ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
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.
Very rare use of that specific feloney without the predicated crime being tried togheter or being already adjudicated. Very weird predicated crime in one of the 3, the state election law possible violations, which themselves are based on predicated crimes lol (which weren't discussed at the trial).
Very weird filing the next to last possible day before statute of limitations kicked in.
Then the comments about which evidence was accepted or not, what witnesses were allowed to discuss, jury instructions and so on but i gather this is normal commentary which can be biased by preferences so i give less weight to that
Trump is going to win so hard after this blunder by the dems
I know Vox is generally left leaning (and the opinion based parts of this article are no exception) but this article seems to lay out the questions surrounding the legitimacy of the case being brought pretty well.
https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trum...
Regarding the predicate crime issue, the key wording appears to be this:
Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.
So it must be proven to the normal legal standard that there was the intent to commit another crime but the crime itself doesn't need to be proven to have occurred.
Also the predicate crimes absolutely were discussed at the trial and the three potential predicates were explicitly mentioned in the jury instructions - they were told they had to believe there was intent to commit one of the three predicate crimes (but they didn't necessarily have to agree on which one) in order to find Trump guilty. It simply wouldn't be possible for the jury to meet that requirement if the intent to commit the predicate crimes wasn't covered during the trial.
preliminary polls don't show any meaningful aggregate effect yet on voters.
Some previously undecided moved toward trump, some toward biden (small % both cases), almost no one who had already a clear idea of who to vote for changed his mind (as expected)
My understanding is that the wording "the jury has to believe" is equivalent to "the jury has to find beyond a reasonable doubt".
preliminary polls don't show any meaningful aggregate effect yet on voters.
Some previously undecided moved toward trump, some toward biden (small % both cases), almost no one who had already a clear idea of who to vote for changed his mind (as expected)
shucks...I guess the neocon led wwIII is just a coinflip away. Hopefully the red man can pull through and liberate the US people
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 evad
I think those are waived (tolled) while the person is prez
Very rare use of that specific feloney without the predicated crime being tried togheter or being already adjudicated. Very weird predicated crime in one of the 3, the state election law possible violations, which themselves are based on predicated crimes lol (which weren't discussed at the trial).
Very weird filing the next to last possible day before statute of limitations kicked in.
Then the comments about which evidence was accepted or n
state's rights bro. the state of New York felt it was in the state of New York's interest to bring a trial for criminal offenses that happened in the state of New York. you should be in here going wild for their ability to do whatever they want in their state. we shouldn't care at all about the things you are saying in your post because it's entirely in the state's discretion to bring those charges
state's rights bro. the state of New York felt it was in the state of New York's interest to bring a trial for criminal offenses that happened in the state of New York. you should be in here going wild for their ability to do whatever they want in their state. we shouldn't care at all about the things you are saying in your post because it's entirely in the state's discretion to bring those charges
+1
Yeah if u don’t like the law in NY just move to the states isn’t right luciom ?!
Like all the women’s who can’t abort and anything else .
state's rights bro. the state of New York felt it was in the state of New York's interest to bring a trial for criminal offenses that happened in the state of New York. you should be in here going wild for their ability to do whatever they want in their state. we shouldn't care at all about the things you are saying in your post because it's entirely in the state's discretion to bring those charges
yes, as I said earlier the lesson is to move business away from there.
no intention to remove NYS sovereignty
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.
I’m not sure it’s that easy to prevent one juror on twelve to say not guilty .
Especially if trump was innocent .
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 migh
The predicate crimes are the 34 counts of fraud he was found guilty of and are not the crimes you listed.
Again, they had to prove an intent to use the fraudulent transaction in another crime. I believe a jury could infer his intent to commit tax fraud simply by labeling the payments as a deductible business expense rather than personal income or some other expenditure or non deductible business expense. Trump claimed it was a mistake, not intentional fraud. He could have prove that he did not deduct them on the taxes to create doubt on the intent. But we all know why he couldn’t offer this up as a defense.
Same with the election violations. The publisher crushed Trump by proving the intention was for the election. Trump could have testified he did it to spare his wife and family but we all know he would be a sitting duck on the stand when cross examined.
yes, as I said earlier the lesson is to move business away from there.
no intention to remove NYS sovereignty
and then this is where that whole ridiculous outdated mode of thinking breaks down.. let's see if trump or ANYONE is willing to completely divest from new york/california.. lol
because you can move your business out of newyork, sure. financial center of the world who cares i guess. but then you cant bank with any bank that is has significant contacts in new york because the state has an interest in protecting their banks from fraud. you cant do business with any business that has significant contacts new york because the state has an interest in protecting their business. you cant do business with any citizens of new york or anyone currently in the state because the state has an interest in protecting their people from fraud.
and then multiple that by all the other blue states that you want to avoid consequences for your fraud.
and then this is where that whole ridiculous outdated mode of thinking breaks down.. let's see if trump or ANYONE is willing to completely divest from new york/california.. lol
because you can move your business out of newyork, sure. financial center of the world who cares i guess. but then you cant bank with any bank that is has significant contacts in new york because the state has an interest in protecting their banks from fraud. you c
redicolously outdated according to you but
You realize if Trump had paid Daniels with everything else being identical including the falsification but with money in a corporate account incorporated in a county with a republican DA it would have walked right?
The predicate crimes are the 34 counts of fraud he was found guilty of and are not the crimes you listed.
Again, they had to prove an intent to use the fraudulent transaction in another crime. I believe a jury could infer his intent to commit tax fraud simply by labeling the payments as a deductible business expense rather than personal income or some other expenditure or non deductible business expense. Trump claimed it was a mistake, not
No man the predicated crimes are the crimes he was helping, hiding or whatever through those 34 falsification.
Hiding private information from the public isn't illegal tampering with elections btw, that's not a crime
New series: Orangeman is the new black. The series begins revolving around Donald Trump, an 80 year-old woman living in New York City who is sentenced to 15 months in Litchfield Penitentiary, a minimum-security federal prison in Upstate New York.
Coz only blacks go to prison, right? Racist ban.
redicolously outdated according to you but
You realize if Trump had paid Daniels with everything else being identical including the falsification but with money in a corporate account incorporated in a county with a republican DA it would have walked right?
That’s a pretty big, unsupportable conclusion.
You realize if Trump had paid Daniels with everything else being identical including the falsification but with money in a corporate account incorporated in a county with a republican DA it would have walked right?
The actual money paid to Daniels came from a shell account registered in Delaware, a state with a Repulican DA nominated by Trump himself. The repayment to Cohen came, in part, from Trump's personal account so I'm not sure it makes any difference where the Trust that some of the payments came from was registered if Trump's personal bank was NY based.
You realize if Trump had paid Daniels with everything else being identical including the falsification but with money in a corporate account incorporated in a county with a republican DA it would have walked right?
all of those billionaires most likely still maintain private residences in NY, spend large portions of their time in New York, and have business interests in New York which would all subject them to the jurisdiction of New York. rich people dont want to live in red shitholes. they want to spend time in nyc and LA not houston and tampa.
and yes i understand the concept of prosecutorial discretion and how red states would ignore crimes committed by republicans. which is bad.
