Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:24:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <v3p3r6$s8sh$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3aqcf$1rrag$1@dont-email.me> <f5jv5jpna2biv39j32ubogdeihne3kl46h@4ax.com> <v3oonk$qok4$1@dont-email.me> <eg106j5p8p3av1c36movkh9k0sqt2tqnk7@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:24:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e0f50297c20d9b0ca53d85e880ae47bb";
	logging-data="926609"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198zCzKpa8gVsgAVX1o7+yu7DwTy7hxT3Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r8q/K8H0kfF5ANQZXKJdbqhcVa4=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 7574

shawn  <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>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.

shawn, look for a fabulous series of videos on YouTube by the
Lockpicking Lawyer. You'll change your mind.