WHOOP!'91 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I guess since the judge let the prosecution go wherever they want, they can now say the underlying crime is sexual assault?

---

I get that they were not required to state the underlying crime ahead of time, but can they just declare Trump guilty of another crime without ever charging or adjudicating it such that they can escalate statute-limited misdemeanors to felonies and get a felony conviction?

Seems like you should have to charge and get a guilty verdict on the underlying crime before using it for other purposes.

---

Not ahead of time but in the same indictment would work as the jury instructions could be structured in such a way the jury would answer on the verdict form for the predicate crime first. If they found guilty on that, then they continue on to the other counts. If the answer is not guilty, they are done.

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

Keep in mind how incredibly dishonest NY is not just in how they carry out the laws there, but legislate them in the first place. Some laws are only intended to matter if a republican/Trump himself can be claimed to violate them.

BREAKING: New York State Sen. Kevin Parker, who worked to pass the "Adult Survivors Act," which allowed E. Jean Carroll to go after Trump with accusations from 30 years ago, now says the law is unconstitutional after a r*pe lawsuit was filed against him. pic.twitter.com/G0qtmFgQhW

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 7, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I guess since the judge let the prosecution go wherever they want, they can now say the underlying crime is sexual assault?

---

I get that they were not required to state the underlying crime ahead of time, but can they just declare Trump guilty of another crime without ever charging or adjudicating it such that they can escalate statute-limited misdemeanors to felonies and get a felony conviction?

Seems like you should have to charge and get a guilty verdict on the underlying crime before using it for other purposes.

---

Not ahead of time but in the same indictment would work as the jury instructions could be structured in such a way the jury would answer on the verdict form for the predicate crime first. If they found guilty on that, then they continue on to the other counts. If the answer is not guilty, they are done.

---

Except, that isn't what they've done, AFAIK. The jury is seated and some other crime has not been charged. No jury instruction has been given.

I guess that's why Merchan was given this case, so he could allow it to proceed even with huge defects.

1) Keep Trump from campaining
2) Drain Trump's funds
3) Dirty Trump up with salacious but unrelated testimony
4) Get a conviction if you can, even though it will be overturned on appeal.

Pathetic. Dems are filthy pieces of garbage.

TRIDENT said:

---

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

---

They haven't really said. Some type of "election interference" There was some talk of another state statute touching on corruptly acting to do something in an election but that was still a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that.

aggiehawg said:

---

TRIDENT said:

---

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

---

They haven't really said. Some type of "election interference" There was some talk of another state statute touching on corruptly acting to do something in an election but that was still a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that.

---

The three predicate crimes they can pursue are Federal FECA's contribution limits, New York Law 17-152, and New York Law 1801 and 1802. (See below.)

And everything bolded in your doesn't matter.

Its not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

So you think this is a fair and just trial?

aggiehawg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

So you think this is a fair and just trial?

---

That's the point. They don't care if he gets a fair trial.

---

I just want to see his yes or no. Not a convoluted answer.

Quote:

---

The judge is wrong.

So is any state statute that declares a defendant does not have a constiutional right to know of which behavior is the basis of the charges against him/her.

---

I think you're moving the goalposts to talk about another issue. I was just answering the question about the underlying crimes.The "behavior" was laid out in the Statement of Facts. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741707-new-york-v-trump-statement-of-facts

This case is all about whether the state can prove the intent. That's it. 99% of the facts aren't really in dispute.

Myself and many others have certainly had doubts about whether the State can get there on their burden about the intent. They've done a decent job so far, they're not yet there, but we also have another two weeks of their case so we'll see what happens.

Quote:

---

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that. It's not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

---

I've bolded the salient point (I think) from your post. My question then becomes, what is the other crime do they allege that he concealed? I believe the prosecution only mentioned election interference in their opening arguments, correct? I'm guessing they can try pivoting to assault, intimidation, extortion, etc. in reference to Stormy's description of the events?

My confusion stems from not understanding what the prosecution believes is the underlying other crime that was attempting to be concealed.

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge is wrong.

So is any state statute that declares a defendant does not have a constiutional right to know of which behavior is the basis of the charges against him/her.

---

I think you're moving the goalposts to talk about another issue. I was just answering the question about the underlying crimes.The "behavior" was laid out in the Statement of Facts. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741707-new-york-v-trump-statement-of-facts

This case is all about whether the state can prove the intent. That's it. 99% of the facts aren't really in dispute.

Myself and many others have certainly had doubts about whether the State can get there on their burden about the intent. They've done a decent job so far, they're not yet there, but we also have another two weeks of their case so we'll see what happens.

---

But the issue is they have to prove intent to commit a crime that they haven't disclosed to the defendant yet in order to charge him with "crimes" that were barred by the statute of limitations. That smells to high heaven.

You gonna answer my little question? Won't take long.

Quote:

---

a crime that they haven't disclosed to the defendant yet i

---

the poster literally just linked the document disclosing what those crimes allegedly are.


I don't think Trump is getting a fair trial and think this whole charge is a sham.

"TDS blinders" are being worn by many

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

---

No "other crime" has been charged and adjudicated. That this jury can simply deem Trump guilty of this other crime seems unConstitutional to me. A citizen should have to be found guilty of this other crime before using it to escalate misdemeanors to felonies.

Maybe the letter or practice of the law is on the fascist side here, but that doesn't make it any less fascistic.

It's amusing to ponder how Learned Hand or Benjamin Cardozo for instance would perhaps write an appellate opinion on this case. Alas, we apparently have no such minds left in NY, today.

aggiejayrod said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge is wrong.

So is any state statute that declares a defendant does not have a constiutional right to know of which behavior is the basis of the charges against him/her.

---

I think you're moving the goalposts to talk about another issue. I was just answering the question about the underlying crimes.The "behavior" was laid out in the Statement of Facts. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741707-new-york-v-trump-statement-of-facts

This case is all about whether the state can prove the intent. That's it. 99% of the facts aren't really in dispute.

Myself and many others have certainly had doubts about whether the State can get there on their burden about the intent. They've done a decent job so far, they're not yet there, but we also have another two weeks of their case so we'll see what happens.

---

But the issue is they have to prove intent to commit a crime that they haven't disclosed to the defendant yet in order to charge him with "crimes" that were barred by the statute of limitations. That smells to high heaven.

---

Of course it smells. Would be thrown out in any unbiased court. Sadly, I doubt that matters and will not be shocked if this jury convicts him regardless of the facts in the case. I think the most important thing to come out of this is how quickly they'll be able to expedite an appeal so its not dragged out to post election where they can spend the entire campaign on the "he's a convicted felon" gameplan.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

---

But the jury knows what the other crime which was being abetted or aiding. That would in effect be a conspiracy charge, that is not contained in this indictment.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

---

But the jury knows what the other crime which was being abetted or aiding. That would in effect be a conspiracy charge, that is not contained in this indictment.

---

Did you mean to say that the jury "doesn't know" the other crime?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Quote:

---

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that. It's not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

---

I've bolded the salient point (I think) from your post. My question then becomes, what is the other crime do they allege that he concealed? I believe the prosecution only mentioned election interference in their opening arguments, correct? I'm guessing they can try pivoting to assault, intimidation, extortion, etc. in reference to Stormy's description of the events?

My confusion stems from not understanding what the prosecution believes is the underlying other crime that was attempting to be concealed.

---

No, they're limited to the three crimes I posted above. They don't have to pursue more than one of those theories, but they can't pivot away from that.

They mentioned "election interference", but they also talked about violating corporate contributions (see here on the transcript of opening arguments, https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00054.html .) I don't recall if they talked about the "grossing up" issue.

"You will see the corporation not only made that contribution..."

They certainly have introduced evidence, at least, about the New York election law and the "grossing up" issue (the third theory). But there's still time to press any of the theories.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

a crime that they haven't disclosed to the defendant yet i

---

the poster literally just linked the document disclosing what those crimes allegedly are.


I don't think Trump is getting a fair trial and think this whole charge is a sham.

"TDS blinders" are being worn by many

---

It appears there's a single allegation of violating a Federal statute and two allegations of intent to violate, which by definition would mean not violated, right?

He intended to murder the victim, but only assaulted him. That's assault and attempted murder...not murder.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

---

But the jury knows what the other crime which was being abetted or aiding. That would in effect be a conspiracy charge, that is not contained in this indictment.

---

Did you mean to say that the jury "doesn't know" the other crime?

---

It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to commit/conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.

oldag00 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

a crime that they haven't disclosed to the defendant yet i

---

the poster literally just linked the document disclosing what those crimes allegedly are.


I don't think Trump is getting a fair trial and think this whole charge is a sham.

"TDS blinders" are being worn by many

---

It appears there's a single allegation of violating a Federal statute and two allegations of intent to violate, which by definition would mean not violated, right?

He intended to murder the victim, but only assaulted him. That's assault and attempted murder...not murder.

---

Intent is all that is needed.

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.

---

Again, you gonna answer my question? I know you saw it.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?

This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?

---

The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.

---

No "other crime" has been charged and adjudicated. That this jury can simply deem Trump guilty of this other crime seems unConstitutional to me. A citizen should have to be found guilty of this other crime before using it to escalate misdemeanors to felonies.

---

Are you trying to say that if this jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to commit/conceal another crime, that its not been "ajudicated" whether he had the intent to commit/conceal another crime?

Who should ajudicate that if not a jury?

Quote:

---

It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.

---

If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?

Man I guess the disaster that was Stormy's testimony yesterday has triggered an al hands on deck alert for the ActBlue team to go into action this morning. But covering up a pile of s*** on the floor with a rug doesn't make the s*** disappear.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.

---

If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?

---

It would be reversible error for Merchan to not instruct the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt he had intent to commit/conceal/aid one of the those three specific crimes.

As I previously posted, the NY model jury instructions do NOT include instruction on what the other crime was.

17.10 is the relevant one here:

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/art175hp2.shtml

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.

---

If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?

---

What on earth. It would be reversible error for Merchan to not instruct the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt he had intent to commit/conceal/aid one of the those three specific crimes.

---

Not when there are not in the indictment. This is not a case of lesser included offenses because of the Statute of Limitations issue. The jury cannot be asked to ascertain guilt or innocence on a crime that is time barred. Certainly not one in which a defendant has not been charged.

Bad jury instructions are often the basis for reversible error.

Quote:

---

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

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.

---

If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?

---

What on earth. It would be reversible error for Merchan to not instruct the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt he had intent to commit/conceal/aid one of the those three specific crimes.

---

Not when there are not in the indictment. This is not a case of lesser included offenses because of the Statute of Limitations issue. The jury cannot be asked to ascertain guilt or innocence on a crime that is time barred. Certainly not one in which a defendant has not been charged.

Bad jury instructions are often the basis for reversible error.

---

That's not what the jury is doing and he doesn't have to be charged with another crime.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

---

What does the "thereof" refer to if not another specified crime?