Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:31:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <eg106j5p8p3av1c36movkh9k0sqt2tqnk7@4ax.com>
References: <v3aqcf$1rrag$1@dont-email.me> <v3od8t$l8k0$2@dont-email.me> <f5jv5jpna2biv39j32ubogdeihne3kl46h@4ax.com> <v3oonk$qok4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:31:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64731f48cd82b81af6a5ce93bc00d592";
	logging-data="915707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rY8z7db3u1XFA2TWqDhMp8VhFQ2Kzr5A="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r0aC6jVFI1DOCigI6etDZUNs4yU=
Bytes: 7354

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:14:44 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-06-05 02:26:33 +0000, shawn said:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:06:04 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 2024 at 5:59:11 PM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:00 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 7:31 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. 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Possession of tools to commit burglary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm going to need a little more here to understand what the state must
>>>>> prove. Do the police need to find evidence of what property was about to
>>>>> be burgled? Otherwise I don't see how intent to commit the crime of
>>>>> burglary could be proved.
>>>> 
>>>> I was meaning to point out that possession of the tools used to commit
>>>> burglaries is, in and of itself, illegal in most jurisdictions.  There
>>>> is no need to prove that there was a burglary committed or even an
>>>> intent to commit one. Just having the tools to do so is illegal.
>>> 
>>> There has to be more than mere possession because every typical American
>>> household contains the tools to commit burglary.
>> 
>> Isn't it an issue of having the tools on your person while outside the
>> home? So it doesn't matter what you have at home.
>
>So how would you get your newly purchased hammer back home from the store??
>
>It's a ridiculous "law", if indeed it is actually one ... which 
>wouldn't surprise me in the least, since it *is* America, which is full 
>of rather ridiculous laws.
>

A hammer wouldn't be an issue. Having lock picking tools would be an
issue.