TheAngelFlight said:
Gyles Marrett said:
TheAngelFlight said:
Gyles Marrett said:
TheAngelFlight said:
Gyles Marrett said:
Im Gipper said:
Quote:
Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?
The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:
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
Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.
Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.
"Conceal the commission thereof..."
Quote:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.
The State obviously must prove there was an intent to commit an actual underlying crime. If they can't, the jury should acquit as soon as possible.
But I was answering your question of how the law can apply to business records made after the election was over. It can because the business records don't have to affect the election themselves since the law applies to concealment of an effort to affect the election.
Gotcha, so I guess my last question would then be the concept of a conspiracy to affect the election. Is the issue at hand there asking the jury to decide that a NDA which is legal, is somehow an illegal conspiracy to affect the election?
I think the execution of the NDA "scheme", if you will, is really the problem that got us here and not the NDA in and of itself. If this ends bad for Trump, like it did for Cohen, its a real "too cute by half" kind of thing.
What is tricky for the State is explaining that the execution of the scheme amounted to excessive campaign contributions and/or coordination of expenditures between the campaign and individuals/corporations, which is a big "no-no" in election law.
Okay, since you're so knowledgeable on Section 17 in that you feel that you can school Hawg on the law, please point out to me where specifically IN Section 17 the section addresses actions of the CANDIDATE?
I seem to be having trouble finding it.
ETA: The closest thing seems to be this:
New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Current as of January 01, 2021 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.But then, you have to clarify exacly WHAT is unlawful, and where in the code it is stated such.
Unless of course, you have a friendly judge, and can pound the table real well and convince a partisan jury that such details are irrelevant. Won't withstand appeal, but then at that point, it doesn't really matter, does it?