I am a dedicated fan and tax lawyer/CPA (since 1976). Many of your colleagues are discussing the possible Trump tax fraud case (the “in furtherance” crime) incorrectly. I understand it’s complicated but try this:
Here is some further clarification on the potential New York State tax fraud case that Alvin Bragg, New York County District Attorney, could bring against Trump, or a constituent entity within the “Trump Organization.” I use the term “clarification” loosely, because tax evasion—tax fraud—depends on a byzantine set of facts and legal structures intended to deter detection and make it difficult to present the case to an average juror.
Remember that the false books and records charges under New York law are mere misdemeanors unless the falsifications were undertaken in furtherance of, or to conceal, another crime. The person falsifying the business records need not have committed that other crime. Said another way, if Trump falsified his business records, or directed the falsification of the TO’s business records, to conceal an act of tax evasion by another person, his misdemeanor becomes a felony.
Did anyone else commit tax evasion? We know from the Statement of Facts that Michael Cohen did not. Indictment No. 71543-23 alleges that Donald J. Trump made a series of monthly payments to Michael Cohen for the economic purpose of reimbursing him for the hush money payment he made to Stormy Daniels at Trump’s direction and on his behalf. The reimbursements went from the $130,000 paid to Ms. Daniels to about $430,000 because of the need to gross up Cohen for taxes and interest. Cohen needed the gross-up because he knew he was going to report the payments as income and that he couldn't deduct them.
As the indictment alleges, Cohen issued invoices each month to the Trump Organization (the “TO”) for legal services pursuant to a fictitious retainer agreement. Notwithstanding that Cohen passed the invoices to the TO, according to the indictment, Trump paid the monthly installments out of his personal checkbook and out of a checkbook maintained by the “Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.” The revocable trust is a “pass-through entity,” which means that it is ignored for tax purposes; its income and deductions are passed through directly to Trump’s individual tax return.
To attempt to clarify, Cohen issued the invoices to the TO, but Trump paid them—not the TO.
So, stopping there for the moment, the scenario where Trump writes a personal check to Cohen is just a false records charge. It was not a payment for legal services. It was just falsely labeled as such. Unless Trump took a deduction for the payment somewhere on his return, he committed no tax evasion by writing the check to Cohen.
But we can’t stop there, because the indictment alleges more facts that are difficult to reconcile with the fact that Trump wrote the checks from a personal or revocable trust checking account. The Trump Organization got involved in the process. Cohen issued the invoice to the Trump Organization (“TO”). Jeff McConney, the then-controller for the TO, “forwarded each invoice to the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor. Consistent with the TO Controller’s initial instructions, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor printed out each invoice and marked it with an accounts payable stamp and the general ledger code [GL account number] 51505 for legal expenses. The Trump Organization maintained the invoices as records of expenses paid.” Statement of Facts, Par. 30.
Statement of Facts, Par. 31 further states that the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor recorded each payment in the TO’s general ledger, presumably in account 51505, as a payment for legal expenses. The TO prepared and preserved “check vouchers” for each payment. Check vouchers are a normal business record kept when a business writes a check to a vendor. The vouchers consist of the underlying invoice, the account to which it was assigned, and the record of approvals for the cash outlay, which all raises a very interesting question:
Why would the corporate accounting systems get involved if Trump were making the payments out of a personal or revocable trust checking account, as opposed to one of the corporate entities making the payment? If Trump wrote the checks out of his own account, he would not need any vouchers.
The answer could be that Trump could not take a deduction for a payment disguised as personal legal expenses, but a corporate member of the TO surely could try. Thus, the invoices went to the TO, but the payment came from Trump. The fact that Trump made the payment from a personal checking account is irrelevant. A deft series of bookkeeping entries (i.e., journal entries) could account for the Trump personal check as a cash injection into the TO followed by the TO’s outlay of the expense.
On paper, it looks like Trump, as a matter of convenience or whatever, laid out cash to cover an expense of the TO. The economic reality, however, was that Trump paid the Cohen invoices, but the TO booked them to get an illegal deduction.
The TO (or a member company) committed tax fraud. Trump’s false business records misdemeanor was committed to conceal that tax fraud, thereby creating a felony.
If, because of the tax character of the TO members, that deduction got indirectly passed back to Trump, he committed tax fraud.
The allegations in the indictment and statement of facts implies that Bragg already has the vouchers, the general ledger account number, and copies of Trump’s checks. My guess is that Cohen gave the grand jury the copies of the Trump checks. Cohen kept records of everything. I am also guessing that McConney, who was a key evidence source in the previous payroll tax trial of the TO and Weisselberg, gave this grand jury the accounting trail and the "account-grouping" worksheet that got the numbers in the general ledger (including account no. 51505) into the corporate and partnership returns. Weisselberg is in prison, and McConney, who no longer works for the TO, most likely does not want to go to prison.
Yes, these issues are complicated and will turn on the evidence they have in the grand jury, and also on some issues of timing, but I would be extremely surprised if we didn't hear a tax theory here.
Thank you for sharing your professional knowledge Murray. Allow me to respectfully suggest that you go back in and edit your comment to remove your phone number. Generally not a good idea to put your phone number out there to the world. Because you are the poster, you can click on the three little dots at the bottom of your comment next to the reply bubble. When you click on the dots, you should be given the option to edit your comment and delete your phone number.
Trump and his Organizations finagling may be "too clever by half." Thank you for the research and explanation. The prosecution has their work cut out for them painting this picture for the jury. I trust however that they are well practiced at "teaching," and a Manhattan jury will be bright enough and curious enough to comprehend.
And in the next 9 months, Trump will run his big fat mouth, making it impossible for attorneys on both sides to pick a jury that hasn't been influenced by the likes of Trump, his sons, the extremists in Congress and right wing media.
Murray, I feel like I have just attended a master class in tax law when applied to potential tax fraud in the Trump case. Bravo! I am so much better informed than before. You are a gifted educator, and I truly appreciate your time and willingness to share your expertise. I look forward to additional posts to help us navigate and translate these byzantine (for us laypeople) legal/accounting/tax offenses by Trump.
Excellent perspective. I do have one clarification. The Washington state assault weapons ban needs to go back to the House before going to the Governor since the Senate made a couple modifications. It passed in the House once. Let’s hope it does again.
I love your posts. But i have two questions. Why is the listening app not working any more? And I’m told the voice is probably a robot, or AI. “She” says these weird things like mak “ING”and she pronounces mifepristone “mife-pristone” with a long I. I have someone who could give you much better voiceover quality. Not criticizing, just wishing for some improvements that maybe you have no control over!wendyskaiser@gmail.com
Hi Wendy, I don't know. I usually try to listen to one once every two or three weeks, but haven't done it lately. I'll check in on this. I'm hoping once my teaching semester is over to be able to make time to record them myself.
Oh, thank you so very much for answering me — i also watch you always on MSNBC. If you want someone to be your voiceover person, my daughter would happily do it if she were paid. She’s an actor and formerly a nurse, but needs a good day job she can do from home. Her voice and speech lessons would qualify her, as well as her intelligence! Plus, her activism is right on target with your political stance. Thnx again!
Thanks again Joyce for the detailed explanation. Love the hellfire and brimstone reference. I am learning patience with the Justice system thanks to you!
Thank you, Joyce. Packing my patience is easy after having years of practice as a court stenographer, learning there is a lengthy time gap between the done deed and getting before the court to prove the deed was done!
Hey, Marycat. I watch Perry Mason every now and then, and get a huge chuckle out of witness testimony that the murder happened a mere four weeks prior to the trial he/she was testifying in!
Hahaha 😝. Don’t you just love the tv version of Oerry Mason, Old Ironsides, and if the Law & Order series’, or one of the cop shows. All their cases are solved within the hour and they have the crook in jail, or already tried, most time convicted!
I wish it was that easy back in my 26+ years on the street fighting crime!
And the sheer number of off the record meetings with the judge in chambers instead of in the courtroom with a stenographer. That should never happen in criminal cases. The proceedings should be public, on the record, and the defendant should be present.
Yes, indeed, Daniel. The cases are not only solved within the hour, they also take breaks for us to be able to run to the bathroom or kitchen and not miss a thing!
Yep, that cuts it down to just about a 39 minute case solved, tried, convicted, everything within less than 40 minutes! Whew! Those cops worked to hard!
One of my favorite memories is when I was sitting in on a trial where the defendant was on trial for installing pipeline that allowed him to steal thousands of gallons of water from a township that abutted his farmland. He watered his crops with stolen water for years before he got caught. He chose to testify in the trial, and while on the stand he admitted he stole the water. And then the jury acquitted him.
a 1990 article by former chief justice Warren Burger in parade is a concise history of the courts and gun control (til the time of its writing). the full article is apparently unavailable but a portion of it can be found at https://guncite.com/burger.html. While there has been some recent revisionist history downplaying the importance of Shay's rebellion to the formulation of the constitution, and consequentially the "original" reason the 2nd amendment, I recommend mary e. hull Shays' Rebellion and the Constitution in American History.
2. The expulsion of Pearson and Jones, I believe , is going to stand in history with Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat in galvanizing much of the nation.
3. thanks for clarifying the contradictory rulings on mifepristone.. And I am aware that scotus often takes up issues due to contradictory lower court rulings, but have two such rulings ever appeared on the same day? The Washington judge's ruling, under your analysis seems quite reasonable, but I am still blindsided by the Texas judge's ruling even being what I have come to think of as a stay.
4. I don't want to sound to gushy, but I would like to point out (complement) Ms. Vance for her legal analysis both on msnbc and in these columns. I've heard an awful lot of such lawyers in my 3/4 century of observing the world around me, but I usually find personal biases often seem to temper the analysis. Ms. Vance doesn't deny her personal biases and then calmly proceeds to explain the law as being separate from her biases. I find this both refreshing in its honesty, but the honesty about her own feelings,probably allows her to step back and separate her analysis from her feelings and makes me "trust" her analysis more than any "pundit" on law I've ever heard or read. As such I don't really see her as a pundit but as a person who can explain the law apart from whatever her personal feelings may be. In other words she doesn't try to distort what is happening in the legal world to her personal inclinations and yet lets us know, honestly, what those inclinations are. The "pundits" appear to sometimes inflect their biases into their opinions as if those personal beliefs are the law. It's sort of comparable to discussions I commonly have with my wife where she will argue that something is the law, say like DeSantis book banning and anti-gay legislation and she will tell me that those laws are "illegal" and I tell her that they are not illegal because they are the law. And she says well they shouldn't be the law, and I say i agree they shouldn't be but that does not mean they aren't the law. Ms. Vance seems to separate the should be and tell us the is as well her feelings of the should be. Other commentators tend to commentate by blending their feelings of the should be into their comments of the is, and i find that mostly true whether it is from a "left" or a "right" perspective. By doing so Ms. Vance gives me more optimism than the commentator who blurs the distinction because without such distinctions people tend to fall into line more easily against each other by believing should be's are of necessity "truths" in themselves. the opposition can thus divide into differing camps of belief in what really is true. which can often be false, or partially false, and people fall into camps about what the law really says. So I would really like to thank Ms. Vance. (And the fact that I tend to almost agree with her should be's, I hope, is not why I am complementing her, for there are other legal commentators whom I might favor their opinions but whom do not give me the same faith in their analysis being separate from their opinion. I would like to think that if there were such an analyst of an opposing viewpoint to my own I could respect them. As Ms. Vance has pointed out about judges, some judges like K. from Texas (sorry I can't remember how to spell his name) who try to impose their personal ideology as a guise for judiciousness,and others who may seem conservative and that may reflect, they nevertheless are "fair", or try to be judicious and not expose their decisions to the tyranny of their own opinions. So thank you Ms. Vance, and I would like to recommend you for a judgeship because I think you would be very "fair".
Joyce, this likely will fly under the radar nationally, but it has huge implications both for our state and nationally. I hope you, your readers can make an issue of this.
“The evidence now strongly suggests that Cotham’s fraud was part of a deliberate plan by the Republican Party of North Carolina to steal a State House seat through fraud. No longer electable in Mecklenburg county by winning voter support on their own merits, Republicans resorted to backing a Trojan horse candidate in Tricia Cotham. What the precise terms were of the backroom deal Cotham struck with Republican leaders, both before and after the election, we can only speculate.”
This has a huge effect on the whole state, not just Mecklinberg Co.
It sure does! And NC was probably the only state in the south that still had some abortion facilities. If the horrible GOP has their way, we won't. And then here comes voter suppression.
Some in Charlotte are trying to get her to resign. (I'm sure that won't happen.) But she does not represent that Democratic city at all now.
Lawfare is a great source for objective, examine both sides sort of analysis. I really like their work -- Preet Bharara and I just did a podcast episode with Ben Wittes, one of their founders and I always enjoy being with him and learning from him.
I so appreciate your writing. You share critical information in a way that brings much needed perspective and insights. Thank you.
I wonder if you can comment on the legality of the efforts ongoing by the TN GOP house speaker to tell the expelled lawmakers that they cannot be seated again until 2025? Apparently Sexton sent lawyers to tell both Justin Pearson and Justin Jones that even if their respective city councils vote to send them back, they won’t be seated.
What it comes across to me is attempted intimidation. As if that would work with either of these men! Plus, didn't the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling on the Julian Bond case settle this issue?
The disrespect shown to the voters of the two districts undermines faith in our democratic system. The one Republican who voted against expulsion pointed out that the excessive step of expulsion rather than following usual ethics complaints procedure was a disservice to the voters. Doubling down on this disrespectful excess use of authority will only motivate turnout for the other side. I wonder if Republicans have decided they are going to lose in '24 so why not go down trying to do their worst?
FYI, this just in from WaPo: Sexton, the House speaker, said that if Jones and Pearson, were reappointed, they would be seated. “The two governing bodies will make the decision as to who they want to appoint to these seats. Those two individuals will be seated as representatives as the constitution requires,” Sexton said in a statement.
Willing to be patient because we have no choice. Jonesing for some more indictments for momentum. I have have one question, Melania hasn’t been seen, anyone know the whereabouts of Pete Davidson 🫠🫠!
Thanks for your overview Joyce. I am hoping state legislators in red states will tone it down a notch after the TN 3 sent a message across the country last week that there is a fired up new generation in town all across this country ready to address the status quo on gun violence and the antiquated Jim Crow mindset. As a side note, I heard on Legal AF this weekend that Clarence Thomas was accepting lavish gifts from someone who has the largest collection of Hitler’s possessions in the world and invited Thomas and Ginni on his yacht many times and never reported these gifts. Thank you for the update and the care on helping us comprehend issues of the day. Hello to your chicks as you read your paper tomorrow morning.
Where my mind went with the TX ruling was to COVID and the vaccines. Would a Republican judge take it upon themselves to deny us vaccines by overruling the FDA on their safety if another pandemic occurred?
What is really interesting to me is the statute of limitations, what it means, and the republican (Just cannot bring myself to capitalize it.) view of it. If the statute does apply, and I have no idea, all it means is the punishment cannot be applied, not that the alleged crime did not occur. The running of the statute does not change the morality of the alleged actions or their appalling nature. Shouldn’t that be enough for MAGA, under their guise of Christianity, for him to lose support and be run out town so to speak? Seems in their world, no. This is also part of the insidious nature of Garland’s failure to proceed at more than a slow crawl, if in fact he is actually crawling. For want of a nail. Kudos to Bragg. If any of the allegations about Jordan at Ohio State are true, he must love the statute of limitations and wrongly view it as exoneration. My opinion.
The relevant NY statute of limitations goes on hold if the defendant is out of state - so it stopped ticking when trump moved to DC to disgrace the Oval Office, and moved from there to Florida. In other words, it has not expired.
There are MAGA Republicans and the passive non-MAGA Republicans who let the MAGA Republicans run the show because their votes are needed for electoral wins. MAGA Republicans believe God sent them Trump as a champion. They will not fall away and this is the difficulty the party is having. The party knows they will lose with Trump. More anti-Trump messaging is being seen on the right because of this. But the MAGA voters are having none of it, so the party is not ready to pivot from Trump yet.
Check the latest Politics Girl conversation with Billy Ray (https://www.politicsgirl.com and podcast apps) for a plausible theory on why Trump's hardcore base sticks with him - it's a mix of falling for propaganda that Democrats are chaos agents, and the truth that trump defends white supremacy.
I have a different take since I come from a family of Republicans. Republicans are fear-based and MAGA gives them simplistic answers to relieve their fears. I believe Democrats can counter the right's messaging by showing how D policies can alleviate the cause of the fear.
Surely no one would shriek at you Joyce. I would certainly hope not at any rate. It would be nice to think that your subscribers have a little more couth about them than to do something so ill-mannered as that. Maybe instead of shrieking about anything, they’ll do something constructive that will actually help a situation. One can always hope?
I am a dedicated fan and tax lawyer/CPA (since 1976). Many of your colleagues are discussing the possible Trump tax fraud case (the “in furtherance” crime) incorrectly. I understand it’s complicated but try this:
Here is some further clarification on the potential New York State tax fraud case that Alvin Bragg, New York County District Attorney, could bring against Trump, or a constituent entity within the “Trump Organization.” I use the term “clarification” loosely, because tax evasion—tax fraud—depends on a byzantine set of facts and legal structures intended to deter detection and make it difficult to present the case to an average juror.
Remember that the false books and records charges under New York law are mere misdemeanors unless the falsifications were undertaken in furtherance of, or to conceal, another crime. The person falsifying the business records need not have committed that other crime. Said another way, if Trump falsified his business records, or directed the falsification of the TO’s business records, to conceal an act of tax evasion by another person, his misdemeanor becomes a felony.
Did anyone else commit tax evasion? We know from the Statement of Facts that Michael Cohen did not. Indictment No. 71543-23 alleges that Donald J. Trump made a series of monthly payments to Michael Cohen for the economic purpose of reimbursing him for the hush money payment he made to Stormy Daniels at Trump’s direction and on his behalf. The reimbursements went from the $130,000 paid to Ms. Daniels to about $430,000 because of the need to gross up Cohen for taxes and interest. Cohen needed the gross-up because he knew he was going to report the payments as income and that he couldn't deduct them.
As the indictment alleges, Cohen issued invoices each month to the Trump Organization (the “TO”) for legal services pursuant to a fictitious retainer agreement. Notwithstanding that Cohen passed the invoices to the TO, according to the indictment, Trump paid the monthly installments out of his personal checkbook and out of a checkbook maintained by the “Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.” The revocable trust is a “pass-through entity,” which means that it is ignored for tax purposes; its income and deductions are passed through directly to Trump’s individual tax return.
To attempt to clarify, Cohen issued the invoices to the TO, but Trump paid them—not the TO.
So, stopping there for the moment, the scenario where Trump writes a personal check to Cohen is just a false records charge. It was not a payment for legal services. It was just falsely labeled as such. Unless Trump took a deduction for the payment somewhere on his return, he committed no tax evasion by writing the check to Cohen.
But we can’t stop there, because the indictment alleges more facts that are difficult to reconcile with the fact that Trump wrote the checks from a personal or revocable trust checking account. The Trump Organization got involved in the process. Cohen issued the invoice to the Trump Organization (“TO”). Jeff McConney, the then-controller for the TO, “forwarded each invoice to the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor. Consistent with the TO Controller’s initial instructions, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor printed out each invoice and marked it with an accounts payable stamp and the general ledger code [GL account number] 51505 for legal expenses. The Trump Organization maintained the invoices as records of expenses paid.” Statement of Facts, Par. 30.
Statement of Facts, Par. 31 further states that the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor recorded each payment in the TO’s general ledger, presumably in account 51505, as a payment for legal expenses. The TO prepared and preserved “check vouchers” for each payment. Check vouchers are a normal business record kept when a business writes a check to a vendor. The vouchers consist of the underlying invoice, the account to which it was assigned, and the record of approvals for the cash outlay, which all raises a very interesting question:
Why would the corporate accounting systems get involved if Trump were making the payments out of a personal or revocable trust checking account, as opposed to one of the corporate entities making the payment? If Trump wrote the checks out of his own account, he would not need any vouchers.
The answer could be that Trump could not take a deduction for a payment disguised as personal legal expenses, but a corporate member of the TO surely could try. Thus, the invoices went to the TO, but the payment came from Trump. The fact that Trump made the payment from a personal checking account is irrelevant. A deft series of bookkeeping entries (i.e., journal entries) could account for the Trump personal check as a cash injection into the TO followed by the TO’s outlay of the expense.
On paper, it looks like Trump, as a matter of convenience or whatever, laid out cash to cover an expense of the TO. The economic reality, however, was that Trump paid the Cohen invoices, but the TO booked them to get an illegal deduction.
The TO (or a member company) committed tax fraud. Trump’s false business records misdemeanor was committed to conceal that tax fraud, thereby creating a felony.
If, because of the tax character of the TO members, that deduction got indirectly passed back to Trump, he committed tax fraud.
The allegations in the indictment and statement of facts implies that Bragg already has the vouchers, the general ledger account number, and copies of Trump’s checks. My guess is that Cohen gave the grand jury the copies of the Trump checks. Cohen kept records of everything. I am also guessing that McConney, who was a key evidence source in the previous payroll tax trial of the TO and Weisselberg, gave this grand jury the accounting trail and the "account-grouping" worksheet that got the numbers in the general ledger (including account no. 51505) into the corporate and partnership returns. Weisselberg is in prison, and McConney, who no longer works for the TO, most likely does not want to go to prison.
Yes, these issues are complicated and will turn on the evidence they have in the grand jury, and also on some issues of timing, but I would be extremely surprised if we didn't hear a tax theory here.
Thank you for sharing your professional knowledge Murray. Allow me to respectfully suggest that you go back in and edit your comment to remove your phone number. Generally not a good idea to put your phone number out there to the world. Because you are the poster, you can click on the three little dots at the bottom of your comment next to the reply bubble. When you click on the dots, you should be given the option to edit your comment and delete your phone number.
Thanks! Just edited. I was half-asleep by the end of writing this.
Trump and his Organizations finagling may be "too clever by half." Thank you for the research and explanation. The prosecution has their work cut out for them painting this picture for the jury. I trust however that they are well practiced at "teaching," and a Manhattan jury will be bright enough and curious enough to comprehend.
Or, as my #SistersInLaw cohost Barb McQuades puts it, too clever by half a million.
And in the next 9 months, Trump will run his big fat mouth, making it impossible for attorneys on both sides to pick a jury that hasn't been influenced by the likes of Trump, his sons, the extremists in Congress and right wing media.
Agree re a Manhattan jury. A majority of the residents are college educated.
Thank you! Your comment goes a long way toward clarifying the nuts and bolts of this case. Sounds like some pretty slimy behavior. What a weasel.
Murray, I feel like I have just attended a master class in tax law when applied to potential tax fraud in the Trump case. Bravo! I am so much better informed than before. You are a gifted educator, and I truly appreciate your time and willingness to share your expertise. I look forward to additional posts to help us navigate and translate these byzantine (for us laypeople) legal/accounting/tax offenses by Trump.
Thank you Murray.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Excellent news
Excellent perspective. I do have one clarification. The Washington state assault weapons ban needs to go back to the House before going to the Governor since the Senate made a couple modifications. It passed in the House once. Let’s hope it does again.
Thank you for that! I misunderstood, and thought that had been done along with passage. Appreciate the clarification very much!
I love your posts. But i have two questions. Why is the listening app not working any more? And I’m told the voice is probably a robot, or AI. “She” says these weird things like mak “ING”and she pronounces mifepristone “mife-pristone” with a long I. I have someone who could give you much better voiceover quality. Not criticizing, just wishing for some improvements that maybe you have no control over!wendyskaiser@gmail.com
Hi Wendy, I don't know. I usually try to listen to one once every two or three weeks, but haven't done it lately. I'll check in on this. I'm hoping once my teaching semester is over to be able to make time to record them myself.
Oh, thank you so very much for answering me — i also watch you always on MSNBC. If you want someone to be your voiceover person, my daughter would happily do it if she were paid. She’s an actor and formerly a nurse, but needs a good day job she can do from home. Her voice and speech lessons would qualify her, as well as her intelligence! Plus, her activism is right on target with your political stance. Thnx again!
ty for that info
Thanks again Joyce for the detailed explanation. Love the hellfire and brimstone reference. I am learning patience with the Justice system thanks to you!
Glad you are with us in this fight! Peace😎
Thank you, Joyce. Packing my patience is easy after having years of practice as a court stenographer, learning there is a lengthy time gap between the done deed and getting before the court to prove the deed was done!
I was a court clerk for over 10 years, and I'm used to long adjournments too.
I am also jittery about how unpredictable juries can be.
Hey, Marycat. I watch Perry Mason every now and then, and get a huge chuckle out of witness testimony that the murder happened a mere four weeks prior to the trial he/she was testifying in!
Agree about the juries.
Hahaha 😝. Don’t you just love the tv version of Oerry Mason, Old Ironsides, and if the Law & Order series’, or one of the cop shows. All their cases are solved within the hour and they have the crook in jail, or already tried, most time convicted!
I wish it was that easy back in my 26+ years on the street fighting crime!
And the sheer number of off the record meetings with the judge in chambers instead of in the courtroom with a stenographer. That should never happen in criminal cases. The proceedings should be public, on the record, and the defendant should be present.
I fully agree.
Yes, indeed, Daniel. The cases are not only solved within the hour, they also take breaks for us to be able to run to the bathroom or kitchen and not miss a thing!
Yep, that cuts it down to just about a 39 minute case solved, tried, convicted, everything within less than 40 minutes! Whew! Those cops worked to hard!
One of my favorite memories is when I was sitting in on a trial where the defendant was on trial for installing pipeline that allowed him to steal thousands of gallons of water from a township that abutted his farmland. He watered his crops with stolen water for years before he got caught. He chose to testify in the trial, and while on the stand he admitted he stole the water. And then the jury acquitted him.
Yikes! Since it took years before he was caught, I guess the stolen water didn't render the town "dry."
lots to ponder.
1. guns and gun rights
a 1990 article by former chief justice Warren Burger in parade is a concise history of the courts and gun control (til the time of its writing). the full article is apparently unavailable but a portion of it can be found at https://guncite.com/burger.html. While there has been some recent revisionist history downplaying the importance of Shay's rebellion to the formulation of the constitution, and consequentially the "original" reason the 2nd amendment, I recommend mary e. hull Shays' Rebellion and the Constitution in American History.
2. The expulsion of Pearson and Jones, I believe , is going to stand in history with Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat in galvanizing much of the nation.
3. thanks for clarifying the contradictory rulings on mifepristone.. And I am aware that scotus often takes up issues due to contradictory lower court rulings, but have two such rulings ever appeared on the same day? The Washington judge's ruling, under your analysis seems quite reasonable, but I am still blindsided by the Texas judge's ruling even being what I have come to think of as a stay.
4. I don't want to sound to gushy, but I would like to point out (complement) Ms. Vance for her legal analysis both on msnbc and in these columns. I've heard an awful lot of such lawyers in my 3/4 century of observing the world around me, but I usually find personal biases often seem to temper the analysis. Ms. Vance doesn't deny her personal biases and then calmly proceeds to explain the law as being separate from her biases. I find this both refreshing in its honesty, but the honesty about her own feelings,probably allows her to step back and separate her analysis from her feelings and makes me "trust" her analysis more than any "pundit" on law I've ever heard or read. As such I don't really see her as a pundit but as a person who can explain the law apart from whatever her personal feelings may be. In other words she doesn't try to distort what is happening in the legal world to her personal inclinations and yet lets us know, honestly, what those inclinations are. The "pundits" appear to sometimes inflect their biases into their opinions as if those personal beliefs are the law. It's sort of comparable to discussions I commonly have with my wife where she will argue that something is the law, say like DeSantis book banning and anti-gay legislation and she will tell me that those laws are "illegal" and I tell her that they are not illegal because they are the law. And she says well they shouldn't be the law, and I say i agree they shouldn't be but that does not mean they aren't the law. Ms. Vance seems to separate the should be and tell us the is as well her feelings of the should be. Other commentators tend to commentate by blending their feelings of the should be into their comments of the is, and i find that mostly true whether it is from a "left" or a "right" perspective. By doing so Ms. Vance gives me more optimism than the commentator who blurs the distinction because without such distinctions people tend to fall into line more easily against each other by believing should be's are of necessity "truths" in themselves. the opposition can thus divide into differing camps of belief in what really is true. which can often be false, or partially false, and people fall into camps about what the law really says. So I would really like to thank Ms. Vance. (And the fact that I tend to almost agree with her should be's, I hope, is not why I am complementing her, for there are other legal commentators whom I might favor their opinions but whom do not give me the same faith in their analysis being separate from their opinion. I would like to think that if there were such an analyst of an opposing viewpoint to my own I could respect them. As Ms. Vance has pointed out about judges, some judges like K. from Texas (sorry I can't remember how to spell his name) who try to impose their personal ideology as a guise for judiciousness,and others who may seem conservative and that may reflect, they nevertheless are "fair", or try to be judicious and not expose their decisions to the tyranny of their own opinions. So thank you Ms. Vance, and I would like to recommend you for a judgeship because I think you would be very "fair".
Agree!!
Joyce, this likely will fly under the radar nationally, but it has huge implications both for our state and nationally. I hope you, your readers can make an issue of this.
“The evidence now strongly suggests that Cotham’s fraud was part of a deliberate plan by the Republican Party of North Carolina to steal a State House seat through fraud. No longer electable in Mecklenburg county by winning voter support on their own merits, Republicans resorted to backing a Trojan horse candidate in Tricia Cotham. What the precise terms were of the backroom deal Cotham struck with Republican leaders, both before and after the election, we can only speculate.”
This has a huge effect on the whole state, not just Mecklinberg Co.
https://carolinaforward.org/blog/defrauding-voters-mecklenburg/
Thanks for flagging this. It seems like an epidemic.
It sure does! And NC was probably the only state in the south that still had some abortion facilities. If the horrible GOP has their way, we won't. And then here comes voter suppression.
Some in Charlotte are trying to get her to resign. (I'm sure that won't happen.) But she does not represent that Democratic city at all now.
So glad you brought this up. I’m definitely worried we could see more of this type of deceitful action
Joyce, this Lawfare article agrees with you regarding the strength of the Manhattan DA’s case, and effectively enough for now dismisses the main critiques of the prosecution’s case. https://www.lawfareblog.com/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictment
Lawfare is a great source for objective, examine both sides sort of analysis. I really like their work -- Preet Bharara and I just did a podcast episode with Ben Wittes, one of their founders and I always enjoy being with him and learning from him.
Dog Shirt is a fantastic Substack. Can’t wait to hear that podcast!
Robert thanks for sharing the LawFare article-- not surprising that they agree with Joyce,
I liked that lawfare article.
I am looking forward to this good ole white boy cracker getting prosecuted by the children he and his father persecuted for 60yrs.
Thank you. Me, too on the willing to be patient. Thank you for your reminders. I love your writing.🐼❤️
Me too!! Thank you Joyce for your keen perspective!
Me three!
I'm very willing to be patient - especially as your columns and lots of colorful knitting help keep me from worrying at this.
I so appreciate your writing. You share critical information in a way that brings much needed perspective and insights. Thank you.
I wonder if you can comment on the legality of the efforts ongoing by the TN GOP house speaker to tell the expelled lawmakers that they cannot be seated again until 2025? Apparently Sexton sent lawyers to tell both Justin Pearson and Justin Jones that even if their respective city councils vote to send them back, they won’t be seated.
He's wrong and if there's a court battle, I expect the Supreme Court to be firm on the Constitutional issues (speech and race) if it reaches them.
Thank you for this! Sure was hoping that was the answer, but sending attorneys to pass along that message seemed to lend it some weight. Whew
What it comes across to me is attempted intimidation. As if that would work with either of these men! Plus, didn't the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling on the Julian Bond case settle this issue?
The disrespect shown to the voters of the two districts undermines faith in our democratic system. The one Republican who voted against expulsion pointed out that the excessive step of expulsion rather than following usual ethics complaints procedure was a disservice to the voters. Doubling down on this disrespectful excess use of authority will only motivate turnout for the other side. I wonder if Republicans have decided they are going to lose in '24 so why not go down trying to do their worst?
Do you have a source for that re the TN House Speaker? I searched and couldn't find anything.
Here you go https://twitter.com/thetnholler/status/1645438202369437696?s=46&t=Ta76MaiJj2LK2X8e4XuNWQ
FYI, this just in from WaPo: Sexton, the House speaker, said that if Jones and Pearson, were reappointed, they would be seated. “The two governing bodies will make the decision as to who they want to appoint to these seats. Those two individuals will be seated as representatives as the constitution requires,” Sexton said in a statement.
Thx. Hard to read. Does this letter from Holder et al. establish that Sexton sent lawyers to Pearson and Jones?
Willing to be patient because we have no choice. Jonesing for some more indictments for momentum. I have have one question, Melania hasn’t been seen, anyone know the whereabouts of Pete Davidson 🫠🫠!
To the statement Re: Melania🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, Hillary stood by her man.
Are they together?
Thanks for your overview Joyce. I am hoping state legislators in red states will tone it down a notch after the TN 3 sent a message across the country last week that there is a fired up new generation in town all across this country ready to address the status quo on gun violence and the antiquated Jim Crow mindset. As a side note, I heard on Legal AF this weekend that Clarence Thomas was accepting lavish gifts from someone who has the largest collection of Hitler’s possessions in the world and invited Thomas and Ginni on his yacht many times and never reported these gifts. Thank you for the update and the care on helping us comprehend issues of the day. Hello to your chicks as you read your paper tomorrow morning.
Where my mind went with the TX ruling was to COVID and the vaccines. Would a Republican judge take it upon themselves to deny us vaccines by overruling the FDA on their safety if another pandemic occurred?
A reasonable question if the Mifepristone ruling is allowed to stand.
Which hopefully it won't since it's just too arbitrary. Talk about a slippery slope!
Don’t even want to go there
What is really interesting to me is the statute of limitations, what it means, and the republican (Just cannot bring myself to capitalize it.) view of it. If the statute does apply, and I have no idea, all it means is the punishment cannot be applied, not that the alleged crime did not occur. The running of the statute does not change the morality of the alleged actions or their appalling nature. Shouldn’t that be enough for MAGA, under their guise of Christianity, for him to lose support and be run out town so to speak? Seems in their world, no. This is also part of the insidious nature of Garland’s failure to proceed at more than a slow crawl, if in fact he is actually crawling. For want of a nail. Kudos to Bragg. If any of the allegations about Jordan at Ohio State are true, he must love the statute of limitations and wrongly view it as exoneration. My opinion.
The relevant NY statute of limitations goes on hold if the defendant is out of state - so it stopped ticking when trump moved to DC to disgrace the Oval Office, and moved from there to Florida. In other words, it has not expired.
I wasn’t aware of this. Good to know. He can’t throw that argument now.
There are MAGA Republicans and the passive non-MAGA Republicans who let the MAGA Republicans run the show because their votes are needed for electoral wins. MAGA Republicans believe God sent them Trump as a champion. They will not fall away and this is the difficulty the party is having. The party knows they will lose with Trump. More anti-Trump messaging is being seen on the right because of this. But the MAGA voters are having none of it, so the party is not ready to pivot from Trump yet.
Check the latest Politics Girl conversation with Billy Ray (https://www.politicsgirl.com and podcast apps) for a plausible theory on why Trump's hardcore base sticks with him - it's a mix of falling for propaganda that Democrats are chaos agents, and the truth that trump defends white supremacy.
I have a different take since I come from a family of Republicans. Republicans are fear-based and MAGA gives them simplistic answers to relieve their fears. I believe Democrats can counter the right's messaging by showing how D policies can alleviate the cause of the fear.
Surely no one would shriek at you Joyce. I would certainly hope not at any rate. It would be nice to think that your subscribers have a little more couth about them than to do something so ill-mannered as that. Maybe instead of shrieking about anything, they’ll do something constructive that will actually help a situation. One can always hope?