The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[whodeycin85]

Some do take Trump's word for it without proof and those that know better the don't get the treatment displayed in your quoted posts above. Second, you are not my boss and do some research and quit the tunnel vision. Provocation will continue and you are some real bad A$$ behind that keyboard. Whining is all you do. Internet and Jailhouse law degree keep dying on that sword. Still waiting on the contents of Hillary's server. Wonder what was revealed and what was buried by the Govt. Again, when the contents of Trump's case as you say declassified documents are revealed to the public, we can start the conversation up then. Otherwise, my Career has nothing to do it. Thought I would share, but not worth the BS.

Then cite an actual source or stop replying...your anonymous, why the hell you anyone take you word for it, when your posting history is to ride the fence and along **** at anything no DNc or liberal...prove it or dont respond..

 

[whodeycin85]

Expanding on Breyer’s hypothetical:
I go to rob a McDonald’s. I run in waiving a pair of scissors around, but I have a gun visibly holstered on my hip.

Jurors 1-4 believe I have used the scissors to commit the robbery.
Jurors 5-8 believe I have used the gun to commit the robbery.
Jurors 9-12 believe I have used both.

Should I be acquitted of the aggravated robbery, because the jurors don’t unanimously agree which item was the deadly weapon?

Should I be acquitted of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony because the jurors don’t agree whether the firearm was employed?

The answer to the second hypothetical is obviously yes. The jurors don’t agree whether I employed the firearm and that’s an element.

I think the answer to the first just as obviously no. The jurors agree that I used a deadly weapon or object fashioned into a deadly weapon. That’s the element. What the weapon was isn’t an element.

What I’m saying is that intent to defraud, including intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime... the intent is the element. Asking “what other crime” is like asking which weapon I used to rob the bank.

Makes sense...do you believe that the fact her was investigated for those secondary crimes and those with the authority over those crime didn't bring charges might play a role?? Upon appeal or in the jurors minds.

And thank for the insight, this legalize stuff can be confusing

 

[GroverCleveland]

Think the jury will vote guilty on something. They will not know what, but something.

And that is all the Dems are wanting. I'm about convinced the shenanigans of the judge are designed to guarantee an overturn of any verdict on appeal, but that really does not matter. The jury verdict will stand until the election.

Think of Harry Reid's 'Romney paid no taxes' comment which he knew when he said it that it was a lie. Trump's not really guilty of anything in this case, they just need it to be obfuscated until after the election. Then if there is an "oops!" and overturned on appeal, well okay.

 

[85SugarVol]

What a fortuitous outcome for the Defenders of Democracy - to have Merchan randomly selected 3 times.

 

[lawgator1]

This is why Partisanship is a problem in this nation and George Washington was clearly against it.

If Biden was on trial right now in the same spot, the MAGA people would be cheering for conviction as well.

People don't focus on the system and doing what is right. While there is some evidence against Trump in this case, it needs to be done fairly. The judge should have let in the expert witness and should have given the jury instruction. It was the RIGHT thing to do.

Experts cannot come in and testify as to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. This is well established in the law. The jury decides whether the law was broken, not experts. Otherwise, you'd just have trials of experts giving their own opinions on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

[GroverCleveland]

What a fortuitous outcome for the Defenders of Democracy - to have Merchan randomly selected 3 times.

Reminds me of the scene from Philomena when he is telling someone Philomena met four people that day who she told were "one in a million" and he says "What are the odds?"

 

[CobbVol]

Experts cannot come in and testify as to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. This is well established in the law. The jury decides whether the law was broken, not experts. Otherwise, you'd just have trials of experts giving their own opinions on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

I would think he was not being brought in to explain the law to the jury. He would have arrived to testify that the FEC and DOJ looked at the evidence and determined not to pursue the case against DJT at the federal level. He could have defined what a campaign contribution is to his world versus allowing Cohen to describe.

That could have made a positive impact to DJT and his case if the jury were allowed to hear his input don't you think?

 

[RockyTop85]

Makes sense...do you believe that the fact her was investigated for those secondary crimes and those with the authority over those crime didn't bring charges might play a role?? Upon appeal or in the jurors minds.

And thank for the insight, this legalize stuff can be confusing

In the jurors’ minds, it could definitely play a role. The way the pattern instruction is written it seems like it is the way it’s been discussed.

On appeal, I don’t think it does. I found at least a half-dozen cases where the defendant got acquitted of the “another crime” and got convicted of the felony and the court said it was an acceptable verdict.

 

[whodeycin85]

In the jurors’ minds, it could definitely play a role. The way the pattern instruction is written it seems like it is the way it’s been discussed.

On appeal, I don’t think it does. I found at least a half-dozen cases where the defendant got acquitted of the “another crime” and got convicted of the felony and the court said it was an acceptable verdict.

On that train of thought. What would stop a DA from upscaling any crime from a misdemeanor to a felony, while having multiple crime to choose as the crime to raise the charge but not to charge for said crime?? Hypothetically of course.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I would think he was not being brought in to explain the law to the jury. He would have arrived to testify that the FEC and DOJ looked at the evidence and determined not to pursue the case against DJT at the federal level. He could have defined what a campaign contribution is to his world versus allowing Cohen to describe.

That could have made a positive impact to DJT and his case if the jury were allowed to hear his input don't you think?

There could have been lots of reasons why FEC and DOJ could have passed on not pursuing. He doesn't have knowledge of those reasons so he couldn't testify to those reasons.

The defense still was able to call him if they wanted and provide a background of FEC, it's laws, definitions, and definitions of campaign contributions. The prosecution would have been allowed to call a rebuttal witness.

Don't believe everything you read on right wing tweets..

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I would think he was not being brought in to explain the law to the jury. He would have arrived to testify that the FEC and DOJ looked at the evidence and determined not to pursue the case against DJT at the federal level. He could have defined what a campaign contribution is to his world versus allowing Cohen to describe.

That could have made a positive impact to DJT and his case if the jury were allowed to hear his input don't you think?

If Hunter Biden goes to trial for tax fraud and if I was a prosecution expert witness, I could not state whether or not Hunter committed tax evasion since there is an intent involved and I wasnt working with Hunter or wasn't in his brain to know his intent....

 

[whodeycin85]

There could have been lots of reasons why FEC and DOJ could have passed on not pursuing. He doesn't have knowledge of those reasons so he couldn't testify to those reasons.

The defense still was able to call him if they wanted and provide a background of FEC, it's laws, definitions, and definitions of campaign contributions. The prosecution would have been allowed to call a rebuttal witness.

Don't believe everything you read on right wing tweets..

Could they have brought the person who made the choice not to pursue the FEC charge as a witness as to why?

 

[Sudden Impact]

Then cite an actual source or stop replying...your anonymous, why the hell you anyone take you word for it, when your posting history is to ride the fence and along **** at anything no DNc or liberal...prove it or dont respond..

Believe me or not, I know you dont so be it. If I prove it you will not believe it anyway. There is need to laying it out in black and white because with you it accomplishes nothing. Just will revert back to the Same ole assumptions on your part and insulting remarks from you. Try ignoring me if you dont like it or stick your head in the sand. You insult your own intelligence or show a lack thereof. So proving it does no good because you will continue. Don't care if you believe me or not. You are locked in on you beliefs so be it. So you have the option to ignore me so do it and move on. Try taking your own advice. Plenty ride the fence on this site you need to be mature enough to accept their choices and live with it. You need help. Prove it or dont respond desperate ultimatum. Who Made you the board Thread proctor.

 

[CobbVol]

There could have been lots of reasons why FEC and DOJ could have passed on not pursuing. He doesn't have knowledge of those reasons so he couldn't testify to those reasons.

The defense still was able to call him if they wanted and provide a background of FEC, it's laws, definitions, and definitions of campaign contributions. The prosecution would have been allowed to call a rebuttal witness.

Don't believe everything you read on right wing tweets..

Wasn’t right wing tweet. He was to be called to answer the question- was in his opinion the payment to stormy a campaign contribution. Merchan ruled he could not address that.

Don’t take the AP wire at face value.

 

[bamawriter]

There could have been lots of reasons why FEC and DOJ could have passed on not pursuing. He doesn't have knowledge of those reasons so he couldn't testify to those reasons.

The defense still was able to call him if they wanted and provide a background of FEC, it's laws, definitions, and definitions of campaign contributions. The prosecution would have been allowed to call a rebuttal witness.

Don't believe everything you read on right wing tweets..

You're not wrong here. The problem is that Merchan proceeded to misrepresent campaign finance law in his jury instructions:

If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.

That is tailoring the definition of "campaign contribution" to fit Cohen's and Pecker's testimony that they would not have made the payments had Trump not been running for President. But that is not how the FEC defines it. A payment is not a "campaign contribution" if the obligation exists irrespective of the campaign. Trump's bimbo taxes could have come due for a slew of other reasons. The payment is only a campaign contribution if it could not possibly have been made in the absence of the candidacy.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Wasn’t right wing tweet. He was to be called to answer the question- was in his opinion the payment to stormy a campaign contribution. Merchan ruled he could not address that.

It's been addressed several times in here why he couldn't. In addition, he couldn't give opinion on Trump's intent either.

How was Bradley Smith supposed to know what was going through Trump's head in 2016 and whether that payment was for business, personal, branding, or political reasons?

 

[CobbVol]

It's been addressed several times in here why he couldn't. In addition, he couldn't give opinion on Trump's intent either.

How was Bradley Smith supposed to know what was going through Trump's head in 2016 and whether that payment was for business, personal, branding, or political reasons?

You are talking intent. I am talking about a complex law and he allowed Cohen to essentially explain this complex act to the jury through his thought process.

The DOJ and FEC elected to pass. Merchan allowed the case to plow forward without it and their findings and in doing so he should have had the prosecution prove it.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

You are talking intent. I am talking about a complex law and he allowed Cohen to essentially explain this complex act to the jury through his thought process.

The DOJ and FEC elected to pass. Merchan allowed the case to plow forward without it and their findings and in doing so he should have had the prosecution prove it.

Intent matters. If Trump solely paid Stormy (via Cohen) for political reasons, its a campaign finance violation. If he did it for solely for business or personal reasons, it's not.

But Bradley Smith would have no idea on Trump's 2016 thought process to know whether it was a campaign expense, business expense, or personal expense...

 

[hog88]

Intent matters. If Trump solely paid Stormy (via Cohen) for political reasons, its a campaign finance violation. If he did it for solely for business or personal reasons, it's not.

But Bradley Smith would have no idea on Trump's 2016 thought process to know whether it was a campaign expense, business expense, or personal expense...

If the reimbursement to Cohen came from personal or business funds and not the campaign how could it be a campaign finance violation?

 

[Sandman 423]

You are talking intent. I am talking about a complex law and he allowed Cohen to essentially explain this complex act to the jury through his thought process.

The DOJ and FEC elected to pass. Merchan allowed the case to plow forward without it and their findings and in doing so he should have had the prosecution prove it.

Biggest issue with that is that he allowed the prosecutor to state that it was a FACT that Trump was guilty of federal election violations. My money says that is how this ends up getting reversed.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

If the reimbursement to Cohen came from personal or business funds and not the campaign how could it be a campaign finance violation?

If this was solely a campaign expense, Cohen provided an unreported benefit to the campaign that exceeded contribution limits in 2016. Doesn't matter how he got reimbursed.

That's one of the questions. Does the jury view this as campaign expense or business/personal? If some view it as business/personal, jury prolly hangs...

 

[hog88]

If this was solely a campaign expense, Cohen provided an unreported benefit to the campaign that exceeded contribution limits in 2016. Doesn't matter how he got reimbursed.

That's one of the questions. Does the jury view this as campaign expense or business/personal?

Campaigns refund questionable or illegal donations all the time.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Campaigns refund questionable or illegal donations all the time.

In theory, if this is a campaign expense, it was unreported, which would be violation.

Still have to prove the intent of this arrangement was to cover up FEC issues...

Cohen's long-term role was to get these stories out of the press and ultimately, that's where I struggle that this is done solely for political reasons. How is this different than him burying Stormy 2011 blog posts about same incident...

 

[CobbVol]

Intent matters. If Trump solely paid Stormy (via Cohen) for political reasons, its a campaign finance violation. If he did it for solely for business or personal reasons, it's not.

But Bradley Smith would have no idea on Trump's 2016 thought process to know whether it was a campaign expense, business expense, or personal expense...

The DOJ/FEC passed on pursuing trump therefore viewing it as not a campaign contribution. The state elected to pursue this charge against Trump without having to prove it other than from the words of a proven liar.

Bradley Smith could have helped the jury with what a campaign contribution is and is not.