ex-President Trump

If there was no predicated crime the trial couldn't have happened for the statute of limitations, as it would have been just a misdemeanor.

Paper trail is clear that trump wrote off those expenses as legal to conceal the fact that he had paid the pornstar but that's a very minor violation per se.

The trial didn't even adjudicate that he did that to gain in the presidential elections.

Which is why jjjou in this thread claims he did that to evade taxes for example (which the trial didn't adjudicate either).

Braag campaign was financed by ultra progressive associations which Soros (among others) has funded.

It was at the time when Soros financed a whole bunch of ultra progressive DA campaigns, those who refuse to prosecute theft in shops and the like in the west coast for example (which tech elites there are currently trying to send home, by financing much more moderate DAs this cycle).

This isn't even controversial stuff

Nah, I think hardly any of them will vote for Trump and the democratic senator. More likely they don't vote for president (and even more likely than that to not vote at all). And even those who do are unlikely to do it because they want a divided government but because they think Biden is too old or don't like him personally for some other reason.

You and von neumann

James Woods walked it back. Matusow however said he had planned to vote for Kennedy.

77777e

Then I repeat. They are not elite. In any case if the goal is to determine who is best for the country or who is guilty and who is not, you have a better chance if those who are making that decision are not dumb or easily manipulated.

Lol, I threw that in for you as bait. I have no doubt that we will never see his taxes or his companies. They are 7 years old, probably unfiled or being audited so they can't be produced, despite him wanting to show 'em.

Just like Trump talks and talks and talks so long as he is not subject to an oath and perjury charges.

Right about what? It isn’t even clear what you are arguing?

tax evasion was listed as one of the predicated crimes by the prosecution (they offered 4, judge accepted 3).

and they were acceptable even if trump wasn't been tried for any of those nor was previously convicted for any of those. The possible predicated hypotethical crimes were tax evasion (state and/or federal), violations of state electoral laws, violations of federal electoral laws.

I don't know what you mean with "bait". Some jurors might have actually believed he was trying to cover tax evasion (even if he wasn't convicted for that in the past in an individual capacity nor he was on trial for that), and on that hunch convict for the business record falsification felony.

In no part of their judgement they adjudicated he committed that or either state or federal electoral laws violation.

But NYS code is so insane he can be convincted for a crime related to covering (or attempting to covering up) crimes he hasn't been convicted for.

You are stuck on the concept that they need to prove the second crime. All they need to prove is the intent for another crime to aggravate it to a felony. For example, had he falsified the business record to reflect the vompany paid the money to himself as a bonus and paid taxes on it, no felony aggravation.

I am sure that if Trump has reported it as a campaign expense or not reported it on his taxes as a legal expense, Trump would have produced that in his defense but we all "know" nothing like this occurred.

No, i am stuck with the concept that's incredible, absurd, a sham, that they didn't have to prove the predicated crime. I understand that's NYS law. I am saying it's an absurd law.

And they don't even have to prove intent like you said. They just have to convice the jury under probable cause that there was either intent or some crime covered even without proving either intent or the crime.

And i think you would agree if it wasn't about Trump.

Probably cause is not a normal burden of proof at a criminal trial. It's the normal standard to justify detention and/or further investigation by the police.

Where are you getting this from?

He has confused "probable cause" with "preponderance of the evidence" before, but neither standard applies here as far as I know.

what applies to the predicated crime then? which standard was the jury supposed to use for hypothetical crimes that weren't tried nor proven? which standard for intent which jijou thinks is what the prosecution had to prove alone ?

Presumably "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know why you think inchoate offences aren't crimes. Conspiracy is very much a crime, and requires only intent. Attempted murder can be tried on intent alone. Mens rea is an element that needs to be proven for all non strict liability crimes. In other words, intent is something that needs to be proved in almost all criminal cases, and sometimes intent alone is sufficient to convict; this case is far from some sort of outlier.

More generally, most of the people commenting on elements of this case with some sort of outrage or bewilderment have had limited or no exposure to the criminal justice system beyond sensationalist reporting on this specific case, so fail to realise that much of what is being reported about this case is just the basics of how a criminal trial works.

How given they weren't tried and one of the predicated crime was federal in a state court? are you serious?

that's absolutely not the case which is why there is a ton of commentary by legal experts around including a lot of people who dislike Trump which points out the very weird things that happened in this specific case

I don't know the specifics of this case, I'm going by what you said. If intent is an element which needs to be proved in a criminal case, it needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, same as any other element. Maybe you are confused about what were and were not elements of the crime being tried.

this is more normal than you think. or maybe want to believe.

burglary works like this in the united states.

burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling place with the intent to commit a crime therein. you don't have to prove that the "crime therin" was committed just that there was intent.

Is it weird to you that none of Trump's lawyers ever raised any of these objections? Are they incompetent?

which part of "what happened was all legal, i am just saying it's an insane and incredible set of rules" isn't clear?

Well, some of them are for sure, but she wasn't on this dream team.

Is that what all the legal pundits you referred to are saying, that the law was followed but it's an odd law? Or is that your personal evaluation? I've seen a bunch of people here complaining about defective jury instructions, which would imply that they are saying that the law was not followed.

The standard of proof for the intent seems to be being questioned.

I'd presume that's still 'beyond reasonable doubt' with intent ot burgle. But with a cover up it seems reasonable that it could be a lower standard i.e if there's a legitimate police investigation than maybe that's sufficient for a cover up to be a crime eevn if there was in fact no crime being covered up.