*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***

603,879 Views | 6820 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by Im Gipper
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:

this is a pretty in the weeds but not overly biased article about the issue for anyone interested by the way:

what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial

"That said, this reasoning is not necessarily a slam dunk. In his omnibus motion to dismiss, Trump identified several distinctions between the burglary statutes and 175.10suggesting, for example, that "intent to commit a crime" under the burglary statutes is more general in meaning than "intent to commit another crime" under 175.10. And Justice Merchan did not seem completely convinced by Bragg's analogizing in his ruling on the motion to dismiss.

With all that in mind, it wouldn't be surprising to see Merchan issue instructions to the jury requiring unanimity, just to be safe."

prediction: Merchan will 100% definitely not require unanimity


I've read that article and would have quoted it already but I assumed folks would attack the author/website and ignore it or call it wrong.

That's a great article explaining the issue in this case. It's one of statutory interpretation. Not the Constitution. What does "another" mean?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There was a 2020 SCOTUS decision, Ramos v. Louisiana that found unnanimity in both state and federal criminal courts was required by the 6th and to the states through the 14th.

In Cornell's analysis in discussing the history of the unanimous verdict requirement in the 6th,

Quote:

( "As early as 1898, the Court said that a defendant enjoys a 'constitutional right to demand that his liberty should not be taken from him except by the joint action of the court and the unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve persons.'" ) (quoting Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 351 (1898)); Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( "Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issuescharacter or degree of the crime, guilt and punishmentwhich are left to the jury." ); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586 (1900) (stating that the right to jury trial "implies that there shall be an unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in all Federal courts where a jury trial is held" ); see also Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 366, 36970 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring) (citing "an unbroken line of cases reaching back into the late 1800's [in which] the Justices of this Court have recognized, virtually without dissent, that unanimity is one of the indispensable features of federal jury trial" ).
LINK

Ramos is not directly on point because for years Oregon and Louisiana were the only two states that allowed convictions on a 10-2 verdict. Ramos ended that.

But that dicta from a 1900 SCOTUS case Maxwell, Dow that I bolded above raises a question to me.

Quote:

Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issuescharacter or degree of the crime, guilt and punishmentwhich are left to the jury." ); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586 (190
All issues? Except for the predicate crime here?

Ramos discussion is HERE.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Non-unanimity sounds a lot like reasonable doubt now doesn't it?

As a practical matter that's the real problem you got.

And that's also the reason that unanimity must be required as to each and every element, including that of any predicate crime.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dersh's take on the instructions that he expects. Go to five minute mark,

TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ramos is addressing the elements of the crime, which we all agree the jury in this trial would need to be unanimous on.

Pre-Ramos, those two states would allow Trump to be convicted if only 10 members of the jury thought him guilty of any element of the crime.

The debate on unanimity here is what is the element of the crime…specific intent to commit a specific crime or general intent to commit (any) crime.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why is pre-Ramos important?
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

That's the whole question. Like I said above, what is the element of the crime? Is it specific intent to commit a specific crime or is general intent to commit a crime.

If the element is specific intent to commit a specific object crime, then yes of course the jury would need to be unanimous as to the specific. If the element is general intent to generally commit a crime, then the jury would not have to agree.

There is no Constitutional underpinning which says the latter, general intent is barred, carte blanche, as a matter of Constitutional law.

If that were the case, Richardson would not "need to look at the statute" as it did.

Nor would it need say there is only a Constitutional "limit" in the event it is too unfair to allow jury disagreement. Which again, I don't believe I've ever seen Trump argue. Have you?


This entire argument I'd stupid and just distracting.

1. Stats has to prove intent to cover up a felony.
2. They have not proven that.

That's it. All the other stuff is stupid.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

Why is pre-Ramos important?


It's not. As Hawg said, the case isn't exactly on point. New York pre- and post-Ramos required unanimity on elements of a crime
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you agree that Trump should be acquitted then, yes?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The debate on unanimity here is what is the element of the crime…specific intent to commit a specific crime or general intent to commit (any) crime.
This general intent of which you speak raises an issue wherein the degree of the crime as charged, relies on whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor Predicate crime is a misdemeanor? Does that alone support a felony enhancement? When the misdemeanor is time barred?
SwigAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

The debate on unanimity here is what is the element of the crime…specific intent to commit a specific crime or general intent to commit (any) crime.
This general intent of which you speak raises an issue wherein the degree of the crime as charged, relies on whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor Predicate crime is a misdemeanor? Does that alone support a felony enhancement? When the misdemeanor is time barred?

Didn't Merchan just decide that they were tolled while Trump was president?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SwigAg11 said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

The debate on unanimity here is what is the element of the crime…specific intent to commit a specific crime or general intent to commit (any) crime.
This general intent of which you speak raises an issue wherein the degree of the crime as charged, relies on whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor Predicate crime is a misdemeanor? Does that alone support a felony enhancement? When the misdemeanor is time barred?

Didn't Merchan just decide that they were tolled while Trump was president?


I don't believe Merchan has ruled. He might not have to. I don't believe the State is going to ask to have the lesser misdemeanors included based on what they wrote about the tolling. But we'll see.

As to what Hawg said, the statute doesn't say intent to commit a "felony", so no I don't think it matters. And no, he's not charged with the object crimes so there isn't a SoL issue.

Had Trump argued either of those things?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

So you agree that Trump should be acquitted then, yes?


1) That doesn't follow from what I said.

2) I think the jury should not have to agree on what the object crime is. I think the correct reading is the statute is that there only need be general intent to commit (any) crime.

3) I would probably vote not-guilty as to Trump based on the parts of the trial that I had the time to follow and obviously before closing arguments.

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For those interested enough to watch the short Dersh clip, he states something of which I was completely unaware, that is the appellate courts in NY can and do entertain arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict. he goes so far as to say that if the appellate court does not believe that Cohen was credible, they can decide to toss the case.

I presume he has done that research wherein an appellate court can reject the jury's findings of fact? But there are so many other reversible errors in this case they may not even have to get there, (my opinion.)
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Juries don't make a statement of facts and New York courts don't "overturn" the facts. They generally read the transcript in a light most favorable to the prosecution and only overturn if there isn't evidence as a matter of law.

The middle courts can in extraordinary circumstances seem a witness nor credible, disregard that testimony, and then they evaluate the transcript. But Dersh is real good about getting hopes up, got to get that air time

Here's a simple and well written explanation:

https://newyorkcriminalappealslawyer.com/new-york-appellate-court-powers#:~:text=If%20a%20defendant's%20conviction%20is,the%20case%20is%20simply%20dismissed.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good because I had my hand on the flag on that.
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't know what all trump's team has argued, but they did argue constitutional issues at least wrt multiplicity issues. I would think on appeal (any waiver type issues aside if applicable), due process concerns would become an issue. Will be interesting. A lot of the analogous cases come from burglary statutes: (paraphrasing) entering with intent to commit a crime. the 'with intent to commit a crime' is an 'element' and the jury just has to be unanimous on the element and can have varying opinions on what the 'underlying crime' was going to be. That is of course the Mackey case.

so here the 'element' is: "That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

In Mackey as they point out in burglary cases "the intent necessary for burglary can be inferred from the circumstances of the entry itself." Inferring criminal intent is seems far from the case when someone pays their lawyer and logs it as legal expenses.

In Richardson, the USSC says "Finally, this Court has indicated that the Constitution itself limits a State's power to define crimes in ways that would permit juries to convict while disagreeing about means, at least where that definition risks serious unfairness and lacks support in history or tradition." Pretty sure that 'falsifying business records' under these multitudes of theories probably doesn't have much history or tradition, and it certainly seems to risk some unfairness. The "element" in Richardson: "such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations of [the federal drug laws, i. e.,] this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter." The Court did not say that the jury could just be 'unanimous' that some continuing series occurred - instead the Court said the jury has to be unanimous in EACH alleged violation.

in Schad, the plurality pointed out:

"That is not to say, however, that the Due Process Clause places no limits on a State's capacity to define different courses of conduct, or states of mind, as merely alternative means of committing a single offense, thereby permitting a defendant's conviction without jury agreement as to which course or state actually occurred. The axiomatic requirement of due process that a statute may not forbid conduct in terms so vague that people of common intelligence would be relegated to differing guesses about its meaning, see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939) (citing Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391 (1926)) carries the practical consequence that a defendant charged under a valid statute will be in a position to understand with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him."

and then Scalia's part is interesting (not that the charge here is a novel umbrella charge with tax evasion allegations of course....)

"As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that, when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission. See, e.g., People v. Sullivan, 173 N.Y. 122, 65 N.E. 989 (1903); cf. H. Joyce, Indictments 561-562, pp. 654-657 (2d ed.1924); W. Clark, Criminal Procedure 99-103, pp. 322-330 (2d ed.1918); 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure 434-438, pp. 261-265 (2d ed. 1872). That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante at 501 U. S. 633, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process."


I am not 'pro-trump' (was a DeSantis guy), but the lawfare here is disgusting imho and that admittedly may creep in. But there at least appears to be a good basis in some of these cases that, at least as applied here, there are due process concerns if the jury doesn't have to be unanimous about the underlying crime.

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another short clip froma few days ago from Dersh talking about the day he was in court and Merchan went off on Costello and going through reversible error after reversible error.

jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Another short clip froma few days ago from Dersh talking about the day he was in court and Merchan went off on Costello and going through reversible error after reversible error.




No wonder she kicked out the press and everybody in the courtroom. I bet the judge wishes he would've kicked out the front row as well.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Long pieces but very good from McCarthy.



(Have to remove paywall fyi…)
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This trial and judge is a farce

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Greta is correct. "to defraud, aid or conceal" another crime is an element contained in the statute.

And BTW as it turned out the ledger entry made based upon the Cohen created invoice having the Red Finch polling bill was actually concealing a crime, Cohen's embezzlement from Trump and the revocable trust.
SwigAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That issue was the entire discussion we were having on this thread yesterday. There seems to be some precedent with federal appeals, but discussions revolved around their applicability to this case.
Prosperdick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logos Stick said:

This trial and judge is a farce


Simply incredible that a jury, not of his peers, but of TDS afflicted zealots, will be able to convict a former President of the United States without unamimous consent on what the predicate crime was.

That Marxists are cheering this on is downright chilling and the fact that we have a dementia riddled, corrupt President also cheering this on while campaigning on it should concern every single American in this country who still possesses even a modicum of intelligence.
SwigAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Greta is correct. "to defraud, aid or conceal" another crime is an element contained in the statute.

And BTW as it turned out the ledger entry made based upon the Cohen created invoice having the Red Finch polling bill was actually concealing a crime, Cohen's embezzlement from Trump and the revocable trust.

I'm curious how the defense will phrase their discussion of RedFinch during closing. I would assume they will be careful about the word "concealing". Maybe flip it on its head and state that Cohen was actually doing the concealing the entire time to hide his embezzlement and larceny?

Edit: Dershowitz was describing the jurors reactions when it was revealed that Cohen stole from Trump as "shocked" and they couldn't believe it. Trump just needs 1 juror to completely disregard Cohen's testimony.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So Trump's defenders want the prosecutors to have to prove that Trump willfully violated FECA. It seemed like a sensible idea. But prosecutors totally rejected it, saying that the underlying crime, the "unlawful means," does not have to be a criminal matter. "By its plain meaning, 'unlawful' doesn't mean criminal. It means violation of law," prosecutor Michael Colangelo argued. (You might have heard of Colangelo he is the No. 3 official in the Biden Justice Department who left to join Bragg's local prosecutor's office for the purpose of prosecuting Trump.) "The plain text of the statute provides that election law conspiracy occurs when its intended results are executed through unlawful means. Because it doesn't need to be "criminal unlawful means,' there's no need to add the word 'willful' into [the jury instructions]."

That is the prosecution's position on the object crime. First, Trump need not have committed the crime. Prosecutors only have to prove that he intended to commit the crime. And second, the unlawful means used to carry out the object crime doesn't have to be a criminal act. It could be a civil violation of the incredibly complex provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act the kind of things campaigns usually have to pay a fine to settle.
LINK

Like that is supposed to make sense? Against the law but not criminal usually equals a civil matter. (Think negligence.)
Reality Check
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

And second, the unlawful means used to carry out the object crime doesn't have to be a criminal act. It could be a civil violation of the incredibly complex provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act the kind of things campaigns usually have to pay a fine to settle.


Yet as the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission will testify, Trump never violated federal election law.
And, if he had known of Cohen's payment and if it was determined that it should have been filed as a campaign contribution - which it wasn't - then it wouldn't have been required to be reported until a month after the election.

So when exactly is Brad Smith going to be on the stand to clear this up for everyone?


Author of the TexAgs Post of The Day - May 31, 2024

How do I get a Longhorn tag?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SwigAg11 said:

That issue was the entire discussion we were having on this thread yesterday. There seems to be some precedent with federal appeals, but discussions revolved around their applicability to this case.


There are New York State cases that say for some statutes the jury need not agree on the object crime. There are cases in probably every state saying that.

The question is for this specific statute, does it require unanimity on the predicate crime. Does "another" mean "generally any crime" or does it mean "a particular, specific crime."


FWIW, I don't know that the judge actually ruled on that yet. Gerstein (or people recycling his article) is the only person I saw reporting that. He's taken that article off his social media from what I can tell.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So when exactly is Brad Smith going to be on the stand to clear this up for everyone?
He isn't. And the evidentiary portion of the trial has ended. No more testimony. Judge Merchan's restrictions upon Smith's testimony were so onerous that defense counsel decided it would be a waste of time to even call him.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

BMX Bandit said:


Quote:

To me, the unconstitutionality of it is that the state is not forced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the object crime was committed by the defendant.
even Trump's lawyers aren't arguing that, as the object crime does not have to committed under this statute, just an intent to commit or cover up
Quote:

If the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, then the jury cannot just pick or choose which of the object crimes the defendant might have thought he was trying to cover up.
I agree with this.

By the way, I've read the charge conference transcript, and there is no clear NY case on this. So its not a matter of NY law saying this is the way to do it.
Under People v Mackey, the top court in New York said (45 years ago) "the State "need not establish what particular crime the intruder intended to commit" in the context of a charge of breaking into a home with the intent to a commit a crime therein.

The State has certainly brought that case up (and others) a few times, and I believe that'll largely be adopted here.
If I'm on the jury, I'm finding fatal fault with this theory. Here's why.

Breaking and entering into a home is in itself a crime. Now whether the ultimate objective of the perpetrator is to steal something, destroy something, or attack an individual really doesn't matter to me. He had ill intent in the obvious infraction of breaking and entering.

Now let's look at the Trump case. Falsification of documents is an allegation that is not in itself a clear violation. There is nowhere close to agreement that Trump a.) was involved in the decision of how to code the bookkeeping entries, or b.) whether the way in which they were coded was a violation in the first place.

It's a far cry to try to equate breaking and entering of a residence with a bookkeeping entry entered by an employee.

The state has gone off the rails in trying to create a "crime" and then to further create some sort of other nebulous "crime" that is being covered up in order to felonize the first "crime". Again, the theory fails under it's own weight. And, if the false equivalence is somehow successful in obtaining a conviction, it says infinitely more about how our legal system can be manipulated to target a specific individual than it does about anything Trump did or didn't do.

Will it be worth the damage to our judicial system to get this one convicition? I seriously doubt it. 2011, you're so busy reveling being stuck in the weeds, that you're missing the big picture. I would expect those versed in the law to be at the forefront at calling foul of this blatant manipulation. But then again, we've beaten this dead horse enough.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

TXAggie2011 said:

That's the whole question. Like I said above, what is the element of the crime? Is it specific intent to commit a specific crime or is general intent to commit a crime.

If the element is specific intent to commit a specific object crime, then yes of course the jury would need to be unanimous as to the specific. If the element is general intent to generally commit a crime, then the jury would not have to agree.

There is no Constitutional underpinning which says the latter, general intent is barred, carte blanche, as a matter of Constitutional law.

If that were the case, Richardson would not "need to look at the statute" as it did.

Nor would it need say there is only a Constitutional "limit" in the event it is too unfair to allow jury disagreement. Which again, I don't believe I've ever seen Trump argue. Have you?


This entire argument I'd stupid and just distracting.

1. Stats has to prove intent to cover up a felony.
2. They have not proven that.

That's it. All the other stuff is stupid.
Reading 2011's post here, I'm reminded of the Idiocracy argument...



"General intent to commit a crime" now equals "TDS/Orange man bad, so you must convict".
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I jrdaustin:

And the Mackey case echoes your comment and obvious distinction between burglary and this case:

"Thus, in People v Gilligan ( 42 N.Y.2d 969) we made clear that the People need prove only that defendant intended to commit a crime during his illegal presence in the building, for we there held that defendant's intent to commit a crime on entering the building "could be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the circumstances of the breaking". Similarly, People v Henderson ( 41 N.Y.2d 233), citing People v Terry ( 43 A.D.2d 875), recognized that the intent necessary for burglary can be inferred from the circumstances of the entry itself. The out-of-State cases on which the dissent relies proceed from the premise that the burglary statute "is a proscription on entry of a dwelling with any one or more of a certain category of specific intents and not merely a proscription against entry with a generally evil or criminal intent" (United States v Thomas, 444 F.2d 919, 921). If that premise be accepted, it follows that intent to commit a specific crime being an element of the offense, a due process problem might exist if the specific crime is not particularized. But unless there is read into the words "a crime" more than the Legislature has stated, intent to commit a specific crime is not an element, and the necessity for particulars, and with it the due process question, disappears."

The more this is delved into, the more it seems less and less Mackey should apply. As the state and merchan want so badly here. One. it is an Indictment bill of particulars matter. Even the dissent in Mackey seems to make the point that the "particular crime" is an actual element that would EVENTUALLY be divulged:

"It is therefore regrettable that by a literal and hypertechnical construction of the burglary statute, the decision today sanctions the withholding from the defendant of a material element of the offense until the commencement of a trial or longer. The short and long of it is that the risk that a defendant may be unfairly surprised and, hence, rendered unable to effectively meet the prosecutor's theory of the case is dramatically increased.


Additionally, From the Thomas case cited before the Mackey court discussed due problem issues.

"The statute contains only the genus of proscribed intent. However, as was stated in the oft cited case of United States v. Cruikshank, it is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offence, whether it be at common law or by statute, includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offence in the same generic terms as in the definition; but it must state the species, it must descend to particulars. An indictment drawn simply in the language of the District's burglary statute thus does not allege with sufficient particularity the offense with which appellant was charged. As so drawn, it describes the offense only in impermissibly broad and categorical terms. In order to achieve the requisite degree of precision, we hold, in accordance with the great weight of authority, that the indictment must state the particular offense the accused intended to commit upon entry into the dwelling.

We recognize that ordinarily under the present modernized rules of federal criminal procedure an indictment drawn in the language of a statute, but which fails to allege a particular fact which the accused is entitled to know, can be cured of such defect through the use of a bill of particulars. This is not true, however, when the omitted fact is a material element of the offense. In such circumstances, to permit the omission to be cured by a bill of particulars would be to allow the grand jury to indict with one crime in mind and to allow the U.S. Attorney to prosecute by producing evidence of a different crime. Such imprecision in a grand jury indictment cannot be permitted. To do so would make it possible for the U.S. Attorney to usurp the function of the grand jury by supplying an essential element of the crime and, in many cases, would violate due process by failing to give the accused fair notice of the charge he must meet."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Edit: Dershowitz was describing the jurors reactions when it was revealed that Cohen stole from Trump as "shocked" and they couldn't believe it. Trump just needs 1 juror to completely disregard Cohen's testimony.
As I said at the time. Manhattanites are accustomed to tax and banking charges as those are everyday white collar crimes. But embezzlement from an employer and legal client is likely a step too far for more than a few of them, the lawyers aside.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If I'm on the jury, I'm finding fatal fault with this theory. Here's why.

Breaking and entering into a home is in itself a crime. Now whether the ultimate objective of the perpetrator is to steal something, destroy something, or attack an individual really doesn't matter to me. He had ill intent in the obvious infraction of breaking and entering.

Now let's look at the Trump case. Falsification of documents is an allegation that is not in itself a clear violation. There is nowhere close to agreement that Trump a.) was involved in the decision of how to code the bookkeeping entries, or b.) whether the way in which they were coded was a violation in the first place.
Breaking and entering is criminal trespass in the 3rd degree which is a class B misdemeanor in New York.

If you convicted a defendant for burglary just on the grounds of "breaking and entering", you'd be doing that defendant a terrible injustice by convicting him of a felony when all the State proved was a misdemeanor.


Ultimately, you're trying to insert a debate the facts of this case into a discussion about what the law is. If you want to tilt at that windmill, by all means...
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

So Trump's defenders want the prosecutors to have to prove that Trump willfully violated FECA. It seemed like a sensible idea. But prosecutors totally rejected it, saying that the underlying crime, the "unlawful means," does not have to be a criminal matter. "By its plain meaning, 'unlawful' doesn't mean criminal. It means violation of law," prosecutor Michael Colangelo argued. (You might have heard of Colangelo he is the No. 3 official in the Biden Justice Department who left to join Bragg's local prosecutor's office for the purpose of prosecuting Trump.) "The plain text of the statute provides that election law conspiracy occurs when its intended results are executed through unlawful means. Because it doesn't need to be "criminal unlawful means,' there's no need to add the word 'willful' into [the jury instructions]."

That is the prosecution's position on the object crime. First, Trump need not have committed the crime. Prosecutors only have to prove that he intended to commit the crime. And second, the unlawful means used to carry out the object crime doesn't have to be a criminal act. It could be a civil violation of the incredibly complex provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act the kind of things campaigns usually have to pay a fine to settle.
LINK

Like that is supposed to make sense? Against the law but not criminal usually equals a civil matter. (Think negligence.)
Anyone who looks at this with a discerning eye sees that this game playing by Colangelo flies in the face of what our criminal justice system SHOULD be. This simple argument (by a Biden DOJ official, no less) exposes this whole charade as a political prosecution rather than a criminal one.

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, then NOT reporting that you ran a red light could be construed as a felony in New York. By this logic, running the red light is unlawful. Not reporting it is willful act of omission attempting to conceal a prior unlawful act. Ergo, FELONY. Gestapo level stuff, to be sure.

Trump was impeached by the left for making a phone call asking Ukraine to look into the connections between Shokin's firing, the investigation of Burisma, and the now confirmed financial ties to Biden's son. The argument for impeachment was that Trump was asking for INVESTIGATION of a POTENTIAL presidential opposition candidate.

Now we have an individual from Biden's DOJ furthering a rather dangerous theory in a PROSECUTION against Biden's ACTUAL presidential opposition candidate, and some on this board are willing to allow the game to play on, without regard for the dangerous precedents that could be set. And not a concern in the world for the rationale that casued a prior president to be impeached.

TDS is a powerful drug, isn't it?
First Page Last Page
Page 128 of 195
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.