TXAggie2011 said:

---

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...

---

Again, you miss my point, as all you see is windmails and snippets of the law, with gross disregard to the actual repercussions of what is going on here.

But go ahead, if you want to throw away the integrity of our justice system as you do so, by all means.... You've charged me twice with being Quixotic. I suggest you take a glance in the mirror.

In case you've forgotten, the title of this thread is referencing THIS trial. If you want to split hairs and debate nuances of law and how it can be manipulated, do it on another thread.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This isn't saying what jrdaustin said.

Inferring ill intent from the "circumstances of the entry itself" is different from inferring ill intent from the "entry itself."

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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...

---

Again, you miss my point, as all you see is windmails and snippets of the law, with gross disregard to the actual repercussions of what is going on here.

But go ahead, if you want to throw away the integrity of our justice system as you do so, by all means.... You've charged me twice with being Quixotic. I suggest you take a glance in the mirror.

---

You're saying this to someone who told you yesterday that they would probably acquit Trump and has expressed constant skepticism the State of New York could prove its case.

If you're not tilting at windmills, you're arguing with a bogeyman in your own head.

Probably lol

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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...

---

Again, you miss my point, as all you see is windmails and snippets of the law, with gross disregard to the actual repercussions of what is going on here.

But go ahead, if you want to throw away the integrity of our justice system as you do so, by all means.... You've charged me twice with being Quixotic. I suggest you take a glance in the mirror.

---

You're saying this to someone who told you yesterday that they would probably acquit Trump and has expressed constant skepticism the State of New York could prove its case.

If you're not tilting at windmills, you're arguing with a bogeyman in your own head.

---

I'll admit to being surprised that you think the jury will come back with an acquittal. I've just assumed from the beginning that acquittal was already lost at jury selection.

11 of the 34 charges against Trump are based solely on Michael Cohen's actions in creating invoices from his law office. Cohen produced those invoices not upon dirction of Trump himself, instead as a result of the controller's request saying he needed an invoice before he could direct the accounts payable clerk to cut a check to him. Same way the Trump Org dealt with all of their outside vendors.

Remember, by February 2017 at the time the entries were made and the monthly checks startedto be issued, Cohen was no longer a salaried employee of the Trump Org. he was the Personal Attorney to the POTUS. Thus he was outside counsel, i.e. a vendor who was issued 1099s in the same manner as other vendors.

Trump had no authority over Cohen in how he created those invoices, one or more of which might have been a cover for Cohen's embezzlement. We know at least one of them was cover for his embezzlement. Would a reasonable juror believe Trump directed Cohen to steal money from him and cover it up with a fake invoice for legal services? As much as a penny-pincher as even Cohen acknowledged Trump was? At a bare minimum, all charges related to the Red Finch invoice should be tossed by the jury..

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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...

---

Again, you miss my point, as all you see is windmails and snippets of the law, with gross disregard to the actual repercussions of what is going on here.

But go ahead, if you want to throw away the integrity of our justice system as you do so, by all means.... You've charged me twice with being Quixotic. I suggest you take a glance in the mirror.

---

You're saying this to someone who told you yesterday that they would probably acquit Trump and has expressed constant skepticism the State of New York could prove its case.

If you're not tilting at windmills, you're arguing with a bogeyman in your own head.

---

Actually, what I was saying - and then you distorted - was that rationale of Mackey shouldn't apply in this case, as the object "crime" is not summarily a crime in itself. There is no argument that B&E is a crime. As such, I would buy as a juror that there was likely a good reason for the B&E. Now whether he intended to steal a TV or the silver is probably immaterial. He was there for a reason.

In Trump's case, the bookkeeping entry itself is not a slam-dunk crime. So citing Mackey as a justification for bootstrapping of an underlying nebulous coverup is a massive reach.

So much of this case has been a "baffle them with BS" game. I know I'm NAL, but I also know the smell of BS when I come across it.

Good day, sir.

SwigAg11 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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...

---

Again, you miss my point, as all you see is windmails and snippets of the law, with gross disregard to the actual repercussions of what is going on here.

But go ahead, if you want to throw away the integrity of our justice system as you do so, by all means.... You've charged me twice with being Quixotic. I suggest you take a glance in the mirror.

---

You're saying this to someone who told you yesterday that they would probably acquit Trump and has expressed constant skepticism the State of New York could prove its case.

If you're not tilting at windmills, you're arguing with a bogeyman in your own head.

---

I'll admit to being surprised that you think the jury will come back with an acquittal. I've just assumed from the beginning that acquittal was already lost at jury selection.

---

Oh. "They" refers to me. Jrdaustin asked me if I'd acquit, I said yeah, but has kept trying to argue.

I don't know what the jury will do.

May be hung, but no acquit.

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was saying - and then you distorted - was that rationale of Mackey shouldn't apply in this case, as the object "crime" is not summarily a crime in itself.

---

Breaking and entering isn't the "object crime" of burglary. The object crime would be what they intended to do inside after the breaking and entering.


Burglary is breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime therein. Breaking and entering is a crime itself (criminal trespass.) The bolded part is the object crime.

Trump is charged with falsifying a business record with intent to defraud with intent to a commit/aid/conceal a crime. "Edit: the statute is "another crime." Falsifying a business record with intent to defraud, like breaking and entering, is also a crime in New York. The bolded part is the object crime.


Mackey (and related cases) deal with another statute, so I think everyone agrees it should not "apply" in the sense I think you're using "apply." Mackey and it's related cases are relevant insofar as its an example of a statute not requiring the State specify a particular crime as the "object crime."

In practicality, the State in closing will talk about at least 1 of the 3 possible object crimes, probably all 3, and there are going to be jury instructions about the three specific object crimes. We have seen the drafts the two sides came up with.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was saying - and then you distorted - was that rationale of Mackey shouldn't apply in this case, as the object "crime" is not summarily a crime in itself.

---

Breaking and entering isn't the "object crime" of burglary. The object crime would be what they intended to do inside after the breaking and entering.


Burglary is breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime therein. Breaking and entering is a crime itself (criminal trespass.) The bolded part is the object crime.

Trump is charged with falsifying a business record with intent to defraud with intent to a commit/aid/conceal a crime. Falsifying a business record with intent to defraud, like breaking and entering, is also a crime in New York. The bolded part is the object crime.


Mackey deals with another statute, so I think everyone agrees it should not "apply" in the sense I think you're using "apply." Mackey is relevant insofar as its an example of a statute not requiring the State specify a particular crime as the "object crime."

In practicality, the State in closing will talk about at least 1 of the 3 possible object crimes, probably all 3, and there are going to be jury instructions about the three specific object crimes. We have seen the drafts the two sides came up with.

---

Okay, point taken on the object crime.

So in this case, the Bragg & the Biden DOJ (Colangelo on loan from DOJ) are alleging that the intent is to defraud "someone/everyone" with an entry in an internal business record made by someone other than Trump who was not deviating from a practice that she had done for years, that was never filed or designed to be published, in order to conceal some sort of crime that is unspecified, but "pick from a menu of possibilites" as to the object crime. Do I have it pretty much correct prior to closing arguments?

Somehow I'm still not seeing how this can be remotely compared to breaking and entering.

It isn't even in the same ballpark

You are being trolled by a serial obtusive poster

Foreverconservative said:

---

It isn't even in the same ballpark

You are being trolled by a serial obtusive poster

---

He's praying for a conviction and will probably get it but he better enjoy it because it won't last long.

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was saying - and then you distorted - was that rationale of Mackey shouldn't apply in this case, as the object "crime" is not summarily a crime in itself.

---

Breaking and entering isn't the "object crime" of burglary. The object crime would be what they intended to do inside after the breaking and entering.


Burglary is breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime therein. Breaking and entering is a crime itself (criminal trespass.) The bolded part is the object crime. No court is saying "breaking and entering is so bad" the State shouldn't have to specify an object crime. No is it the juries job to say "there's a worse offense so I'm going to add legal requirements here."

Trump is charged with falsifying a business record with intent to defraud with intent to a commit/aid/conceal a crime. Falsifying a business record with intent to defraud, like breaking and entering, is also a crime in New York. The bolded part is the object crime.


Mackey deals with another statute, so I think everyone agrees it should not "apply" in the sense I think you're using "apply." Mackey is relevant insofar as its an example of a statute not requiring the State specify a particular crime as the "object crime."

In practicality, the State in closing will talk about at least 1 of the 3 possible object crimes, probably all 3, and there are going to be jury instructions about the three specific object crimes. We have seen the drafts the two sides came up with.

---

Okay, point taken on the object crime.

So in this case, the Bragg & the Biden DOJ (Colangelo on loan from DOJ) are alleging that the intent is to defraud "someone/everyone" with an entry in an internal business record made by someone other than Trump who was not deviating from a practice that she had done for years, that was never filed or designed to be published, in order to conceal some sort of crime that is unspecified, but "pick from a menu of possibilites" as to the object crime. Do I have it pretty much correct prior to closing arguments?

Somehow I'm still not seeing how this can be remotely compared to breaking and entering.

---

It doesn't matter "what's worse." No Court is saying the State doesn't have to specify an object crime because breaking and entering is inherently so bad you must be a burglar, nor is the jury's job to add legal requirements based on if they think there are worse crimes


You're still all but just arguing whether the facts show Trump factually made or caused a false business record with the intent to defraud.

Which again you're trying to argue about with someone who has been skeptical about the facts the whole time and said they'd vote to acquit based on what they were able read about.

You're tilting and fighting with a windmill. Seriously.

Rockdoc said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

It isn't even in the same ballpark

You are being trolled by a serial obtusive poster

---

He's praying for a conviction and will probably get it but he better enjoy it because it won't last long.

---

It will last long enough to serve its purpose - "Convicted Felon Donald Trump"

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was saying - and then you distorted - was that rationale of Mackey shouldn't apply in this case, as the object "crime" is not summarily a crime in itself.

---

Breaking and entering isn't the "object crime" of burglary. The object crime would be what they intended to do inside after the breaking and entering.


Burglary is breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime therein. Breaking and entering is a crime itself (criminal trespass.) The bolded part is the object crime.

Trump is charged with falsifying a business record with intent to defraud with intent to a commit/aid/conceal a crime. Falsifying a business record with intent to defraud, like breaking and entering, is also a crime in New York. The bolded part is the object crime.


Mackey deals with another statute, so I think everyone agrees it should not "apply" in the sense I think you're using "apply." Mackey is relevant insofar as its an example of a statute not requiring the State specify a particular crime as the "object crime."

In practicality, the State in closing will talk about at least 1 of the 3 possible object crimes, probably all 3, and there are going to be jury instructions about the three specific object crimes. We have seen the drafts the two sides came up with.

---

Okay, point taken on the object crime.

So in this case, the Bragg & the Biden DOJ (Colangelo on loan from DOJ) are alleging that the intent is to defraud "someone/everyone" with an entry in an internal business record made by someone other than Trump who was not deviating from a practice that she had done for years, that was never filed or designed to be published, in order to conceal some sort of crime that is unspecified, but "pick from a menu of possibilites" as to the object crime. Do I have it pretty much correct prior to closing arguments?

Somehow I'm still not seeing how this can be remotely compared to breaking and entering.

---

Best description of their "case" that I've read. Well done.

It makes me think of Lavrentiy Beria and "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Actually I think Stalin's police chief would actually be jealous of the lawfare taking place in this sham of a trial.

9-years they been after Trump and he still walking around a free man talking **** everyday.

Will this week be the week?

VegasAg86 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

It isn't even in the same ballpark

You are being trolled by a serial obtusive poster

---

He's praying for a conviction and will probably get it but he better enjoy it because it won't last long.

---

It will last long enough to serve its purpose - "Convicted Felon Donald Trump"

---

Well that's all they're after, but everybody knows. Even the haters. Won't help Biden.

Go to 54 minute mark to hear discussion of the proposed jury instructions.

Jeez Louise! Listening to Gouveia reading these proposed instructions are even worse than I expected!

The way Michael Cohen lied on the corporate documents in setting up the two LLCs and the bank documents that were created when he opened those accounts at the bank can be used as evidence against Trump as a part and parcel of the conspiracy? Also the business records of AMI regarding Karen McDougal can be so used?

How many more degrees can we get away from Trump here?

aggiehawg said:

---

Jeez Louise! Listening to Gouveia reading these proposed instructions are even worse than I expected!

The way Michael Cohen lied on the corporate documents in setting up the two LLCs and the bank documents that were created when he opened those accounts at the bank can be used as evidence against Trump as a part and parcel of the conspiracy? Also the business records of AMI regarding Karen McDougal can be so used?

How many more degrees can we get away from Trump here?

---

I thought conspiracy wasn't part of the indictment?

Quote:

---

I thought conspiracy wasn't part of the indictment?

---

It is now, apparently. Just wasn't separately pled. I cannot stress how unusual it is to have to wait until proposed jury instructions to begin to understand the state's theory of the case. Compared to what was in the indictment and then who, why and when they called their witnesses now almost makes some sense to me.

Still a pile of s*** piled on top of more s*** much in the same way that "collusion" was piled on top of more "collusion" in the Mueller investigation. Guess I have to give them some nods for creativity but holy crap!

These are designed specifically to remove the possibilities of a hung jury with this pick-one-from-the-following-menu that throw everything under a conspiracy umbrella. Even when Cohen specifically testified he did not tell Trump about the LLC nor the HELOC but somehow Trump made him do that too in furtherance of a false business record the next year.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought conspiracy wasn't part of the indictment?

---

It is now, apparently. Just wasn't separately pled. I cannot stress how unusual it is to have to wait until proposed jury instructions to begin to understand the state's theory of the case. Compared to what was in the indictment and then who, why and when they called their witnesses now almost makes some sense to me.

Still a pile of s*** piled on top of more s*** much in the same way that "collusion" was piled on top of more "collusion" in the Mueller investigation. Guess I have to give them some nods for creativity but holy crap!

These are designed specifically to remove the possibilities of a hung jury with this pick-one-from-the-following-menu that throw everything under a conspiracy umbrella. Even when Cohen specifically testified he did not tell Trump about the LLC nor the HELOC but somehow Trump made him do that too in furtherance of a false business record the next year.

---

Dershowitz was commenting on reversible error everywhere in the one day he was present in person. Would the appeals court even care or are they so politicized as well?

Hell if I know what the appellate court will do here. I mean they could go chapter and verse into excoriating the judge on every error in a very long opinion or hit the high spots, vacate and remand.

In the same way it appears that the jurors will have a Sunday Brunch Buffet of options, so will the appeals court.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hell if I know what the appellate court will do here. I mean they could go chapter and verse into excoriating the judge on every error in a very long opinion or hit the high spots, vacate and remand.

In the same way it appears that the jurors will have a Sunday Brunch Buffet of options, so will the appeals court.

---

Sorry, I meant that more of question if you think they would decline to review?

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought conspiracy wasn't part of the indictment?

---

It is now, apparently. Just wasn't separately pled. I cannot stress how unusual it is to have to wait until proposed jury instructions to begin to understand the state's theory of the case. Compared to what was in the indictment and then who, why and when they called their witnesses now almost makes some sense to me.

Still a pile of s*** piled on top of more s*** much in the same way that "collusion" was piled on top of more "collusion" in the Mueller investigation. Guess I have to give them some nods for creativity but holy crap!

These are designed specifically to remove the possibilities of a hung jury with this pick-one-from-the-following-menu that throw everything under a conspiracy umbrella. Even when Cohen specifically testified he did not tell Trump about the LLC nor the HELOC but somehow Trump made him do that too in furtherance of a false business record the next year.

---

Dershowitz was commenting on reversible error everywhere in the one day he was present in person. Would the appeals court even care or are they so politicized as well?

---

They overturned Harvey Weinstein for some of the same nonsense Merchan has pulled and that was a direct shot at the pink hat me too movement so the appellate court may not be an issue. Besides this case is so jacked up with close the three digits worth of reversible errors they pass on this the higher courts will clown the whole bunch if the turn a blind eye to this burning dumpster fire.


Question for this jury is who do they fear more blowback from the left that have become pretty toothless since cancel culture has lost its steam from overuse and overreacting. Or do they fear some crazy Trumper that loses it. Once this trial is over their anonymity is history and they will have face the fallout.

They well might find out the left only loves them for a minute and the minute their usefulness is over they will be on their own.

No, they will almost have to review the case. A declination here, post conviction, would bring too much heat.

Merchan make think he's a hero but this trial has been so bad he could be defrocked over his conduct


NYC is in shambles with the criminal element and they go all in on this nonsense. The ripple effect of this trial will not end well

aggiehawg said:

---

No, they will almost have to review the case. A declination here, post conviction, would bring too much heat.

---

I understand what you're saying. I'm an extreme pessimist over this, and I'm just assuming that since it's NY, they just won't care. What penalties would they even suffer for ignoring it?

The appellate court cannot decline to review

Trump was today years old when he learned that the side that has the burden of proof gets to go last.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No, they will almost have to review the case. A declination here, post conviction, would bring too much heat.

---

I understand what you're saying. I'm an extreme pessimist over this, and I'm just assuming that since it's NY, they just won't care. What penalties would they even suffer for ignoring it?

---

You are entitled to review of one appeal as of right. After that, review is discretionary.

Quote:

---

Trump was today years old when he learned that the side that has the burden of proof gets to go last.

---

Yet somehow, Trump is painted as some type of legal mastermind?

HTownAg98 said:

---

Trump was today years old when he learned that the side that has the burden of proof gets to go last.

---

I think he is justified in *****ing about any aspect of this farce he chooses to.

Never stop learning.