Posted on 05/15/2024 11:00:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even after five weeks, the Trump bookkeeping case in Manhattan is a "Potemkin Village," according to law professor Jonathan Turley. That means it has all the appearance of being real, but upon closer inspection, there's no there there. Indeed, the indictment of former President Donald Trump on 34 counts of bookkeeping errors, statute-expired misdemeanors that have been miraculously spun into a series of felonies, is the Seinfeld of criminal cases.
But a jury could still find him guilty. "It's Trump," Manhattan jurors could say to themselves. "Of course, Cheeto-man must be guilty of something."
But after the prosecutors told Judge Juan Merchan that their case-in-chief was wrapped, though not officially rested yet, after Michael Cohen's direct examination on Tuesday, there's still confusion over what crimes Trump is alleged to have committed.
It's not a good look for the prosecutors and it's disqualifying for a judge to allow this farce. If wizened legal minds can't figure out the game prosecutors are playing, then what is the jury supposed to do with this smoke-and-mirrors monstrosity?
Alan Dershowitz has questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Here’s the so-called “crime” ( note the quotes ) as I understand how Alvin Bragg wants to make it look like:
The running theory is that Bragg believes that Donald Trump stole the election from Hillary Clinton, and, to further that aim, paid lawyer fees to Michael Cohen who carried out the task of getting nondisclosure agreements from people telling bad and embarrasing stories ( e.g. Stormy Daniels) and paying them to keep quiet.
That part of the story isn’t illegal. What prosecutors allege is Trump knew that by putting these in the books as lawyer fees, he was committing a federal campaign finance violation.
At least that’s what I also think is going on.
Jurors in deliberation
Foreman: “Do we agree on Orange Man Bad? Vote now...okay it’s unanimous, Guilty! Send a note to the judge.”
NYS does not have jurisdiction over federal campaign finance laws, and the proper authority has not even indicted him for campaign finance violations.
I vaguely recall that, when the charges first came out, that bookkeeping errors were indictable if committed intentionally “in furtherance of a crime,” but that the law did not require Bragg to name the crime being furthered. This is preposterous, of course, but that is how it’s being played out, and if that is a technicality that the judge elects to highlight in jury instructions, well, anything is possible.
This case should never get to the jury, IF we had a legitimate honest non biased judge.
Strange choice of words.
“A trial in search of a crime” is all we need to know.
That might be all we need to know, but something that I want to know is what Ms. Taft thinks “wizened” means.
There are rumors on X that Judge Cannon has officially closed the Jack Smith Documents case.
A couple of filings were made in the case today but they are under seal for the moment.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?page=3#minute-entry-390144628
If I find anything official, I’ll post a thread. Of course, if she does you will probably be able to hear the leftist outrage nationwide.
then what is the jury supposed to do?
Just find orange man guilty...no need to concern yourselves with silly little fact thingies...
In fact, just tell the judge you heard enough and are ready to vote....right now in the jury box!
I mean, why wait?
Did he put the expense on his COMPANY books or on the CAMPAIGN EXPENSE RECORDS????
EVERYTHING I have heard has led me to believe it was on the COMPANY books.
I am now confused.
It’s all about throwing as much of Trump’s dirty laundry out there.
I think there is no more shock in the shock jock media's attempts to shock. They should have learned from the surprise October 7 2016 Billy Bush tape release that it didn't and doesn't work.
The jury could hang.
And they could vote not guilty.
Cynic that I am wonders how a leftist weighted jury in NY could possibly vote to acquit or hang. My faith would be restored BUT...well, surprise me.
What prosecutors allege is Trump knew that by putting these in the books as lawyer fees, he was committing a federal campaign finance violation.
The code was in the company books.
According the evidence presented, he didn’t put the expense in the books at all. That was done by the accountants, by testimony, on their own decision (presumably as they saw it was obviously a legal expense). I haven’t heard the prosecution state what the accounting code should have been instead.
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.