Trump on the Rocks?

[Stavros]

Again, Blackchubby, thank you for an interesting link. I am not convinced by the argument that makes it hard to prove 'criminal inent' merely because there is no record be it paper, tape or whatever. Cohen's case led to him being convicted of crimes, was he a 'lone wolf' acting without Trump's knowledge or command? And if Trump realised or knew Cohen was breaking the law, did he not have a duty to take action, or does Trump's reputation stink so much in New York that he doesn't consider such 'reputation issues' relevant to the conduct of his business?

Trump as CEO was, and presumably still is, Master of All he Surveys, one even wonders if his Children can take 'executive' decisions without his consent. The point being that the working culture of the Trump business doesn't need a paper trail to prove intent, it is a world in which what the Boss commands, the Boss gets. That two valuations of the same property can differ by such vast margins is not an 'accounting error' or negligence or any other excuse. If a Court simply ignores the actuality of the way business has been conducted in the Trump Organization, it might as well do the same with Cosa Nostra, but I guess that is how they got away with so much.

All now rests with Ms James, and the Hope Springs Eternal mindset, that Trump will one day, soon perhaps, meet his nemesis. Preferably in Court, though any conviction will probably lead to seven years of appeals. Tthe wheels of justice grind very slowly.

[broncofan]

I read the cnn article and it makes some good points. It is a bit vague though about why this law requires a special intent that includes an intent to break the law. "...the cliche that ignorance of the law is no excuse doesn't apply cleanly." I have not followed the case and would like a little more detail on this.

I'll just point out that it's not simply a cliche that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It is an important feature of our legal system that mistake of law generally does not exculpate whereas mistake of fact sometimes can. If you are mistaken about some relevant fact then you might not actually intend to do that which is prohibited. But if you are mistaken about what is prohibited (the law) you intend to commit the acts that are considered wrongful but just don't know they are sanctionable.

Again, I'm sure he's right, but the article should have provided more detail. I'll look it up at some point.