Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 03:37:34 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <v3aqcf$1rrag$1@dont-email.me> <v3e1s4$2jl5q$1@dont-email.me> <KhSdndu6vPrVH8b7nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com> <v3g2n4$2vf92$1@dont-email.me> <v3lu96$8cnf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <v3lu96$8cnf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 96
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:37:34 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4858
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17d5c04978370f91$113113$3919488$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5255

On 6/3/24 9:31 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> May 31, 2024 at 7:43:16 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:54:32 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-31 10:46:00 +0000, FPP said:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/24 4:48 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 4:17 PM, FPP wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>> GUILTY. All 34 counts.
> 
>>>>>>>> I called it. Let the whining begin!
> 
>>>>>>> Yup... I was shooting for Friday.  Really surprised, since a half hour
>>>>>>> before, the judge was shutting it down for the day.
> 
>>>>>> Trump the Chump's whining startedd immediately and his braindead
>>>>>> supports declared "war" not long after.
> 
>>>>>> Not that this decision means anything in reality. The whole mess will
>>>>>> drag on for years longer yet with numerous appeals, counter-appeals,
>>>>>> etc. Trump the Chump and most of the witnesses will be dead of old age
>>>>>> before it ends, and even then you'll probably have their kids trying to
>>>>>> clear their names one way or another.
> 
>>>>> Not that long but yes, it will likely go on for a couple of years.
>>>>> There are two level of appeals at the NY state level and then Trump
>>>>> can try to jump to the US Supreme Court if both levels of appeal fail
>>>>> to overturn the verdict.
> 
>>>> There's no direct appeal from state court to federal court. They have to
>>>> find a federal issue to dispute.
> 
>>> There is a federal issue. The predicate crime that the state used to
>>> bootstrap the state charges despite it being beyond the statute of
>>> limitations was a federal crime, and one that both the DOJ and the FEC
>>> had already looked at and determined there was no violation. So the
>>> question of whether the entire basis of the state's case was valid is
>>> a federal question.
> 
>> I am certainly not going to agree that the feds ever made a finding of no
>> violation. Prosecutors never say that out loud, anyway, when there are no
>> charges preferred against the target of the investigation. The FEC isn't
>> doing its job if every entity those funds passed through didn't receive
>> a letter in which they found campaign disclosure violations. Fines should
>> have been issued.
> 
>> Do we know why prosecution was limited to Michael Cohen?
> 
>> Say, was Stormy Daniels herself obligated to make disclosure?
> 
>> I don't see how the issue is moot because the underlying crime can no
>> longer be charged.
> 
>> Trump's complaints that Biden is behind the conspiracy are equal
>> protection but I doubt there's an actual equal protection argument to
>> make. Mark Levin's tweet, that I referenced elsewhere, had several due
>> process arguments to make.
> 
>> But the issue of the state law itself cannot be contested in federal
>> court.
> 
> Ok. The point BTR1701 made here has bothered me for days.


Excellent.


  I didn't track
> down the language of the criminal statute Trump was charged under, but I
> found descriptions of what the charges were. I'll assume it's consistent
> with the law, else Trump would have gotten the charges thrown out.
> 
> 	In New York, in order for the charge of falsifying business
> 	records to be bumped up to a felony, one must commit the crime
> 	of falsifying business records when the "intent to defraud
> 	includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal
> 	the commission thereof."
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/whats-in-trumps-indictment/
> 
> To provide the case, the state doesn't prove that there was a violation
> of the underlying law. The state proves intent to commit another crime,
> or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
> 
> The state must prove intent to commit the crime without, in fact,
> proving that the underlying crime was committed?
> 
> Can one intend to commit a crime be proven without the crime having been
> committed? The intent is the criminal act for the purpose of the
> criminal charge of fraud based on proving intent in the underlying
> crime?
> 
> I don't get it.