Trump's Conviction and the 6th Amendment.

[McBell]

Trump seems to think it's going to be over a century consecutively.

He might.
Though I would like to think that his lawyers would have mentioned the word 'concurrent' at some point.

 

[Riders]

Why should we have all that chatting about conspiracy all over the place? There's no proof of a conspiracy.

 

[Lyndon]

Republicans have a House committee investigating the weaponization of government by Democrats. They have complained bitterly about partisan Democratic influence in government institutions. All of these criminal trials appear to them to be examples of that weaponization. Keep that in mind when you consider that Speaker Johnson has publicly called on the Republican-dominated Supreme Court to intervene and overturn the criminal conviction of their presumptive nominee for 2024 election.

Johnson urges Supreme Court to "step in" on Trump verdict​

Because Democrats are using government institutions for partisan political purposes.

yes it appears the supreme court will be using government institution for gop political purposes as they have been doing repeatadly

 

[Pogo]

Why should we have all that chatting about conspiracy all over the place? There's no proof of a conspiracy.

Because it serves Trumps desire for attention and gullible people are gullible.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Liberals so often have a problem when Pubs
don't serve in the military. But they never
apply that standard to their own.
And they appear to be quite comfortable
with government's authority to draft healthy
young men by random choice....no problem
with the caprice, the sexism, the loss of right.

Back in the days when there was an active draft, it was hard to find a liberal who favored the draft, especially if that person were of draft age. Libertarians also tended to be more liberal than conservative back then. Liberals tended to have a problem when Pubs favored the war but avoided combat service for themselves. The most favored method of dodging the draft was by enlistment into a military service that was unlikely to send the enlistee into combat. Donald Trump's father detested military service and all but disowned one of his sons for joining the Air Force. Donald took the safer course and got a doctor to diagnose him with bone spurs. GW Bush had a Pub politician father, so he got an arranged enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard, which he reportedly went AWOL from much of the time.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What crime?

From Judge Merchan's Jury Instruction:

INTENT TO COMMIT OR CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME
For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. 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.

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.

“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. It is also unlawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act for any corporation to willfully make a contribution of any amount to a candidate or candidate’s campaign in connection with any federal election, or for any person to cause such a corporate contribution. For purposes of these prohibitions, an expenditure made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or his agents shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate.

The terms CONTRIBUTION and EXPENDITURE include anything of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office. Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution. FECA’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” do not include any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a magazine, periodical publication, or similar press entity, so long as such activity is a normal, legitimate press function. This is called the press exemption. For example, the term legitimate press function includes solicitation letters seeking new subscribers to a publication.

FALSIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS

The second of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will define for you now is the falsification of other business records. Under New York law, a person is guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree when with intent to defraud, he or she makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise. I previously defined for you the terms enterprise, business records, and intent to defraud. For purposes of determining whether Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree was an unlawful means used by a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election here, you may consider: (i) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s account formation paperwork for Resolution Consultants LLC and Essential Consultants LLC accounts; (ii) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s wire to Keith Davidson; (iii) the invoice from Investor Advisory Services Inc. to Resolution Consultants LLC; and (iv) the 1099-MISC forms that the Trump Organization issued to Michael Cohen.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can we send all these people back to 9th grade civics class for remediation?
Or has postmodernism just reached Kafkaesque proportions and time to end it all.

Somehow, all these blowhards simply can't figure out that charges in NY state are tried by NY courts, over which the feds have zero jurisdiction. They also haven't noticed that the finding of guilt was not by a judge, or prosecutors, but by a jury of ordinary people, chosen with the consent of the state's prosecutors and the defense's lawyers, and that those findings of guilt are 100% non-political.

I'm stumped as to how they can have missed this simple fact -- except to suppose that they listen to their rabid right sources and simply believe everything they say, and can't navigate a thought of their own with a roadmap.

 

[Copernicus]

Somehow, all these blowhards simply can't figure out that charges in NY state are tried by NY courts, over which the feds have zero jurisdiction. They also have noticed that the finding of guilt was not by a judge, or prosecutors, but by a jury of ordinary people, chosen with the consent of the state's prosecutors and the defense's lawyers, and that those findings of guilt are 100% non-political.

I'm stumped as to how they can have missed this simple fact -- except to suppose that they listen to their rabid right sources and simply believe everything they say, and can't navigate a thought of their own with a roadmap.

Exactly right. Judge Juan Merchan is a Supreme Court judge in the state of New York, not a federal judge. The charges are state crimes, not federal crimes. The journalistic media often fail to mention this in their reports, but they often do talk about it when the subject is unavoidable. Low information voters and politicians don't know about it, and politicians who do know about it can use that ignorance to manipulate voters--like Speaker Johnson's nutty appeal to get the MAGA wing of the Supreme Court to find a way to overturn the conviction.

 

[Revoltingest]

Back in the days when there was an active draft, it was hard to find a liberal who favored the draft, especially if that person were of draft age.

I recall many liberals back then favoring the draft.
They tended to oppose the war, but they loved
the idea that it mixed races & classes....albeit
only for young healthy hetero males.

Libertarians also tended to be more liberal than conservative back then.

We still are in some aspects of public policy.
I've not noticed any change.

Liberals tended to have a problem when Pubs favored the war but avoided combat service for themselves. The most favored method of dodging the draft was by enlistment into a military service that was unlikely to send the enlistee into combat. Donald Trump's father detested military service and all but disowned one of his sons for joining the Air Force. Donald took the safer course and got a doctor to diagnose him with bone spurs. GW Bush had a Pub politician father, so he got an arranged enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard, which he reportedly went AWOL from much of the time.

Don't forget Biden & Clinton, who also skirted the draft,
a claim of asthma, & political connections respectively.
Liberals were silent on these.

 

[Copernicus]

I recall many liberals back then favoring the draft.
They tended to oppose the war, but they loved
the idea that it mixed races & classes....albeit
only for young healthy hetero males.

Your recollection skews a little differently from mine. I ran a volunteer draft and military counseling center at the time, so I was exposed to the gamut of opinions on that subject quite thoroughly. One liberal objection to the draft was that it was elitist and favored the white wealthy middle class. But it was a fact that a high proportion of those who ended up being drafted into combat belonged to black and other minorities because of the way deferments were structured. That's one of the reasons why student college deferments were ended--because those who couldn't afford to go to college didn't have that option available to them. Ultimately, the lottery was implemented to further address the racial imbalance. Integration of the armed forces had been well-established since the Korean war, so it wasn't about mixing races.

The hetero vs gay issue wasn't a liberal thing. Liberals more or less tended to be against the law that discriminated against gay men in the military, but it was also seen by some as a way of beating the draft. As a draft counselor, I had to disabuse a lot of people against dumb ideas to beat the system. If someone admitted to being gay, then they were obviously faking it to stay out of the army. However, once in the military, gays were court-martialed and treated as if they were psychopaths.

We still are in some aspects of public policy.
I've not noticed any change.

For some reason, that reminds me of the "frog in boiling water" myth. Your views may have evolved slowly because you have always been immersed in libertarianism. Libertarians tended to hang out more with Democrats than Republicans back then. Nowadays, libertarians tend to be viewed as a branch of the Republican Party. That's why Trump thought he had a shot at getting the Libertarian nomination.

Don't forget Biden & Clinton, who also skirted the draft,
a claim of asthma, & political connections respectively.
Liberals were silent on these.

Clinton used a legal loophole to skirt the draft--enrolling in ROTC in order to finish out his college education, since 2-S student deferments had been ended. He did not follow through on a promise to join the Reserve Officer Training Corps upon graduation. He then became draft-eligible, but he ended up with a high lottery number. Biden and Trump both had 2-S deferments until they were dropped. Biden actually had documented asthma, so he received a 1-Y deferment: draft-eligible only in time of national emergencies. Trump's bone spurs were reported by a doctor, and his family's wealthy connections helped him get the 1-Y deferment. Later on, he was given a permanent IV-F medical deferment, because...well, those bone spurs must really have been terrible. When running for President, Trump first claimed he only missed being drafted because of his high lottery number, but Selective Service records revealed his medical strategy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your recollection skews a little differently from mine. I ran a volunteer draft and military counseling center at the time, so I was exposed to the gamut of opinions on that subject quite thoroughly.

My perspective was news + many discussions with all sorts.

One liberal objection to the draft was that it was elitist and favored the white wealthy middle class. But it was a fact that a high proportion of those who ended up being drafted into combat belonged to black and other minorities because of the way deferments were structured. That's one of the reasons why student college deferments were ended--because those who couldn't afford to go to college didn't have that option available to them. Ultimately, the lottery was implemented to further address the racial imbalance. Integration of the armed forces had been well-established since the Korean war, so it wasn't about mixing races.

The hetero vs gay issue wasn't a liberal thing. Liberals more or less tended to be against the law that discriminated against gay men in the military, but it was also seen by some as a way of beating the draft. As a draft counselor, I had to disabuse a lot of people against dumb ideas to beat the system. If someone admitted to being gay, then they were obviously faking it to stay out of the army. However, once in the military, gays were court-martialed and treated as if they were psychopaths.



For some reason, that reminds me of the "frog in boiling water" myth. Your views may have evolved slowly because you have always been immersed in libertarianism. Libertarians tended to hand out more with Democrats than Republicans back then. Nowadays, libertarians tend to be viewed as a Republican constituency.

"Tend to be viewed as" is a Democrat perspective,
based upon my discussions with lefties. Most
Republicans seem to ignore us as irrelevant.

Clinton used a legal loophole to skirt the draft--enrolling in ROTC in order to finish out his college education, since 2-S student deferments had been ended. He did not follow through on a promise to join the Reserve Officer Training Corps upon graduation. He then became draft-eligible, but he ended up with a high lottery number. Biden and Trump both had 2-S deferments until they were dropped. Biden actually had documented asthma, so he received a 1-Y deferment: draft-eligible only in time of national emergencies. Trump's bone spurs were reported by a doctor, and his family's wealthy connections helped him get the 1-Y deferment. Later on, he was given a permanent IV-F medical deferment, because...well, those bone spurs must really have been terrible. At first, Trump claimed he only escaped the draft because of his high lottery number, but Selective Service records revealed his medical strategy.

They all had their tools to avoid the draft.
Mine turned out to be Nixon's cancelling
it in the nick of time.

 

[Copernicus]

They all had their tools to avoid the draft.
Mine turned out to be Nixon's cancelling
it in the nick of time.

When Nixon cancelled the draft in 1973, it was already set to expire a few months later anyway. He felt that ending the draft was the only way to significantly weaken the antiwar protest movement. The lottery system had already begun the process. However, protests didn't really wind down until the war wound down and the troops came home.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Trump was convicted of 34 felonies that have a max sentencing of 100+ years in jail with the defendant not knowing what crime he was convicted of. Think about that.

Perhaps you don't know "what crime he was convicted of," but, to give Trump his due, even he is not that stupid.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Perhaps you don't know "what crime he was convicted of," but, to give Trump his due, even he is not that stupid.

Isn't there a point at the beginning where the judge asks the defendant 'Do you understand the nature of the charges against you?'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't there a point at the beginning where the judge asks the defendant 'Do you understand the nature of the charges against you?'

Interesting question.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Enjoy.

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

manhattanda.org

BTW, do you have any legeal experience and knowledge about criminal procedure?

So which crime did the jury convict him of? Not what theories Bragg told them to consider.

Why isn't it right? Can you explain to me how you have superior knowledge of New York law that the prosecutor and judge?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

But even if you had some basis for that issue it's irrelevant since all counts were decided guilty.

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

It was the fraud of paying off Daniels for her silence (which isn't a crime) through Cohen, and then paying back Cohen under FALSE statements of legal services, and then adding more money to the reibursement to cover the taxes on the $130,000, which is fraud. They also had to pay Cohen for the taxes on the extra money that was to cover the taxes, so it ended up costing Trump about $480,000 just to pay back the $130,000. It wasn't income, but it was reported on tax forms as being income. That's fraud that Trump was involved with, and he signed all those checks. And then this meant violations of election finance laws. Do you need me to do your homework for you on this as well? I'm curious why you are posting views but haven't researched the facts.

All this was motivated because Trump was running for president and didn't want the public to know about his cheating on his wife with a porn star. The witnesses confirmed that Trump was aware of all elements of the scheme. The jury was convinced.

The "second" crime was any of those included in the indictment. The jury was instructed on these rules. They decided Trump was guilty on all counts. So this "second" crime issue is irrelevant.

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

All crmes were detailed as counts in the indictment. There were 34 counts, and that means 34 crimes. Are you not aware of this?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

Then he should have stayed awake during the trial, and had his lawyers explain it to him. It was all laid out by the prosecution, and the jury was unanimous that all were done by Trump intentionally. Being ignorant of the law is no excuse to get away with the crimes. Remember, Trump has had many attorneys in his orbit that have been indicted and/or had their law licenses revoked. Rudy Guliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Jeffery Clark, Kenneth Cheseboro, Sydney powell, and Cohen himself. His orbit is one of corruption, fraud, and destruction of those who help him. Trump is not exempt from justice. And there are more fools lined up to be the next set of corrupt and fallen characters in MAGA politics. They all hope that Trump wins, and uses his power to subvert the law so they can get a way with crimes this time.

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

This is all I want to know right now. Can you tell me? One sentence is all you need.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I tend to agree but am not going to bet the house on it. He has to get some time or the whole thing is just a farce bailing out rich people. If you and I got convicted on such counts, we're going to do "time".

We would not be prosecuted for this crime.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So which crime did the jury convict him of? Not what theories Bragg told them to consider.

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

What was the crime Trump was convicted of?

This is all I want to know right now. Can you tell me? One sentence is all you need.

From the first link in that post:

"TRUMP is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree."

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When I served on jury, there was deliberations if the guy was guilty or not and then there was "choosing" if the guy used a gun or not.
Learn how the system works.

So what was Trump convicted of?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Perhaps you don't know "what crime he was convicted of," but, to give Trump his due, even he is not that stupid.

So what was it?