The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#19,151
#19,151
GVF said:
True. But, I had money in my pocket. And not a whole lot has changed in obligations. Biden has dwarfed any damage Trump did to the deficit. I'm thinking the only way Clinton balanced the budget was mis-strokes of his pen when someone under his desk twitched.
Click to expand...
I'm not speaking for him but I think he saying that some of the fallout we are dealing with is directly related to Deficit spending and COVID shutdowns.

Biden has certainly made things worse though
 
#19,157
#19,157
BigOrangeMojo said:
Camp 5 - Trump clearly was part of scheme to falsify records. He is a lying, immoral, and unethical blowhard. He is not innocent here and his actions are partially why he is here. But this case was 100% a political prosecution that should have never seen the light of day....
Click to expand...
I’m sure someone has already asked this but you all move way too fast for me to keep up. I’ve heard some on the right talk about NY not having jurisdiction in this given they ended up tying these hush money to federal election laws. Do you think that’s true and do you think that is a winning argument for appeal?
 
#19,158
#19,158
hUTch2002 said:
I’m sure someone has already asked this but you all move way too fast for me to keep up. I’ve heard some on the right talk about NY not having jurisdiction in this given they ended up tying these hush money to federal election laws. Do you think that’s true and do you think that is a winning argument for appeal?
Click to expand...

I'll let @RockyTop85 take this one but I think all they had to prove was whether there was an intent to cover up another crime (doesn't have to prove that it was committed) Many times state FEC filings and state tax returns piggyback off their federal counterparts so they might get around the state-federal angle that way as well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#19,161
#19,161
hUTch2002 said:
I’m sure someone has already asked this but you all move way too fast for me to keep up. I’ve heard some on the right talk about NY not having jurisdiction in this given they ended up tying these hush money to federal election laws. Do you think that’s true and do you think that is a winning argument for appeal?
Click to expand...

The Jurisdiction argument is only on one charge. There were other state charges.

The real issue could be statute of limitations. Arguable the SOL has already tolled on all of the charges.

The crimes are very obscure and haven't really been brought up before but I would say that NY has jurisdiction. There was an argument to move to a different district by Trump's attorneys that was shot down. The argument cited that the district would not have given him a fair and accurate jury based on the political leanings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#19,162
#19,162
volbound1700 said:
Honestly, if he actually did that, it would probably help his election standing.
Click to expand...
Especially if he shot someone in Times Square as he was doing it.

It may have been one of the most prophetic statements in recent history.....
"I could shoot someone in Times Square and my followers would still worship me"......or something like that.
 
#19,164
#19,164
luthervol said:
Especially if he shot someone in Times Square as he was doing it.

It may have been one of the most prophetic statements in recent history.....
"I could shoot someone in Times Square and my followers would still worship me"......or something like that.
Click to expand...
In those situations, looth, it's called "paraphrasing." No quotation marks.
Yore welcome.
 
#19,165
#19,165
volbound1700 said:
The Jurisdiction argument is only on one charge. There were other state charges.

The real issue could be statute of limitations. Arguable the SOL has already tolled on all of the charges.

The crimes are very obscure and haven't really been brought up before but I would say that NY has jurisdiction. There was an argument to move to a different district by Trump's attorneys that was shot down. The argument cited that the district would not have given him a fair and accurate jury based on the political leanings.
Click to expand...

Statute doesn't run for periods of time where he is continously out of state. I'm sure his attorneys have been down that path already...
 
#19,167
#19,167
GordonC said:
In those situations, looth, it's called "paraphrasing." No quotation marks.
Yore welcome.
Click to expand...
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

I'll start putting it this way..........."People are saying that Trump said 'I could shoot someone in the middle of Time's Square and my followers would still worship me.'"

That "people are saying" loophole is genius.
 
#19,170
#19,170
luthervol said:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

I'll start putting it this way..........."People are saying that Trump said 'I could shoot someone in the middle of Time's Square and my followers would still worship me.'"

That "people are saying" loophole is genius.
Click to expand...
Being an educator you should be able to understand what hyperbole is, but then again you’re an educator
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and SpaceCoastVol
#19,173
#19,173
RockyTop85 said:
Just skimmed it.
This case, Richardson, interprets a specific statute and so the holding applies narrowly to that statute, not broadly to all statutes that mention another crime.

It does do a good job of explaining what I was trying to describe in my other post:

“Calling a particular kind of fact an "element" carries certain legal consequences. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 239 (1998). The consequence that matters for this case is that a jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the Government has proved each element. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 369-371 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring); Andres v. United States, 333 U. S. 740, 748 (1948); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 31(a).

The question before us arises because a federal jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U. S. 624, 631-632 (1991) (plurality opinion); Andersen v. United States, 170 U. S. 481, 499-501 (1898). Where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement—a disagreement about means—would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely, that the defendant had threatened force. See McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433, 449 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring).

In this case, we must decide whether the statute's phrase "series of violations" refers to one element, namely a "series," in respect to which the "violations" constitute the underlying brute facts or means, or whether those words *818 create several elements, namely the several "violations," in respect to each of which the jury must agree unanimously and separately.”

First bold part: What I’m saying is that “another crime” as used in the New York statute looks to be more like a “brute fact” than an “element” and that is consistent with how the NY Appellate Division has treated it.

Second bold part: this is where it’s clear it’s an issue of statutory interpretation. “Jury must be unanimous as to the elements” is the constitutional rule. Whether something is an element or a “brute fact” is a matter of statutory interpretation. So since this is a different statute, it could lead to a different outcome. I think New York’s high court, whatever they call it, is who gets to decide the meaning of their statutes, not SCOTUS, but I’m less certain about that when it’s tangential to a constitutional rule.

Also of note: he’s very careful to repeatedly mention *in federal cases* when citing the rule of unanimity. That has since been applied to the states, but I think it only happened in the past 5 years or so.
Click to expand...
RockyTop85 said:
The “judge said it doesn’t have to be unanimous” narrative seems fabricated to me but it’s convoluted enough that it’s understandable for some people who aren’t law professors (*cough* Johnathan Turley).

The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

Haven’t paid attention to this trial since Daniels’ first or second day of testimony. This thread turning into a “totally going to be an acquittal” echo chamber has me mildly interested to see the result. Not sure if it will be an acquittal just because of jury composition. But if it is a...
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com

As I posted here 👆, New York case law is pretty clear that there is no actus reus requirement that the state prove another crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The commission, aiding, or concealment of another crime is not an element of the offense.

The intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime is the element. As long as the jurors are unanimous that that was the defendant’s intent, they do not have to agree about what crime was intended to be committed, aided, or concealed.

It’s nowhere near the same level of stupid as “they tried to kill Trump” or even “Omg the judge yelled at the witness for being rude” but, to me, it seems like the portion of the instruction is probably lawful and not the aberration that it’s being made out to be. He definitely did not tell them that their verdict did not need to be unanimous.
Click to expand...
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
hUTch2002 said:
I’m sure someone has already asked this but you all move way too fast for me to keep up. I’ve heard some on the right talk about NY not having jurisdiction in this given they ended up tying these hush money to federal election laws. Do you think that’s true and do you think that is a winning argument for appeal?
Click to expand...

BigOrangeMojo said:
I'll let @RockyTop85 take this one but I think all they had to prove was whether there was an intent to cover up another crime (doesn't have to prove that it was committed) Many times state FEC filings and state tax returns piggyback off their federal counterparts so they might get around the state-federal angle that way as well...
Click to expand...
The quoted is a lot to read, but I think the Tl;dr version is that people on both sides of the media focused on the “another crime” thing WAAAAAAAY more than it deserved given New York appellate law and I don’t think it will play a big role on appeal.

From the little I followed this case, my focus on appeal would be the judge’s rulings during Stormy Daniels’s testimony and the places where he deviated from the pattern jury instructions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002 and BigOrangeMojo
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top