ex-President Trump

Are you saying that NY doesn't have jurisdiction over the business records he falsified? Or that he ought to be tried for election fraud by the feds first, then NY?

NYS has jurisdiction over the alleged record falsification. But it's extremely weird that Trump can be tried in the first degree, before having been found guilty of the other crime(s) that purportedly were helped by the alleged record falsification.

But apparently "intent to commit other crime(s)" with such falsification is enough for NYS. It's all very weird anyway. Same as the Carroll case, where without a court ever finding Trump guilty of rape, he cannot say that someone lied about him having raped her. Just very very very bizzarre laws.

In most countries afaik a behaviour that requires other crimes to be criminal is only prosecuted after (or togheter with) the crime has been proven in court.

Do you actually know this to be true anywhere, or is this just what you would expect?

It is in Italy, where btw (like in many countries) a set of criminal behaviors linked togheter is always tried as a single case with the worst crime being used for sentencing (if found guilty), not cumulative unlike in the USA.

What are you babbling about? In the USA, ever element of every crime alleged must be proven to be convicted of each crime.

Most sentences are served concurrently, not consecutively, for non patterned behavior. Lesser included offensives, unless there are multiple offenses, can't be sentenced consecutively.

I am not "babbling".

Trump is only being tried for falsifying records (first degree), yet that requires the falsification to be to hide or help commit another crime (for which he hasn't been convicted, nor he is being tried currently).

Re cumulative sentences, in most countries it's *always* concurrent (you only serve the longest sentence), no judicial discretion about that, unlike the USA, when it's crimes linked to the same incident

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump said.
The Proud Boys took Trump’s words as a signal of approval:
The extremist group’s members reportedly called it “historic”
and viewed it as an endorsement of their violent tactics.

Gaetz is signaling to the conservative movement as a whole that it should
continue to embrace the sentiment behind the “stand back, stand by” directive.
He is actively inviting everyone on the right to view themselves as a militia
on behalf of Trump, willing to use force to bend society to their movement’s will.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opin...

In this forum I learnt that chanting "Death to America" is just asking for peaceful change in how the government operates, while standing behind and close by someone in a photo, and writing it as caption of such a photo, clearly implicates a will to use violence in the political process.

Amazing how many things we can learn in this forum.

Yup and the party that will save democracy is spending huge amounts of money to keep RFK off the ballot and will not allow him to debate .

Trump had a really good day in court as Cohen proves he will lie about anything

Yes, you are babbling, as usual. Do you understand that the prosecutor needs to prove the elements of both crimes here?

And your understanding of the Carroll case is frighteningly naive.

There is no democratic right to a free national platform

No he doesn't, he just needs to prove intent for the additional crime.

And the Carroll case was about allowing a jury to decide if rape actually happened or not just on probable cause, to determine a civil case, which is kind of aberrant, even if Trump wasn't on trial for rape.

Oh I agree but I get tired of hearing the democrats are the party that will save democracy from Trump(Hitler)

No, the intent is only one of the elements of the criminal act and is in dispute. It is an intent crime and the other elements are evident in the facts ie he was running for office and failed to report the hush money was campaign related.

Lol, quit goal post shifting. Which Carrol litigation do you want to discuss, the first case or the second continued defamation case?

read the definition of the crime again:

/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./

And Trump didn't mean that when he said it.
And it's just a coincidence when Gaetz uses the same phrase.

Kind of like calling the witch Ugly?

I was just noting that you can claim that and it's all ok, but if i claim "death to america" is actual violence incitement, then i am just strawmanning (see the other thread on the topic).

I agree you can evaluate the meaning of phrases based on context, and allege that there are implicit meanings that can be nefarious behind Gaetz caption.

I just want to be able to do the same everytime

Glenn Kirschner discusses Trump's attorneys failing to meet the bar to discredit Michael Cohen in court.

Turns out, Trump's defense attorney Todd Blanche may have
destroyed his client's best defense in his opening statement.

You do realize that it wasn’t trumps party that pushed super hard to shut down the economy for well over a year after Covid started, supported the printing of money at 3x the normal rate, grew the size of govt (which is still spending at pandemic levels) and threw money around in the economy?

Dems should be doing everything they can to downplay how bad inflation is. You may be able to trick a few people into thinking trump is worse for inflation, but there is too many good resources out there that point to what dems did after Covid as the perfect recipe for inflation for this to be a winning play for dems.

Yeah, the party that supported a riot that last 2 years and we’re ok with their voters trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices are the party of peace.

Falsifying business records is an intent crime, when you can show an intent to commit another crime it is a higher penalty crime. The prosecutors much prove Trump intentionally made false business records because he intended to commit election fraud. His attorney has argues the recording keeping “errors” were not intentional , but sloppiness or negligence, and that the intent was to not embarrass his family rather than election fraud.

Where exactly did you hear that?

Standing with the Proud Boys is standing with a violent protest movement,