Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ok, what was the crime he intended to commit or conceal?
Have you read the judge's charge to the jury?
Facing reality is hard stuff.
In those instructions, Justice Merchan explained that under New York state law, falsifying business records is a felony only when it is done to conceal a second crime.
`Have you considered the possibility that the lawyers from both sides did a good job of picking a jury and that there were no dishonest fools on it? One thing that was mentioned multiple times is that the jury paid attention throughout the entire trial. The appeared to want to find the truth. The fact that even Trump's witness made it obvious that Trump was guilty made it rather easy for them.
Crime? Crimes, all 34 counts.
It's readily available if you are curious. All 34 counts. Read up on the matter if you are so oblivious to the facts. I'm not here to argue that Trump was found guilty by a jury of all 34 counts, that is a fact. There's nothing to dispute. If you aren't informed on the crimes, then that is your liability, not the jurors who convicted Trump. They listened to the prosecution and the defense, and the prosecution made their case 100%.
I think they don't care. They know what they want and that's all the thinking they do. These people have no commitment to America, just their tribe. They don't mind that Trump committed crimes against America because they care about him more. They seem to care about America not at all. They don't cherish the Constitution (especially the separation of powers), democracy, the sanctity of elections, the rule of law or the sanctity of the court system, or church-state separation. How do they differ from Putin or the Taliban in that regard?
It looks like the hush money was repaid in eleven payments, For which we have eleven invoices, eleven cancelled checks, and twelve vouchers. That's 34 documents. They were all produced as evidence. So, it's reasonable to expect that anybody who considered any one of these a crime would consider them all crimes. Personally, I only see one crime here, but I'm not an attorney.
Whose fault is that? Either Trump's or his attorney's. He was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up a second crime. That's the answer to Trump's question.
I understand that like you, he insists on the jury being unanimous about what that second crime was, but that's not how the law reads. He wasn't charged with the second crime, so the jury didn't need to be unanimous about what it was.
As I understand it, the principal crime was falsifying financial records (misdemeanor) in furtherance of a second crime (elevates it to felony), which included such things as campaign finance crimes and election interference (catch-and-kill). Read more here if you like.
Does he say in there what the other crime was?
I ask again what was the crime he was trying to commit or conceal by falsifying the records?
You would know if you read it. He named three potential secondary crimes.
It's like they are trying to make sense of a 1000 piece puzzle a few pieces at a time. "These five pieces don't make sense to me." Yeah, you have to look at the all the pieces set in place, and then they can make sense of it. Of course they have a subconscious reason to not look at the whole picture, as if being confused doesn't make them look foolish.
Ok, so which of the three unlawful means did he use? Trump does not know what means he was convicted of using. That is a problem no matter what the judge said. Why do you think that is ok?In those instructions, Justice Merchan explained that under New York state law, falsifying business records is a felony only when it is done to conceal a second crime.
Prosecutors say that Mr. Trump falsified records to conceal a violation of a little-known state election law — Section 17-152 — that forbids conspiracies “to promote or prevent” a person’s election “by unlawful means.”
Justice Merchan made clear that the “unlawful means” mentioned in the election law could include violations of any of three other measures: a federal law governing election contributions, a state law governing false business records or tax laws, including those at a state or federal level.
Justice Merchan then said that while the jury would have to “conclude unanimously” that Mr. Trump had violated Section 17-152 to find Mr. Trump guilty, they did not have to be unanimous about the “unlawful means” that were used.
In other words, the jurors did not have to agree on which of the three other laws had been violated as he conspired to win election. The judge’s instruction is consistent with case law on the topic.
Trump and His Allies Push False Account of What the Judge Told Jurors
A tweet from a Fox News anchor falsely said that the jury would not have to settle unanimously on a charge to find the former president guilty.www.nytimes.com
That's how the law works there. Why are you opposed to equal justice? Should Trump be treated differently than others convicted under this law?
Considering the questions and testimony reread request sent back to the judge from the deliberation room, I would say that the crime that upheld the falsification of records crime from misdemeanor to felony would probably have been:
I think Trump supporters know precisely how it works , and there's a word for it that meets the definition of lawfare.
No, but who else has been convicted with this law theory?
If I was the accused I would want to know by which means I was convicted.