Not directed to me, but I will still answer.Quote:
Do you believe that the charges are valid?
There was no cover up. Hope that helpsTXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
I'm not quite sure that's even accurate after the testimony that the Trump organzation accounting software is outdated with a drop down very limited selection for classifying expenses and that anything related to law/legal/attorney went under the classification legal fees.Im Gipper said:Not directed to me, but I will still answer.Quote:
Do you believe that the charges are valid?
No, I don't think there was adequate evidence to bring these charges.
There was sufficient evidence to bring a charge for falsifying records as a misdemeanor, but that statute of limitations expired so they had to shoehorn in this "another crime" nonsense.
TXAggie2011 said:
No, but I was curious how many times and hours he'd spend asking the same question.
YesRockdoc said:Then answerTXAggie2011 said:
No, but I was curious how many times and hours he'd spend asking the same question.
Right. And then there's a 3rd intermediate standard between probable cause and conviction that's "do I have the resources relative to the priority of the case."Im Gipper said:
You are talking about whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, that is a different standard as to whether there is probable cause (sufficient evidence) to bring charges.
Quote:
Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat.
Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanors and felonies in order to find something with which to "get Trump."
The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanor falsifying business records which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.
I have been teaching, practicing and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call "hush money". Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalize such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.
Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.
Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.
In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution's case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorized the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorized the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.
If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.
TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
Saying there was enough to bring charges is pretty weak. "you can indict a ham sandwich". Infront a grand jury with only one side presenting evidence a mission driven DA can always find "sufficient evidence" to bring charges. There was not sufficient evidence in reality.Im Gipper said:
You are talking about whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, that is a different standard as to whether there is probable cause (sufficient evidence) to bring charges.
Whether that's true or not, the intermediate standard about departmental resources is really what prosecutors deal with on a daily basis.Gyles Marrett said:Saying there was enough to bring charges is pretty weak. "you can indict a ham sandwich". Infront a grand jury with only one side presenting evidence a mission driven DA can always find "sufficient evidence" to bring chargesIm Gipper said:
You are talking about whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, that is a different standard as to whether there is probable cause (sufficient evidence) to bring charges.
TXAggie2011 said:YesRockdoc said:Then answerTXAggie2011 said:
No, but I was curious how many times and hours he'd spend asking the same question.
TXAggie2011 said:
You spent 3 hours asking the same question 7 or 8 times and you're talking about spending time on here?
I guess my point is if we had nameless parties here and the details provided about related charges, I doubt there would be an honest DA out there that thinks they have enough evidence to make it worth bringing charges. I don't see honest DA's bringing charges in a case that if justly tried they'd have close to a 0% chance of winning. Most want a good W-L record. This wouldn't be worth their time.Im Gipper said:
I don't disagree at all about the ham sandwich analogy. It does not change my answer above.
Do you think the reason this case was brought was politically motivated?TXAggie2011 said:I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.Quote:Quote:Do you believe that the charges are valid?Quote:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.Quote:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Quote:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.Quote:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.
This comes down to nitty gritty issues of who knew or said this or that based on emails, texts, daily practice, etc., which is exactly the kind of issue a jury exists to wade through and decide.
We'll see what else the state can show over the next couple of weeks.
What does Dershowitz know? He doesn't have the legal experience of our resident lawyer that says this case is completely valid.captkirk said:
Dershowitz:Quote:
Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat.
Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanors and felonies in order to find something with which to "get Trump."
The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanor falsifying business records which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.
I have been teaching, practicing and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call "hush money". Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalize such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.
Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.
Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.
In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution's case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorized the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorized the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.
If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.
CNN’s Elie Honig says Stormy Daniels cross-examination was “disastrous” for the prosecution
— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) May 8, 2024
“Do you hate Donald Trump?” “Yes.” Of course, she does.
That’s a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal!
And she’s putting out… pic.twitter.com/9YmbRJh3jv
They would find the resources to try Trump.TXAggie2011 said:Whether that's true or not, the intermediate standard about departmental resources is really what prosecutors deal with on a daily basis.Gyles Marrett said:Saying there was enough to bring charges is pretty weak. "you can indict a ham sandwich". Infront a grand jury with only one side presenting evidence a mission driven DA can always find "sufficient evidence" to bring chargesIm Gipper said:
You are talking about whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, that is a different standard as to whether there is probable cause (sufficient evidence) to bring charges.
Do you possibly have a link to more of that segment? It would be interesting to listen to a longer discussion.aggiehawg said:
Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.CNN’s Elie Honig says Stormy Daniels cross-examination was “disastrous” for the prosecution
— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) May 8, 2024
“Do you hate Donald Trump?” “Yes.” Of course, she does.
That’s a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal!
And she’s putting out… pic.twitter.com/9YmbRJh3jv
Don't forget the covid money sloshing around, too.Ag with kids said:They would find the resources to try Trump.TXAggie2011 said:Whether that's true or not, the intermediate standard about departmental resources is really what prosecutors deal with on a daily basis.Gyles Marrett said:Saying there was enough to bring charges is pretty weak. "you can indict a ham sandwich". Infront a grand jury with only one side presenting evidence a mission driven DA can always find "sufficient evidence" to bring chargesIm Gipper said:
You are talking about whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, that is a different standard as to whether there is probable cause (sufficient evidence) to bring charges.
Plus, they have a lot more available since they aren't busy prosecuting half the crimes that occur anymore...
Stormy Daniels' testimony and credibility probably doesn't really matter, though. So disastrous to what?aggiehawg said:
Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Funny that as of this morning, this is almost assuredly the only criminal case against Trump with any chance of success remaining.
The DC case is going to get gutted by scotus.
The GA case got Fani Willis'd.
The documents case is now just the episode of Seinfeld where George costanza drives all the way to the Hamptons.
Im Gipper said:
I agree with you that they did not need her to testify to make the case, but they did.
And by all accounts, she was a disaster.!
The prosecution can't put that genie back in the bottle. The jury is going to weigh everything through her as she was part of the prosecution case
TXAggie2011 said:Stormy Daniels' testimony and credibility probably doesn't really matter, though. So disastrous to what?aggiehawg said:
Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.
There are several media members who have been going to the trial every day who thought she didn't need to get on the stand at all. She was there to (1) say they had sex to explain what Trump was worried about and (2) to say Trump didn't express a need at the time to "cover it up."
That's tangentially important. But no one disagrees Trump wanted to "cover it up" and no one disagrees the story would hurt his reputation and was a concern to the campaign.
She didn't and can't testify about how the Trump Organization handled the incident internally and in public documentary evidence which is what this is about.
They had her testify to add color to the idea this could hurt his election chances, but I also think she didn't even have to testify at all.
