I'm blaming my bad habits. :)

So you've indicated your bad self. Nice touch. ;)

You mean the Grand Jury that just voted to indicate* Trump for 34 felony counts, ...

Yep, that's the one.

... or some other Grand Jury?

Supposin' I did mean some other grand jury or even any jury in general, I could spend a whole lot of time and blog space 'splainin' how a jury is instructed by a judge and the general basics of the intricacies of what is known as the "jury charge."

Right off the top of my head, I'll give you an example of the paperwork the jury actually uses to deliberate:

Example of Language in Typical Jury Charge

The People v. Defendant Donald Trump

Count 1

The first count is Falsifying Business Records in the
First Degree.

Under New York law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud including intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, that person makes or causes the making of a fraudulent entry in the business records of an enterprise [etc. regarding intentional omission and erasure/alteration and all kinds of various ways that a fraudulent entry in a business record can be committed]

Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

[Then there's generally definition of multiple terms:

ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS RECORD
INTENT
ETC ]

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of the crime in Charge 1, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following elements:

1. That on or about [insert date] in the county of New York, Defendant Donald J. Trump did make or cause to be made the comission thereof in the business records of an
enterprise; and,

2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
conceal the commission of another crime.

If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the above elements, you must then consider any affirmative defense the defendant may have raised. If you have already found the defendant not guilty of Charge 1, you do not consider the affirmative defense.

Under New York law, it is an affirmative defense to this Charge 1 of [repeat the crime]:

Defendant was an employee who received no benefit and was directed by a superior to make fraudulent entry [or omit/erase etc.]

In determining whether or not the defendant has proven that affirmative defense, you will decide by a preponderance of the evidence. This is different than making a determination beyond a reasonable doubt [more 'splainin' etc.]

[Then places/spaces/maybe even check boxes for jury foreperson to record decision:

Guilty / Not Guilty / Affirmative Defense of I Just Worked There and Followed Orders and Received No Personal Benefit]

Count 2

The second count is Falsifying Business Records in the
First Degree.

[Then lather, rinse, and repeat for every single charge that remains of the Prosecution/People's 34 original felony charges. ]

*
So the point being that juries aren't just thrown in a room to decide complex legal issues; they are guided by specific language provided to them by the Court for every single thing they decide. The prosecution and defense will generally argue over the verbiage they want the Court to include in each and every specific Count included in the Charge because words matter bigly.

*It’s out of control I simply cannot resist ;D){

Heh. :)

You mean the Grand Jury that just voted to indicate* Trump for 34 felony counts, or some other Grand Jury?

*It’s out of control I simply cannot resist ;D){

I did not tap out comment number 30, btw.

So you're blaming your lawyer, I suppose!? ;)

Anybody!?

Who here thinks it was at all confusing to the grand jury?

Yeah, I'm just stupid.

I've seen enough out of you to know that's not the case. Nice try, though. :)

Thanks, Bashi; sorry I didn't acknowledge your link. I'd read the column independently.

As it happens, I have JavaScript disabled by default for security, mostly, but you are right, it does allow me to read a lot of stuff I otherwise couldn't. Simple enough to re-enable when I feel the site is safe. No need for a plug-in these days.

That's the opinion piece I linked to in [13]...

Side note: good way to get around the NYT paywall is to copy and paste the NYT article URL into the wayback machine on archive.org. Also great if you want to read a NYT article and are on a computer you don't feel comfortable logging into. Also works on the WSJ. Does not work for the WaPo, that you have to disable javascript which is usually more of a PITA than it's worth unless you have a plugin that makes it easy...

McCabe wanted to see more detail and explanation about how prosecutors intend to transform a solid misdemeanor case into a felony conviction by proving intent to conceal a crime that is not even being charged because, in one instance, it isn't in the jurisdiction of a local DA. That sounds complicated to me.

*laughs* That is some hard-hitting substance. *shakes head* The setting up of multiple shell companies in order to hide the multiple payments is where I would suggest Andrew McCabe turn his attention to. The New York statute doesn't require that the Defendant be charged by the Manhattan District Attorney with the crime being covered up. Indeed, the New York state statute doesn't even require that the crime being committed be a state crime. I may have mentioned this already in a prior post (spoiler alert: I did).

An individual “is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2023/03/31/friday-talking-points-trump-indicated/#comment-202496

*
Bold emphasis added in blockquote is mine.

McCabe's main point is that if it is hard for lawyers to grasp Bragg's reasoning on this, then how difficult might it be for jury to do the same.

McCabe thinks it will be hard for a jury to understand the grossing up of payments in order to reimburse his lawyer for the payoffs and the use of shell companies in order to hide the source of funds? Really!? *laughs*

You think a jury will not understand that Michael Cohen spent time in jail for his role in the cover-up of the crimes and that David Pecker/AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement wherein he admitted his role in the cover-up of the crimes? Since McCabe was himself part of Trump's DOJ, it puzzles me why he can't grasp these facts.

It seems Republicans really do think people are stupid.
You sure you're not a Republican? ;)

Trump Critics React to Indictment

What I learned from your link:

(1) High probability that Romney (R-Utah) is likely to run for reelection.

(2) Andrew McCabe, Republican, misses his old friends lost to the Trump cult.

*laughs*

Alvin Bragg didn't reveal his entire case in the initial charge so therefore the armchair pundits claim he's got nothing!

I can't stop laughing. :)

We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong>

From Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen (gift link, I think) We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong Mr. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

According to Jennifer Rubin (gift link), Bragg doesn’t show all his cards in his case against Trump there's a lot of space between what McCabe and others would like to have seen in the indictment and what Bragg is required to submit in his filing. Not disclosing all of his plans is not a reliable proxy for weakness.

Here's a key sentence from her op-ed: Media impatience is no reason to reveal more in an indictment than he would normally do at this stage. (New York legal experts point out to me that even in the jury instructions, the prosecutor need not specify the precise crime that bumps up a charge to a felony.)

McCabe wanted to see more detail and explanation about how prosecutors intend to transform a solid misdemeanor case into a felony conviction by proving intent to conceal a crime that is not even being charged because, in one instance, it isn't in the jurisdiction of a local DA. That sounds complicated to me.

McCabe's main point is that if it is hard for lawyers to grasp Bragg's reasoning on this, then how difficult might it be for jury to do the same.

Given everything about this case, intrinsically and externally, it all sounds ridiculously and politically contrived.

But, you think McCabe is just some talking head trying to fill air time, so ... ;)

Shocking. Positively shocking.

Interesting piece in the NYTimes ... these sorts of indictments are often successfully prosecuted in New York but there are some very bigly differences with this one!

I don't as there is absolutely no substance to it what so ever. What questions? What legal theory? Sounds like a talking head trying to fill air time...

Opinion piece in the NYT has the opposite opinion...

Bunch of Republicans say nay but someone who has worked for the Manhattan DA's office says otherwise...

What could go wrong? ;)

I know most of the country won't vote for Trump in 2024. Most of the country didn't vote for him in 2016 or 2020, either.

But he won in 2016, and he almost won in 2020 (he needed about 80,000 more votes in just four specific states - hardly a 'decisive' defeat), because the Electoral College doesn't give a hoot how large your pluralities are in states where you're popular.

And media coverage does make a difference in how seriously the country takes its candidates. As you say, and I agree, Trump's base and the anti-Trump base (much larger) aren't going to change their minds about the guy at this point -- acquittal or jail time or anything in between notwithstanding.

But more or fewer of them will stay at home and not vote if they think their vote won't make a difference - which is a state of mind that the media has a large impact on.

Sorry to be a grump, but I do feel that media coverage, even negatively-coded media coverage, is what made Trump president, and less media coverage is possibly the only thing that will prevent him from becoming president again.

So you think the 81 million voters who turned out against Trump are going to change their minds about Trump because he’s finally starting to pay for his crimes? Trump, even in custody, will be the GOP Nominee— and he will LOSE even more decisively than in 2020.

I, too, watched all day as well as most of Trump’s speechifying to date and the “tepid” adjective keeps occurring to me. Even the simpletons aren’t nearly as enthused — it’s like everybody including Trump is just going through the motions.

What's perhaps more important than anything else that happened today is that the Democratic candidate won for the open suit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so it won't be so easy for the state to be gerrymandered and ruled by draconian anti-abortion laws.

That is 100% hands down and without doubt the most consequential development of the day, and it wasn't even a close call the way Wisconsin elections usually are, as the liberal candidate won the open seat by around 10 points. Janet Protasiewicz was elected to a 10-year term beginning in August and will give liberals a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Courrt for the first time since 2008.

Note to Democrats: Running on a woman and her family's right to make their own decisions about reproductive health care and to move freely about the country and not be forced to give birth and remain in custody in a state and making voting easier and not harder are winning messages. Meanwhile, having to jump through hoops to vote and the creation of rapists' rights and government making health care decisions for you and your family not faring so well.

Trump did some campaigning during the speech, as he painted America in near-apocalyptic terms.

Well then, it pains me *shakes head* to point out the patently obvious, but if you were the same Orange Blowhole who claims how great your presidency had been for the United States, wouldn't it be an incredible self-own to insist that America is a dystopian hellscape mere months after you left office but not before promising "this American carnage stops right here"?

I mean, if you had verily done such a bang-up job of making America "great again," how in the name of everything that is holy would somebody/anybody be able to so easily put asunder that "greatness" you're claiming to have created?

So, to recap: Trump today has for all practical purposes conceded he "sucked at it" and requests four more years in which to do more of that.

Defendant Donald goes on to further opine: "As president, I have a right to declassify documents, and the process is automatic. If I take them with me, it's automatic." So you're also acknowledging you retained documents. Nice touch. Keep digging.

ah, some good news! ... I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here ... :)