against him) and I would be happy to vote for Haley or Rubio in '28 if the opportunity arises and they are running against someone along the lines of Harris.

I'm kind of surprised.   Looks like the jury deliberated carefully.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not. The guy is guilty as sin and then some.

That said, it's only a temporary victory since it will be overturned on appeal on the basis of a legal technicality, advanced by a conservative legal professor, that it's all unconstitutional. SCOTUS cons are all in on it like flies in an outhouse. They will proudly proclaim they will NOT hear the merits of the case and overturn the conviction. Trumptoids everywhere will think he's been acquitted and vindicated...

I don't buy your Supreme Court conspiracy theories, but I would not be surprised if this is overturned at the State level.   Remember that the appeals go through multiple layers of New York State appeals courts.

I agree that he is guilty of knowingly paying hush money and falsifying business records - a misdemeanor.   My issue has always been with the law leveraging this misdemeanor to a felony based upon an object crime advanced by the false business record.  The jury was given a choice of state election fraud, federal election fraud, or tax laws as the object crime.  To my knowledge, none of these possible object crimes has been formally alleged in a separate proceeding, much less tried and proved.   It seems to me to be a lack of due process to advance a misdemeanor to a felony on this sort of unproven object crime allegation.   

But that is apparently how the NY law works.   In other words, given the law and instructions, I am not surprised that the jury found him guilty.   (I thought they might find reasonable doubt based upon the secretary's testimony that Trump would sign anything you put in front of him.)  Not sure that the boost to felony aspect of this law will stand as interpreted by the trial court upon appellate examination.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Wow, you sure are back here quick.    

Check the timestamp.  If I suffered Jim's cataclysmic loss I could easily be up mindlessly staring at the computer in the cold and lonely morning hours.  Right now, I'm guessing Jim could use unconditional support rather than snarky judgements.  My heart goes out to him this weekend as he says goodbye to the love of his life.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Hey, at least he finally won the popular vote.

Funny!

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

Not political, but this guy has to be the dumbest idiot ever!

Maurice

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/us/video/washtenaw-michigan-judge-cedric-simpson-suspended-license-digvid

Wow!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

My understanding is the elevation to a federal felony from the state charges happens from time to time and it's not unique to this case. 
Somewhat akin to this is the fact that according to state laws, those convicted of a federal felony can vote in some states but not in others. Trump, for example, would be barred from voting in Florida but since he also has a residence in New York, Florida will defer to New York law which allows a federally convicted individual to vote.

But, as I've indicated, I think Trump will win on appeal for some variation of what you and I have stated as a likely rationale, and if he doesn't prevail at the federal appeals level, the cons on SCOTUS have his back.

We might just be miscommunicating, but Trump was not convicted of a federal felony.   He was convicted of a state felony that probably was predicated on business records fraud to hide a federal campaign finance crime.  We don't know.  what object crime the jury relied on.  Apparently, it could have been any one of three possibilities, and the jurors could pick and choose.

The federal DOJ chose not to indict or prosecute Trump for the Stormy Daniels payment as a campaign finance violation.  That is why I am uneasy using this otherwise unprosecuted and unproven crime as the object crime that increases Trump's charge and conviction to a state felony under NY law.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well, here's what I'm reading:

From Bragg's perspective:

"What about the “object crime”—that is, the crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit or conceal in such a way as to transform the underlying misdemeanor offense into a felony?"

"If you’re looking for the clearest statement of Bragg’s legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan’s ruling on that motion. Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

"In his filing, Bragg sets out four potential object offenses: violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; violations of federal, local, and state tax law; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. Merchan allowed Bragg to move forward with the first three theories but tossed out the last one."

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump

Thank you.  That is indeed the clearest statement of Bragg's theory and according to Judge Merchan, this is indeed the law in NY.   

I am personally uneasy with this interpretation of the law.  It does not seem consistent with due process to potentially incarcerate a defendant when the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony under state law (with possibly 4 years in jail per count) is: " does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”  

In other words, I'm uncomfortable with the jury and prosecutors concluding that the defendant "acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime" when the proper authorities did not even see probable cause to charge the defendant with at least some of those other crimes, FECA in particular. 

I'm not arguing with you, I think you have nailed the issue.  I am not faulting the jury, they acted according to the instructions after much deliberation.  I am questioning whether this sort of law complies with basic due process.   Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

I am questioning whether this sort of law complies with basic due process.   Jim

I am also questioning, as I have from the day Trump was indicted, whether this political prosecution will backlash to guarantee Trump's victory.   

The risk of backlash seems extreme to me.  Where is the upside for the Democrats?  The entire country already knew Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels and that his disbarred fixer paid her hush money.  The underlying facts should surprise exactly no one.   In my opinion, the criminal act of booking these payments to Cohen as "attorney fees" rather than "hush money payments to porn star" will be pretty small potatoes in the minds of voters.  This sort of thing presumably happens in many campaigns.  I doubt HRC's campaign booked the payments to Perkins Coie as, "reimbursement through shell companies for fictitious dossier used to smear opponent before and after election."  Obviously, she was not prosecuted under this arcane statute and never would be in blue NY.   Also I've mentioned my own reservations about this particular law.  I expect in the minds of many non-lawyer voters in swing states the thought will be, "so that is a felony in NY?  Hmmm."

So, even though the prosecution was legal, I still think it was a horrible idea.   The people who hate Trump get a moment of euphoria.  The people who love Trump are energized even more than before.  Will any of the elusive persuadable voters in the 6 or 7 swing states that will decide this election be persuaded one way or the other?   That is the question.   

I am aware of the polling that says a felony conviction will make a difference with some voters.  That polling is kind of dated now that a conviction is real as opposed to hypothetical, and I think a conviction for a more relevant crime (i.e. the Federal prosecutions) would be more persuasive to persuadable voters. 

Bottom line, I think this prosecution was a horrible idea because I think the risk of backlash catapulting Trump back into the White House is greater than any possibility this particular felony conviction (for stuff everyone already knew about) is going to resurrect the Biden campaign.  Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I have no use in my life for assholes and time is too precious to waste any of it on the likes of him.

Amen