Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (9 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    What will happen now that former President Donald Trump was found guilty (in 34 counts) by the jury?
    *
    Speculation on the judge relating to sentencing?
    *
    Appeals?
    *
    Political Damage?
    *
     
    A crime requires charges, indictments, trial and conviction.
    This is just completely false. No, the amplification of charges does NOT require that the amplifier be prosecuted. You are getting bad info here, from everything that I have heard or read.

    I will stop here as I now see that your post has been thoroughly addressed by LA. Respectfully you need better sources of information because I see you posting opinions from far right sources a lot. Maybe you should read a wider variety of sources?
     
    Sentencing has been delayed until September. 😡
     
    And? Again you're posting things and not explaining how it affects the case we're discussing. This doesn't change a thing.
    Seems rather obvious. It says “The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.”. Merchan didn’t require a unanimous decision. Rather solid grounds for reversal on appeal
     
    Seems rather obvious. It says “The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.”. Merchan didn’t require a unanimous decision. Rather solid grounds for reversal on appeal

    Can you show where Merchan instructed the jury that a unanimous decision was not required?
     
    Can you show where Merchan instructed the jury that a unanimous decision was not required?
    Merchan’s jury instructions state:

    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 unlawful means: (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.
    In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.

     
    Merchan’s jury instructions state:


    In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.


    Reposting the instructions here, highlighting the part you clearly missed:

    "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 unlawful means: (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."

    Hope that helps you see that you are completely wrong.
     
    Reposting the instructions here, highlighting the part you clearly missed:

    "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 unlawful means: (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."

    Hope that helps you see that you are completely wrong.
    Yeah, that's been posted more than once and he just pretends it doesn't exist.
     
    Merchan’s jury instructions state:


    In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.

    Lol, you're missing some important parts. Fortunately another poster posted it.
     
    The falsification requires another crime in order for there to be a felony. A crime requires charges, indictments, trial and conviction. None of that happened. There was no charge/specific statutory citation or identification for either the state election law or federal tax law in the charges. They were not litigated at any point during the prosecution. That’s a bit of a fifth amendment due process issue.

    I know others have addressed it, but just to put the final pin in it, here is what the law actually says:

    "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

    Note that last part after the last comma: "when his intent to defraud includes an INTENT to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

    It does not require another crime. It does not require charges, indictments, trial, and conviction. It simply requires proving that there was an INTENT to commit/aid/conceal another crime.

    The alleged crimes that were not charged, indicted, tried and convicted were revealed in closing arguments. One was a state election law. Congress has carved out election law for federal campaigns so state election law doesn’t apply.

    Why not? The law says "another crime." How can "another crime" be interpreted to only mean certain crimes within certain jurisdictions. In plain english "another crime," means any other crime.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom