Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

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?
*

Trump found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. Here's a breakdown.

A New York jury unanimously found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, a stunning conclusion to the historic trial of the former president.

www.yahoo.com

 

[TampaJoe]

I’m not worried about anything about this case. Trump is so clearly a criminal that this case is actually peanuts compared to his lifelong crime spree. Just like Capone, sometimes the system has to take what they can get.

He obviously deserved some form of punishment, but the fact that he won the election made that not practically possible.

He maligned the judge, the prosecutor, lied about the judge’s daughter, tampered openly with witnesses. I think the judge showed remarkable restraint.

And the irony of anyone on the conservative side saying any single thing about weaponization of the justice system in defense of Trump is really thick. Rather than being a “victim” Trump is the ultimate perpetrator. He’s been using the justice system to punish his enemies his entire life. And getting away with it. He’s the poster child for how unequal justice in America truly is.

If you fear that Trump will weaponize the justice system, my guess is that his version will look much like this. You have given him the blueprint for weaponization of the DOJ to go after political rivals.

 

[TampaJoe]

You may continue to ignore his criminal acts, don't expect others to ignore them.

I will give this case the same weight and deference that the Dems gave to Bill Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office.

 

[Sendai]

Cohen's conviction proves there was a crime committed which was directly related to trump's conviction.

Cohen's conviction proves there was a crime committed which was directly related to trump's conviction.

What does that have to do with the Supreme Courts requirement that state courts must require a unanimous jury verdict?

The FEC passed on trump because it knows there are no limits on candidate contributions.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I will give this case the same weight and deference that the Dems gave to Bill Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office.

I missed the part where Clinton paid off Monica then tried to hide the payment

That’s the same kind of whataboutism as Trump’s classified documents vs Biden’s and Pence’s

On the surface the same but really it isn’t

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

What does that have to do with the Supreme Courts requirement that state courts must require a unanimous jury verdict?

You do understand that you are making shirt up, right? The ruling, which you posted, refers to the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. When a defendant choose to enter a guilty plea, they are also waiving their right to a trial by jury.

The FEC passed on trump because it knows there are no limits on candidate contributions.

Another alternate reality position. He was unindicted because he was POTUS, I want to believe that you know this.

 

[Sendai]

You do understand that you are making shirt up, right? The ruling, which you posted, refers to the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. When a defendant choose to enter a guilty plea, they are also waiving their right to a trial by jury.

Another alternate reality position. He was unindicted because he was POTUS, I want to believe that you know this.

Ramos clearly established that state courts must require a unanimous jury verdict in state court criminal trials. Doesn’t matter the nature of the case. The court specifically included in the ruling the unanimous jury requirement as well.

He wasn’t potus from for the last 4 years and the FEC still took a pas.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Ramos clearly established that state courts must require a unanimous jury verdict in state court criminal trials. Doesn’t matter the nature of the case. The court specifically included in the ruling the unanimous jury requirement as well.

Not applicable because THE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL!

He wasn’t potus from for the last 4 years and the FEC still took a pas.

Well, NY didn't take a pass.

 

[Sendai]

Not applicable because THE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL!

Well, NY didn't take a pass.

“On April 20 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Ramos v. Louisiana, establishing that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), which filed an amicus brief in this case in June 2019, applauds the Court’s decision.

“Unanimous juries are a critical protection against injustice in criminal jury trials. They ensure that all jurors have a voice and a meaningful vote in the deliberative process,” said LDF President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill. “The reality of historical and ongoing racial discrimination makes unanimous juries particularly essential to the legitimacy of trials in the American justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision today marks a step forward in the long road to ensuring an unbiased jury system, which is essential for protecting our democracy.”

https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/ramos-v-louisiana/

Applicable

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

“On April 20 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Ramos v. Louisiana, establishing that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), which filed an amicus brief in this case in June 2019, applauds the Court’s decision.

“Unanimous juries are a critical protection against injustice in criminal jury trials. They ensure that all jurors have a voice and a meaningful vote in the deliberative process,” said LDF President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill. “The reality of historical and ongoing racial discrimination makes unanimous juries particularly essential to the legitimacy of trials in the American justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision today marks a step forward in the long road to ensuring an unbiased jury system, which is essential for protecting our democracy.”

https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/ramos-v-louisiana/

Applicable

 

[superchuck500]

A

The falsification of records misdemeanors statute of limitations had expired. Only way to resurrect was prove an additional crime occurred which would raise it to a felony.

The judge didn’t require an unanimous verdict by the jury, on an additional predicate crime, required to elevate the statute of limitations expired misdemeanor of falsification of records, to a felony.

6th amendment requires unanimous jury verdict. So federal.

What is this nonsense? The verdict was unanimous.

 

[TampaJoe]

I missed the part where Clinton paid off Monica then tried to hide the payment

That’s the same kind of whataboutism as Trump’s classified documents vs Biden’s and Pence’s

On the surface the same but really it isn’t

You also conveniently forgot the obstruction of justice part as well.

You can come up with hundreds of things to ignore corruption on the left while telling yourself somehow it’s different. Whatever floats your boat. But don’t expect everyone else to ignore the hypocrisy.

Get back to me when you decide to treat such corruption consistently. Until then, I’ll ignore the selective outrage. Turns out the voters largely ignored it as well. That dog don’t hunt anymore.

 

[faceman]

What is this nonsense? The verdict was unanimous.

Beat me to it. Merchan did tell the jury a unanimous verdict was needed and they gave one.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/judge-merchan-did-not-tell-jury-unanimous-verdict-wasnt-needed-convict-trump-2024-06-07/

 

[MT15]

Beat me to it. Merchan did tell the jury a unanimous verdict was needed and they gave one.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/judge-merchan-did-not-tell-jury-unanimous-verdict-wasnt-needed-convict-trump-2024-06-07/

It’s a right wing talking point that is largely irrelevant. As is the idea that Trump gets his ideas about weaponizing the justice system because of Dems.

Trump - who has weaponized the justice system against his enemies his entire life with nuisance lawsuits and stalling tactics that allowed him to stiff small businesses and deny payments to workers at his properties. Who campaigned in 2015 on “locking up” Clinton, who had been officially cleared by the DOJ. Who actually ordered his DOJ to try to lock her up after he won in 2016. Who actually ordered his AG to investigate Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign. And who actually got the House to investigate Biden comically for over a year only to come up with nothing.

Yeah, Trump is actually the victim of weaponization.

 

[superchuck500]

Beat me to it. Merchan did tell the jury a unanimous verdict was needed and they gave one.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/judge-merchan-did-not-tell-jury-unanimous-verdict-wasnt-needed-convict-trump-2024-06-07/

I think his point is that the "predicate crimes" - the elements that raise the misdemeanor fraudulent acts to felonies - were not, themselves, proven unanimously. While Ramos does indeed stand for the basic idea that juries must be unanimous under the 6th Amendment (rejecting Louisiana's Jim Crow era allowance for less than unanimous guilty verdicts), there's more specific case law about predicate crimes (e.g. RICO) that holds that those must also be subject to unanimous verdict.

We have actually gone over this earlier in the thread, and I think the difference is that the New York charge that the jury unanimously convicted Trump for does not include "predicate crime" as an element that must be proven. Rather, the associated (aggravating) element is that the falsification of the business record must be done with the intent to commit another crime or to conceal the commission thereof. The question, thus, is whether the jury finds the defendant's conduct was intended to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime . . . whereas "predicate crime" requires the jury find that the defendant actually committed another crime.

I think it's an essential distinction, but we'll have to see how Trump's lawyers present it on appeal.

 

[MT15]

Chuck, my memory is that the case presented more than one possible predicate crime and that the instruction to the jury was that they didn’t have to unanimously agree which predicate crime was proven as long as they all agreed that he committed a predicate crime. In other words the verdict was unanimous that a predicate crime was committed. They just didn’t have to all pick the same one.

 

[Sendai]

What is this nonsense? The verdict was unanimous.

The verdict on the falsification of records charge was unanimous. Which had expired due to statute of limitations. Hence the need for a predicate crime. I’ve seen no evidence that a singular predicate crime verdict was unanimous.

Are you of the opinion that Ramos v Louisiana established that states are required to meet the 6th requirement of unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases?

 

[Sendai]

Chuck, my memory is that the case presented more than one possible predicate crime and that the instruction to the jury was that they didn’t have to unanimously agree which predicate crime was proven as long as they all agreed that he committed a predicate crime. In other words the verdict was unanimous that a predicate crime was committed. They just didn’t have to all pick the same one.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court’s view on a crime is that the specific charge requires unanimous jury verdict in order for it to be a crime. Not a menu of one from column a or b or c.

 

[TampaJoe]

I think his point is that the "predicate crimes" - the elements that raise the misdemeanor fraudulent acts to felonies - were not, themselves, proven unanimously. While Ramos does indeed stand for the basic idea that juries must be unanimous under the 6th Amendment (rejecting Louisiana's Jim Crow era allowance for less than unanimous guilty verdicts), there's more specific case law about predicate crimes (e.g. RICO) that holds that those must also be subject to unanimous verdict.

We have actually gone over this earlier in the thread, and I think the difference is that the New York charge that the jury unanimously convicted Trump for does not include "predicate crime" as an element that must be proven. Rather, the associated (aggravating) element is that the falsification of the business record must be done with the intent to commit another crime or to conceal the commission thereof. The question, thus, is whether the jury finds the defendant's conduct was intended to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime . . . whereas "predicate crime" requires the jury find that the defendant actually committed another crime.

I think it's an essential distinction, but we'll have to see how Trump's lawyers present it on appeal.

You stated the argument pretty well. Seems to me if you are going to take three misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and elevate those to 34 felony counts against a Presidential candidate, you should have to first prove the predicate crime was actually committed beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially important when the FEC declined to pursue the case and where the DA ran his campaign on the promise to get said Presidential candidate.

The predicate crime in this case was a federal charge that the Feds decided not to pursue. It wasn’t a murder charge, theft, sedition, treason but a reporting violation at best.

Mountain meet molehill.