Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.

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.