LOLOLOLOLnortex97 said:
Keep in mind how incredibly dishonest NY is not just in how they carry out the laws there, but legislate them in the first place. Some laws are only intended to matter if a republican/Trump himself can be claimed to violate them.BREAKING: New York State Sen. Kevin Parker, who worked to pass the "Adult Survivors Act," which allowed E. Jean Carroll to go after Trump with accusations from 30 years ago, now says the law is unconstitutional after a r*pe lawsuit was filed against him. pic.twitter.com/G0qtmFgQhW
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 7, 2024
And the jury can just fill in the blank on their own of what that other crime was?Im Gipper said:
Another way of saying it:
That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of that other crime
Testimony was already given that Trump had nothing to do with how the payment was recorded in the recordsTXAggie2011 said:The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.Quote:
Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?
This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?
They fill it in with what evidence they hear during trial.Quote:
And the jury can just fill in the blank on their own of what that other crime was?
TXAggie2011 said:It would be reversible error for Merchan to not instruct the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt he had intent to commit/conceal/aid one of the those three specific crimes.aggiehawg said:If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?Quote:
It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.
Translation: "Your verdict needs to be guilty, if you need to invent a new crime even if such law doesn't exist we grant you the power to do so. Just please find him guilty. We need headlines"Mr Mojo Risin said:TXAggie2011 said:It would be reversible error for Merchan to not instruct the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt he had intent to commit/conceal/aid one of the those three specific crimes.aggiehawg said:If Merchan does that, reversible error. Or should I say another reversible error?Quote:
It will be in the jury instructions that the state will have needed to prove the intent to conceal/aid at least one of the three crimes.
So this is a fill in the blank test, with a word bank, and no possible wrong answers???
"If you think he might have committed ___________, even though there have been no charges brought forth, you may find him guilty. Or if he might. have been trying to ___________, even though the defendant has not been made aware of any specific allegation, you may find him guilty. Or if you just don't like the way he has ______, feel free to find him guilty of _________."
TOTAL ****ING CLOWN WORLD LOGIC!
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.TXAggie2011 said:Are you trying to say that if this jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to commit/conceal another crime, that its not been "ajudicated" whether he had the intent to commit/conceal another crime?WHOOP!'91 said:No "other crime" has been charged and adjudicated. That this jury can simply deem Trump guilty of this other crime seems unConstitutional to me. A citizen should have to be found guilty of this other crime before using it to escalate misdemeanors to felonies.TXAggie2011 said:The jury is deciding if he had the intent to aid/conceal another crime. Juries decide aid/abetting/concealment cases all the time.Quote:
Doesn't that all seem a little crappy and not really any form of justice, though?
This jury can just declare Trump guilty of some other crime that has never been charged, much less adjudicated?
Who should ajudicate that if not a jury?
aggiehawg said:
The judge is wrong.
So is any state statute that declares a defendant does not have a constiutional right to know of which behavior is the basis of the charges against him/her.
Take your TDS blinders off. This case as charged in the indictment is a farce and a sham with either a completely incompetent or an agenda driven judge presiding. State may still obtain a conviction but it will be reversed on appeal.
But getting the result correct in conformity with the law has never been the state's goal. Still isn't. They just want a conviction, any conviction before the election.
I hope Trump wins and immediately charges are brought in some ruby red district against Clinton and Obama campaigns for their frauds to cover up election interference. Throw both of them in jail for the rest of their lives.nortex97 said:
Trump is guilty of hiring a bad guy (Cohen) who manipulated/lied/colluded to defraud Trump with another proven liar who then over more than 10 years were paid multiple times for the lie about Trump's acts with a literal porn star shakedown artist and then didn't know how, post-election, the payments to keep this away from his family were recorded.
That's what's been proven.
Outside of the courtroom, the prosecution has been led by a team championed by an AG who campaigned on 'getting Trump' overtly and the lead prosecutor (Colangelo) was a Biden/DNC payee and no similar prosecutions were ever even contemplated for accounting 'errors' made by Hillary Clinton or NDA's signed by any number of former politicians (in NY) including but not limited to Rahm Emanuel.
Further, the judge is invested in the case via direct family and has limited character witness testimony/questions as to honesty/credibility of lead prosecution witnesses but allowed outlandish claims of personal fear/sex to be provided to the jury, and refused to recuse himself.
Every bit of this, and the farces in Fulton County and Cannon's court in Florida are why Trump is surging to a lead of as much as 12 points nationally vs. Biden/Kennedy.
Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
The state would have to read Trump's mind. Hicks testified that Trump was concerned Melania would find out. End of cover up. Not related to campaign. Trial over.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
Daniels/Clifford also testified that Trump never asked her to keep their dalliance confidential.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
My understanding is that all that is required for the NY State law to escalate Trump's fraudulent business transactions to a felony is that the fraud was committed in order to hide a felony, or that Trump believed it was. So, the DA only has to show that Trump believed that if he did not handle the situation they way he did (declaring Cohen's payments as "legal fees"), he would be guilty of violating federal laws.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
Man, I am getting really excited to see this lawfare used on the left. Clinton, Obama, Abedin and Hunter have proven crimes ready to prosecute. Trump can strip Biden's privilege like Biden did to Trump, and we can finally learn the truth about the corruption, the 1000s of e-mails Biden sent under pseudonyms.Breggy Popup said:WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
"Show me the man and I will show you the crime."
- Lavrentiy Beria
Do it Merchan. We dare you! pic.twitter.com/dkzRPX8uu0
— Bronconation (@Bronconation_80) May 8, 2024
The point is the bolded comments you made only would be correct in fantasy land....and the bible verse you quote is a reach to be applicable. People make many transgressions in life, many of which are not crimes. Trump has certainly made transgressions in life, using that as justification to say he is getting what he deserves then is absurd. Sleeping with Stormy, Paying her off, his employees recording it as legal fees not directed by Trump to do so. Covering up transgressions is not the same as covering up a crime.WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
nortex97 said:Do it Merchan. We dare you! pic.twitter.com/dkzRPX8uu0
— Bronconation (@Bronconation_80) May 8, 2024
Rockdoc said:
So you think this is a fair and just trial?
Rockdoc said:Rockdoc said:
So you think this is a fair and just trial?
I'll post this one last time to Aggie2011 to see if he'll maybe answer instead of dancing around other posters.
Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
Do you believe that the charges are valid?TXAggie2011 said:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.
There are a lot of things happening in this trial that are NOT "just how it works", and the prosecution is getting away with it.TXAggie2011 said:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my questions about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's an entirely separate issue that remains to be seen with several weeks left.
Do you have this poster on ignore???TXAggie2011 said:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.WHOOP!'91 said:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Gyles Marrett said:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.TXAggie2011 said:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my questions about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's an entirely separate issue that remains to be seen with several weeks left.
Quote:
Rockdoc said:
So you think this is a fair and just trial?
I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.Quote:Quote:Do you believe that the charges are valid?Quote:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.Quote:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Quote:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.Quote:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.
TXAggie2011 said:I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.Quote:Quote:Do you believe that the charges are valid?Quote:Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.Quote:Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.Quote:as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.Quote:Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"Quote:
A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.
Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"
As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.
So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?
And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.
I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.
This comes down to nitty gritty issues of who knew or said this or that based on emails, texts, daily practice, etc., which is exactly the kind of issue a jury exists to wade through and decide.
We'll see what else the state can show over the next couple of weeks.
Absolutely!Quote:
There are a lot of things happening in this trial that are NOT "just how it works", and the prosecution is getting away with it.
