(05-31-2024 10:38 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:30 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  It’ll be overturned eventually. Biden still doesn’t have a prayer in November against him.

In thr meantime theyve marytred him for every person screwed by the system

Low iq governed by passion. Its why they lose once peoole get annoyed enough

Exactly!!!!

I have told celebrating FOOLS for months now you are pushing more folks to vote for Trump that either don’t care or don’t vote.

Americans see what is going on. Most don’t follow politics but they do follow stories especially when they perceive THE MAN IS HEAVY HANDED.

$34 million is just one evening with Trump spouting what Christ said over 2000 years ago.

If they will do this to me, what will they do to you?

Real question for someone on the LEFT to ask themselves

Would this trial even be taking place if Trump wasn’t running for President?

Be honest with yourself

I've given up even responding to the ideologically crippled idiots.

Anybody who thinks that was a fair trial and is the way justice should be handled in a constitutional republic is either ridiculously stupid or ridiculously biased, to the detriment of our country.

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:34 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsify...nal%20Law.

It’ll ask once again, what’s the crime that was committed to make this misdemeanor a felony?

Maybe you don't know this, but there was a trial. Both sides presented their arguments, and a jury decided that he was guilty on 34 felony counts.

What part of that don't you understand?

And we have a system for a reason. And trump has the ability to appeal after the sentence is handed down on July 11th.

We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows---and Im not sure the jury even specifically knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil rights precedents determining that a unanimous jury decision is required on ALL specific individual elements of any conviction chain). Oooopss.....

(05-31-2024 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:34 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  It’ll ask once again, what’s the crime that was committed to make this misdemeanor a felony?

Maybe you don't know this, but there was a trial. Both sides presented their arguments, and a jury decided that he was guilty on 34 felony counts.

What part of that don't you understand?

And we have a system for a reason. And trump has the ability to appeal after the sentence is handed down on July 11th.

We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil right precedents on the constitutional rights of defendants). Oooopss.....

He knows all of this. He just doesn't care. Team above all.

(05-31-2024 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:34 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  It’ll ask once again, what’s the crime that was committed to make this misdemeanor a felony?

Maybe you don't know this, but there was a trial. Both sides presented their arguments, and a jury decided that he was guilty on 34 felony counts.

What part of that don't you understand?

And we have a system for a reason. And trump has the ability to appeal after the sentence is handed down on July 11th.

We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows---and Im not sure the jury even specifically knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil rights precedents determining that a unanimous jury decision is required on ALL specific individual elements of any conviction chain). Oooopss.....

(05-31-2024 01:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've given up even responding to the ideologically crippled idiots.

Anybody who thinks that was a fair trial and is the way justice should be handled in a constitutional republic is either ridiculously stupid or ridiculously biased, to the detriment of our country.

Or just evil

(05-31-2024 03:58 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 01:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've given up even responding to the ideologically crippled idiots.

Anybody who thinks that was a fair trial and is the way justice should be handled in a constitutional republic is either ridiculously stupid or ridiculously biased, to the detriment of our country.

Or just evil

Yeah, that, too.

(05-29-2024 01:28 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  I’ve never heard of anything like I just read.

Please explain the filth and corruption Tanq?

Hard to be lawful morally upright when you are sleazy and slimy.

Repulsive at best. And Liberals just sat quiet just like those in Nazi Germany.

Splitting the jury into sub-groups is not proper. I would like to see something more tangible on that besides a tweet.

The issue on the jury not having to agree on *which* crime is the predicate is actually proper. The statute simply says that the E-felony is met when "[the] intent to [change the records]includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

It doesnt matter *which* crime there is intent with -- just that there is 'intent to commit another crime' with the change.

NY has addressed this provision a few times in their Sup Court -- if there are a multiple of crimes that are the underlying predicate, all that matters is that the entire jury agree that there was an intent to commit some other crime. Not that all agree on only one crime across the board.

A good example is the typical burglary charge. In most cases the statute or offense is 'breaking and entering into a home with the intent to commit a crime therein.' If a guy breaks in and the prosecution shows theft as one underlying crime, and assault as another -- the jury doesnt have to agree on *which* crime is the underlying crime. Just that the intent was to commit *a* crime.

If you all can substantiate Merhchan 'splitting jury into 4-4-4', I would like to see it.

(05-31-2024 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:34 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  It’ll ask once again, what’s the crime that was committed to make this misdemeanor a felony?

Maybe you don't know this, but there was a trial. Both sides presented their arguments, and a jury decided that he was guilty on 34 felony counts.

What part of that don't you understand?

And we have a system for a reason. And trump has the ability to appeal after the sentence is handed down on July 11th.

We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows---and Im not sure the jury even specifically knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil rights precedents determining that a unanimous jury decision is required on ALL specific individual elements of any conviction chain). Oooopss.....

The second crimes are included in the jury instructions. And were presented in the charging documents.

As to the bolded, the specific element is 'intent to commit *a* crime'. Any crime. Even one among three. Just that there was an intent to commit any crime along with the action. There is also precedent that supports that.

Literally 200 years of burglary charges with that same issue. Oooooops.

(05-31-2024 09:34 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:02 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 08:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2024 05:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Agnew and Nixon were legally guilty. They actually broke laws.

Trump was guilty of running for President against the Dems, and they figured out how to railroad him. BIG difference.

You'll see that eventually on appeal, but the Dems will have gotten what they wanted.

It's just precious how you dismiss our system of justice only when you don't like the outcome.

What’s the underlined crime (felony) then that was committed in falsifying business records (a misdemeanor)?

Quote:FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS: DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS
The legal language establishing the degrees of Falsifying Business Records have specifically defined elements and terms that not merely may but will have an impact on your case. Two of these words, "enterprise" and "business record," for example, have specific meanings that you must discuss with your counsel. Simply, if you delete, alter or make a false entry in the business records of an enterprise and you do so with the intent to defraud, you have run afoul of the misdemeanor crime. If when you do so, you also have the intent to further or conceal another criminal offense, then you have committed the felony crime.

Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree - NY Penal Law 175.05
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree - NY Penal Law 175.10

Equally important to your understanding of the elements, there is an affirmative defense codified in the New York Penal Law. If you are an employee acting by order of a supervisor and you are obtaining no benefit to alter the records in question, then you have not committed this crime. Because of your potential exposure to a felony or misdemeanor conviction based on what may be fairly insignificant conduct, it is critical to challenge not merely the basis and probable cause of your arrest, legal foundation of a search by the police, and statement you may have made, but every element of these crimes. At bottom, you cannot leave any proverbial stone unturned.

https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsify...nal%20Law.

It’ll ask once again, what’s the crime that was committed to make this misdemeanor a felony?

Combination of Federal campaign finance violations, New York Election Law section 17-152, and a few federal and NY tax violations -- "knowingly supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any tax return."

I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

(05-31-2024 08:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

How can that be ethical or legal? All 12 can find him guilty but they can have the ability to disagree on what exactly the underlined crime was committed.

How can Trump appeal, let’s say on grounds of campaign finance violations if he doesn’t know whether or Apprentice the jury actually found him guilty on campaign finance violations?

(05-31-2024 08:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

And that is how the NY False Records act has been read by the NY S. Ct. previously.

Trump paid Cohen and his bookkeepers called it a legal expense AFTER the election. How do you ACTIVELY affect an election AFTER it has taken place?

(05-31-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 08:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

And that is how the NY False Records act has been read by the NY S. Ct. previously.

You should have stayed in your hole. You are just making pshit up now. The trial NEVER brought up an underlying crime. The judge just told the jury they could ASSUME the defendant was intent on committing one during instruction.

(05-31-2024 09:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 08:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

How can that be ethical or legal? All 12 can find him guilty but they can have the ability to disagree on what exactly the underlined crime was committed.

What *has* to happen is that all agree that at least one of the cited crimes was the intent to do the False Documents portion. If any one juror did not believe that any one of the 3 cited crimes was not an intent to do the False records, they would have to vote to acquit. That obviously did not happen.

Quote:How can Trump appeal, let’s say on grounds of campaign finance violations if he doesn’t know whether or Apprentice the jury actually found him guilty on campaign finance violations?

The jury doesnt 'find him guilty' on the underlying crime. They must believe, to vote to convict, that Trump was committing, or trying to commit, one of the three crimes listed in the jury instructions when he performed the violation of the False Records.

(05-31-2024 09:35 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 08:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched most of the coverage. I don't think the jury was split into three groups.

Merchan simply said that if the jury splits 4-4-4 on the underlying crime, he would consider that to be a unanimous verdict.

And that is how the NY False Records act has been read by the NY S. Ct. previously.

You should have stayed in your hole. You are just making pshit up now. The trial NEVER brought up an underlying crime. The judge just told the jury they could ASSUME the defendant was intent on committing one during instruction.

Incorrect. The judge told the jury that in order to vote to convict, they must find that the intent behind the act that brought up the False Records was performed in order to commit one of the three listed crimes. The judge *never* told the jury to assume anything in regards to the 'any one of the 3 crime predicate'.

Try reading the jury instructions. If the judge is telling the jury to assume those, please tell me where they are in the jury instructions. The JI are part of the public record. I look forward to the judge's direction to the jury in there about how they must assume anything of the sort.

And yes, the statute in question has already had that particular question put to the test by the NY S. Ct.

Second, the prosecution doesnt have to state in open court that 'hey, here is the crime we are using.' They *must* make it part of the jury instruction. The prosecution *absolutely* brought up acts that constitute the underlying predicate crimes -- and then in the jury instruction said 'here are the crimes that constitute the predicates, and here are the elements of those crimes..... and now jury you get to decide if the defendant and his conspirators were falsifying documents in order to hide the crimes.'

(05-31-2024 09:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Trump paid Cohen and his bookkeepers called it a legal expense AFTER the election. How do you ACTIVELY affect an election AFTER it has taken place?

There was ostensibly a campaign finance violation *prior* to the election. Trump tried to smother the Stormy Daniels story, had another person pay for it. The cover up of falsifying the business records occurred after the election, and as Trump tried to reimburse Cohen. That is, the actions that Cohen and Trump agreed to happen, and for which Cohen got popped for campaign finance fraud.

That is, the first crime was actively trying to affect an election, and an active campaign finance no no. The second crime was covering that up by falsifying the business records of the second transaction.

(05-31-2024 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Maybe you don't know this, but there was a trial. Both sides presented their arguments, and a jury decided that he was guilty on 34 felony counts.

What part of that don't you understand?

And we have a system for a reason. And trump has the ability to appeal after the sentence is handed down on July 11th.

We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows---and Im not sure the jury even specifically knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil rights precedents determining that a unanimous jury decision is required on ALL specific individual elements of any conviction chain). Oooopss.....

The second crimes are included in the jury instructions. And were presented in the charging documents.

As to the bolded, the specific element is 'intent to commit *a* crime'. Any crime. Even one among three. Just that there was an intent to commit any crime along with the action. There is also precedent that supports that.

Literally 200 years of burglary charges with that same issue. Oooooops.

Incorrect. The specific element is to cover up a crime—-(which is what elevates the misdemeanor to a felony and extends the statute of limitations to make the case viable) which requires the existence of a specific crime which is NOT revealed in the charging documents. Oppps.

(05-31-2024 10:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2024 10:10 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  We had a trial yet you can’t tell me what’s the underlined crime that was committed to bump this misdemeanor into a felony?

Not a lawyer...but pretty sure the judge and lawyers who tried the case are well aware.

But guessing from what I quoted above, the government proved that there was intent to further or conceal another criminal offense which rises it to the level of a felony in New York.

No---thats EXCATLY the point. Neither Trump or his defense lawyers have ANY idea what the second "crime" is. I dont even think the judge knows---and Im not sure the jury even specifically knows. That in and of itself is a Constitutional civil rights violation. American citizens have a right to know the crime and all the elements of the charge against them so they may face them and defend against them in court. On top of that, the judge literally said to the jury that they DO NOT have to agree on what the other crime is (which is in violation of multiple Supreme Court Civil rights precedents determining that a unanimous jury decision is required on ALL specific individual elements of any conviction chain). Oooopss.....

The second crimes are included in the jury instructions. And were presented in the charging documents.

As to the bolded, the specific element is 'intent to commit *a* crime'. Any crime. Even one among three. Just that there was an intent to commit any crime along with the action. There is also precedent that supports that.

Literally 200 years of burglary charges with that same issue. Oooooops.

Incorrect. The specific element is to cover up a crime—-(which is what elevates the misdemeanor to a felony and extends the statute of limitations to make the case viable) which requires the existence of a specific crime which is NOT revealed in the charging documents. Oppps.

Actually you are correct -- the factual bases of the elements arent in the charging docs. None of the elements of the charges in there have any factual predicate. I had forgotten that Bragg did the 'simply recite the charge' indictment, as opposed to the Willis and Smith style of heavily including factual bases in their respective charging documents.

And the intent is to hide another crime --- as you correctly state above.

The specific element is quite present in the jury instructions. In fact quite detailed.

You are incorrect that the issue is that all 12 people have to agree on a single crime. All 12 must agree that the act was undertaken to cover up any named crime. *That* is very well established NY law on the issue. Seems a few people in NY made that a centerpoint in their appeals on that point a bit back and lost.