This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm after a summary of summaries, seeing if I've got it roughly right. Bolding done by me.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Post-Summation Instructions PDF
Is Trump now convicted of all or some combination of 1, 2 or 3?
I saw this explanation somewhere else but it's actually very straightforward.
Burglary is a crime of entering someone's house in order to commit some other crime. To prove that someone is a burglar you just need to show that they entered someone's house and that they intended to commit some other crime. It's okay if some people on the jury think the burglar was going to commit theft and some people on the jury think the burglar was going to assault the homeowner. The burglar himself may not even have been sure which he was going to do---he just had a crowbar and was playing it by ear.
Similarly here. Falsifying business records in the first degree is when you falsify business records with the intent to commit some other crime. As with burglary not everyone needs to agree on what the other crime was.
I find burglary very non-analogous, it being a malum in se crime. But even then if you think its a good analogy a person who is charged with burglary is allowed a defense along the lines of "it was cold outside, I was going to freeze to death, I broke in to be warm, there was no intent to commit a felony therein." Trump had an expert witness lined up that said there was no crime being covered up, and he was not allowed to testify.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no idea and neither does the jury obviously. This case is anything but straight-forward and ultimately comes down to whether the jurors think Trump is a bad guy and want to punish him.
The man clearly falsified business records for campaign purposes.
That’s a simplification, but not hard to grok.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can some one define business records? I have no idea what they are referring to.
There are different levels of business records. Tax returns? Thing you submitted to investors. Internal things you filled out for accounting of a private enterprise? Bullshit compliance stuff for a corporate job where you just pick something?
Small businesses often have really shitty internal accounting.
Am I a felon because I put some joke on a venmo.
Not really directly related (there are better answers below), but the DOJ argued in Yates (2015) that a fish was a "record, document, or tangible object" destroyed for the purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley when a fisherman under investigation threw undersized fish back into the Gulf of Mexico. RBG wrote the 5-4 opinion that "tangible object" for the purposes was required to be one that is normally "used to record or preserve information": not a fish.
More options
Context Copy link
Nope.
An inaccurate business record recorded with innocent intent (eg as a joke or by mistake) is not a crime.
An inaccurate business record recorded with intent to defraud is a misdemeanor.
An inaccurate business record recorded with intent to defraud in the furtherance of another crime is a felony.
You are not a felon because you put a joke on a venmo.
Who did he defraud?
Ok so I am a felon too like Trump. I’ve sent mislabeled Venmo’s because I did not want Venmo to know what I’m doing.
So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records? A long line of New York state court cases supports an expansive conception with respect to § 175.00 crimes – namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981).
Trump acted with intent to defraud the state of New York by frustrating its power to faithfully carry out its own law.
You did not mislabel your Venmos (as far as I know) with the intent of preventing the state of New York from executing its law, so you are not guilty of falsification of business records (assuming your Venmos are even business transactions).
Where is the evidence that Trump was thinking about NY executing its own laws? If you don’t need scienter, then you’ve eliminated intent from the statute.
I believe the law in question is Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
So to break it down my understanding (which could be wrong, I'm just some bloke on the other side of the world who isn't even a lawyer) of how the technical legal theory of the case works is:
Or if you're just making the narrow point of asking how the court could know his state of mind, I think the standard rule is that a jury is allowed to infer that a person intended the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
I think you're making good and accurate points and it's a shame you're getting downvoted. But there's one point I disagree on.
I don't think this should actually be considered a crime. As I understand it, Cohen pled guilty to it. I think that was part of a plea deal and he just took it because the way plea deals work is that he wouldn't actually receive a better outcome by trying to insist that one, but only one, of the things he was being charged with was false.
But looking at the actual law, the idea that concealing information which could damage Trump's campaign is a campaign contribution is silly. If you're that loose with the standards, practically anything would be a campaign contribution.
I agree that it's kind of a dumb standard to have, but it appears to be the one that exists. If these same events had occurred in Australia the NDA payment would have clearly fallen outside the definition of "electoral expenditure", and this is one of many areas where I think Australian law is better than American law. But Trump is an American, and he has to follow American law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are a few things things wrong with your post.
Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen. The prosecutors treated TO and Trump as the same. Therefore Trump turned the payment by Cohen (which is limited) into a payment by Trump. Trump is allowed to make unlimited contributions to his own campaign. See Buckley v Valeo.
It is far from clear that the payment to Stormy constitutes a campaign contribution. Indeed, the law is designed to limit the ability for candidates to use campaign funds for mixed motive expenses (eg a suit) since the opportunity for abuse is obvious.
So it isn’t clear under either reading that there was a campaign finance violation. Moreover, it is clear that if properly structured (ie Trump himself made the payment) there is no criminal FECA violation (at worst there was a reporting obligation in 2017).
Now we get to intent. Yes, you can generally infer from actions what intent was. For example, if Person A points a gun at B and pulls the trigger, it is reasonable to infer he intended to shoot B as that is a natural consequence of the action. This is different. There is a requirement as an element that the false records were intended to in this case to avoid FECA. This seemingly suggests there needs to be more than the normal case; it seems to require that Trump knew what he was doing was to break a law.
First, no info was offered that Trump was thinking of any law.
Second, even if you don’t think Trump needs to think he was breaking the law (which seems really hard here) it is not a reasonable inference from the action (ie filing the records a certain way) that there was an intention to violate FECA (especially since it is far from clear there was a violation). Even worse, it is really clear Trump could’ve easily structured the transaction to avoid any FECA issue. So we are supposed to believe that Trump knew what he was doing was a FECA obligation, and either had the choice to slightly restructure the transaction (without changing economics) or he decided to break FECA and falsify business records. Does the latter even sound reasonable? Reasonable enough to get past reasonable doubt? No way.
It isn’t clear that unlawful means something that is illegal under laws other than the US. What if there was some action a campaign did wherein business records were falsified and it hid say a violation of Russian law. Would that be captured? What if it was Alaskan law?
Finally the records were internal records. How would Trump think these records would ever be requested in relation to NY somehow regulating a federal election?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fantasy football payments would seem to qualify. That is a business - someone makes money. Whoever won probably did not pay taxes so there is the coverup of another crime.
So yes I am a felon.
And for proportionality reasons my $500 fantasy football buy-in is equivalent to Trumps 750k to a hooker.
More options
Context Copy link
Assuming he's in New York, yes he did: he knew those transaction records could be subpoenaed for a variety of reasons, and mislabeled them anyways. This is clear intent to frustrate the state carrying out its laws.
More options
Context Copy link
This is nonsense -- you could argue that any mislabeled record was mislabeled with "intent to defraud the state". That's what makes this egregious: the crime Trump is charged with isn't a crime unless you investigate it as though it is a crime!
Yep. It renders intent meaningless which (1) is a no-no when construing statutes and (2) moreso in criminal context.
More options
Context Copy link
You can argue anything. Proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is however a fairly high bar to clear.
Here there was literally zero evidence of intent offered. So clearly not a high bar to a heavily biased jury.
More options
Context Copy link
Not when the jury and judge are stacked against you!
The jury went through voir dire, and Trump's lawyers participated in that process. Potential jurors who would not be impartial were struck. This is standard practice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah it is quite the slippery slope. It is one of the problems when you criminalize pretty much everything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From the jury instructions:
Sheesh. Was that written by Kamala Harris? There is no way a jury of normal Americans could parse that word salad.
Let's be honest. The judge could have said anything. The jury heard this: "You think Donald Trump bad guy? Say yes if you think bad guy."
The jury isn't exactly normal. There's a banker, two attorneys, and a software engineer.
More options
Context Copy link
Low effort, condescending, and consensus-building. You have a bunch of bad posts recently. Improve your posting quality or you're going to get a timeout.
Will do. I am trying to improve the volume of posting here which means lowering my filter a bit. I'll tighten it.
I appreciate the mods for doing a mostly-thankless job.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As many people have noted, this jury was unusually highly educated, and included two lawyers. I reckon they could understand that sentence fine.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not word salad. I think it's quite clear. If you know what "writing" is, and you know what it means to "keep or maintain" something, and you know what a "condition or activity" is (perhaps the most vague part of the definition, but still, these are very common ordinary words and it's easy to furnish many examples of conditions and activities), then you understand the definition.
The definition as written may lead to counterintuitive results. For example, if I'm the CEO of a company and I write on a post-it note "we have a lot of money" and I store that in my desk drawer in my office, then that is a piece of writing, and it is kept by the enterprise (on our premises, with security measures to prevent unauthorized access), and it does reflect a condition or activity (the condition of having a lot of money), so it appears that according to this definition, the post-it note would count as a business record. But being counterintuitive is not the same thing as being unclear.
It's not clear because it doesn't clarify the important question, which is: what are the documents Trump is being charged with falsifying? Tax records? Internal memos? Paystubs? Drafts for a contract? Transcripts? Post-it notes?
According to your interpretation, the government could prosecute you for writing on a post-it note in your office, determining that this is a business document, and then alleging that you lied when you wrote it. That's not clear at all!
The definition of "business record" itself is just a definition of a term. It's not going to include any specifics about what business records a person did or did not create in a particular concrete case. Presumably, that information would have been discussed during the trial proper.
"Unjust" and "counterintuitive" are not the same thing as "unclear".
I was purely addressing the assertion that the definition was "word salad", nothing more. I think that accusations of that sort are thrown around too liberally on TheMotte so I felt that it was important to address. Too often people default to calling something "bad writing" when actually they have a different (and more specific) complaint with it.
More options
Context Copy link
The motte seems to agree you can be convicted on any of those.
Perhaps, Trump is actually guilty. I am coming around to this. But in that case a lot of people are guilty.
I am glad I asked this question because I have been wondering for a while what is meant by a business record. And I feel like it’s a key point I haven’t seen people talking about.
No. You have some people coming in with some Nonsense. The key thing is they never proved intent (and the prosecution and judge for FECA wrong).
Pay attention that most of the r people saying he was guilty are the people who were very wrong on most legal issues (ie they lose at SCOTUS).
Intent is a solid reasoning for he’s not guilty. Always tough to prove intent. But by the letter of the law if you can prove intent I guess he’s guilty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Literal answer to your question: Trump is accused of falsifying the checks he wrote to his lawyer when he wrote on the checks that they were for legal expenses. He is also accused of falsifying his accounting books for his business when he recorded that the checks paid to his lawyer were for legal expenses.
Edit: sorry, above I said "accused" but the more factual thing now would be to say "convicted." My mind's having a hard time downloading the latest update.
How is payment for signing an NDA not actually legal expenses?
When your political enemy does it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is in fact, how laws have to be written - very specifically. I don't doubt that if it wasn't, you'd complain it was too vague - everyday language often is!
I'm not sure the definition of Business Record is very specific or useful since it seems to qualify nearly any piece of data in any equipment or file held by the business.
Based on this definition even messages on Slack or Teams between employees joking about how their manager looks could be argued to qualify as a business record.
I don't think jokes about the managers appearance on Slack would be kept or maintained for the purpose of evidencing the company's condition or activity.
Having said that, yes, many legal definitions are intentionally very broad.
More options
Context Copy link
That was probably the intent - which in turn makes the definition very useful, to the relevant government authorities.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, that's the idea every document someone working for a business creates is probably a business record.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We're on the Scott subreddit.
It's possible to be clear with plain language. Scott is.
Legalese (and its academic cousin) are more often than not just bad writing. They are optimized for sounding professional, not for clarity. Anyone who interacts with the tax code has experienced this. But this isn't surprising. By necessity, the law is written and executed by people who are simply not that intelligent.
And yet, instructions to an even less intelligent jury should be clear. These were not.
Not disagreeing, just curious. How would you have written that definition to make it easier to understand and also cover all the bases?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's not convicted of any of those. He's convicted of falsifying documents (labeling his payments "legal expense") to cover up some combination of 1, 2, 3, or perhaps even other unknowable crimes.
How common are convictions based on hypothetical crimes that a defendant hasn't been convicted of? Is that like a special New York State thing or is it common across the country?
It's common everywhere. To quote Sideshow Bob, "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"
More options
Context Copy link
It's very common.
Well, things like intent to distribute are common. But “Wack a mole” with no evidence showing intent? That’s pretty sui generis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link