A Deeply Fractured US

[TacticalTea]

Shot, chaser?




"Interesting times", as they say.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Shot, chaser?

View attachment 85656
View attachment 85655

"Interesting times", as they say.

Right there, that's the problem. Turning fellow countrymen into the others because they vote for a different political party.

These dividers and fear mongers are the ones that need to be jailed.

 

[brihard]

Shot, chaser?

View attachment 85656
View attachment 85655

"Interesting times", as they say.

Right, because congressmen are part of the criminal justice system and put people in jail.

What an idiot.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So what was the actual crime?

Can't find a source that's really specific.

The "actual crime" was falsifying business records (that's what the 34 counts are) but there had to be a predicate crime, of which there were three choices: campaign funding violation, false tax return, falsifying other records. The jury did not have to agree unanimously on predicate crimes; the prosecution didn't have to prove (NY law) that such a crime was actually committed - just that Trump intended to conceal something.

 

[brihard]

The "actual crime" was falsifying business records (that's what the 34 counts are) but there had to be a predicate crime, of which there were three choices: campaign funding violation, false tax return, falsifying other records. The jury did not have to agree unanimously on predicate crimes; the prosecution didn't have to prove (NY law) that such a crime was actually committed - just that Trump intended to conceal something.

Pretty close… It went farther than him merely intending to conceal something; the jury had to be satisfied that intended to or actually did further another offence. The three potential paths put to the jury were tax fraud, election act violations, or falsification of bank records. Each juror had to be satisfied that at least one of those was committed with the intent to or in an attempt to commit the New York State electoral offence I referred to above.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Right, because congressmen are part of the criminal justice system and put people in jail.

What an idiot.

He may be an idiot - his involvement would be limited to participation in hearings to uncover evidence that could be handed over to DOJ and to state prosecutors - but the sh!t isn't going back into the horse. The sentiment is widespread enough that it's going to find traction somewhere.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Each juror had to be satisfied that at least one of those was committed with the intent to or in an attempt to commit the New York State electoral offence I referred to above.

That's what makes the case interesting. Jurors had to decide for themselves if something was done. Usually in a court prosecutions are expected to prove something was done.

"I believe he did it."

"OK, what's the chain of reasoning the prosecution presented as proof?"

"I believe he did it."

 

[brihard]

That's what makes the case interesting. Jurors had to decide for themselves if something was done. Usually in a court prosecutions are expected to prove something was done.

"I believe he did it."

"OK, what's the chain of reasoning the prosecution presented as proof?"

"I believe he did it."

Well no, prosecutors had to prove the sets of facts sufficiently for the jury to be beyond reasonable doubt. That meant proving every element of the actual offences charged.

It’s not particularly unusual for the jury to be left to determine precisely which aspect of someone’s acts or omission they feel satisfies a specific element of a specific offence.

All jurors had to be unanimously satisfied that the documents were intentionally and criminally falsified. All jurors had to be unanimously satisfied 34 times over that each such falsification was in furtherance of the specific state electoral offence. The prosecution painted a picture of the totality of Trump’s conduct for the jury to decide on.

This isn’t at all unique or even unusual. Some crimes very explicitly and narrowly fit a specific individual act; say, discharging a firearm, threatening to kill someone, rape… One specific, individual act makes it out. Other offences are a bit more ambiguous and criminalize the totality of some conduct based on the overall reasonability. Say, for instance, police arrest someone for dangerous driving. The prosecution shows the jury evidence of the driver speeding, putting people off, mounting the curb, striking a stop sign, and various and sundry individual driving acts that might be a ticket but aren’t on their own criminal. The jury is left to decide - and each can choose their own adventure - how the totality of the proven individual facts and acts sum up to a crime.

There’s been some misconception that the prosecutors did not have to prove all the specific offences to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. They did- but they had to prove the charges actually being prosecuted. The law there allows the jury to be satisfied in varying ways that the criminal conduct was in furtherance of another offence, whether or not the other offence was ultimately committed. Apparently the prosecutors did in fact convince all twelve that this was the case.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well no, prosecutors had to prove the sets of facts sufficiently for the jury to be beyond reasonable doubt. That meant proving every element of the actual offences charged.

It’s not particularly unusual for the jury to be left to determine precisely which aspect of someone’s acts or omission they feel satisfies a specific element of a specific offence.

All jurors had to be unanimously satisfied that the documents were intentionally and criminally falsified. All jurors had to be u animosity satisfied 34 times over that each such falsification was in furtherance of the specific state electoral offence. The prosecution painted a picture of the totality of Trump’s conduct for the jury to decide on.

This isn’t at all unique or even unusual. Some crimes very explicitly and narrowly fit a specific individual act; say, discharging a firearm, threatening to kill someone, rape… One specific, individual act makes it out. Other offences are a bit more ambiguous and criminalize the totality of some conduct based on the overall reasonability. Say, for instance, police arrest someone for dangerous driving. The prosecution shows the jury evidence of the driver speeding, putting people off, mounting the curb, striking a stop sign, and various and sundry individual driving acts that might be a ticket but aren’t on their own criminal. The jury is left to decide - and each can choose their own adventure - how the totality of the proven individual facts and acts sum up to a crime.

There’s been some misconception that the prosecutors did not have to prove all the specific offences to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. They did- but they had to prove the charges actually being prosecuted. The law there allows the jury to be satisfied in varying ways that the criminal conduct was in furtherance of another offence, whether or not the other offence was ultimately committed. Apparently the prosecutors did in fact convince all twelve that this was the case.

I wasn't referring to the charged offenses. I was referring to the predicate crimes, without which the charged offenses couldn't be decided. Commentators were left to speculate right up until the closing arguments what the actual predicate crimes were, which overwhelmingly suggests the issue of the particulars and the evidence to support the particulars was never presented to the jury.

If "you just have to believe one of the predicate crimes was committed" doesn't strike people as absurd, try it out as "you just have to believe he's a bad man". They're essentially the same thing, but the clarity of the latter makes it easier to see the absurdity.

 

[brihard]

I wasn't referring to the charged offenses. I was referring to the predicate crimes, without which the charged offenses couldn't be decided. Commentators were left to speculate right up until the closing arguments what the actual predicate crimes were, which overwhelmingly suggests the issue of the particulars and the evidence to support the particulars was never presented to the jury.

If "you just have to believe one of the predicate crimes was committed" doesn't strike people as absurd, try it out as "you just have to believe he's a bad man". They're essentially the same thing, but the clarity of the latter makes it easier to see the absurdity.

shrug The jury seemed satisfied, including the two lawyers who were jurors. I’m sure this concern will get ample air time on appeal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

shrug The jury seemed satisfied, including the two lawyers who were jurors. I’m sure this concern will get ample air time on appeal.

Yes; I'm highly confident they didn't "guide" the discussions.

 

[Remius]

Yes; I'm highly confident they didn't "guide" the discussions.

Remember that all the jurors were approved by Trump’s team…

 

[Brad Sallows]

Remember that all the jurors were approved by Trump’s team…

Sure; probably not their only mistake. For example, the defense should have gone ahead and called former FEC chairman Smith despite the limits on the scope of his testimony; they might have pulled something out of him that could impress the jury the same way some of the irrelevant testimony from Daniels and Cohen might have.

 

[FJAG]

they might have pulled something out of him that could impress the jury

The cardinal rule of calling a witness is to know what he will say. That goes with an appreciation of what the impact of that will be.

When one sees a side not calling an otherwise "obvious" witness, the most probable conclusion is that he has, at best, nothing to say to help your case and, at worst, something to say that will damage your case.

 

[QV]

Polls consistently showed a drop in support when people were asked if they would still vote for him if he were a convicted felon.

If poll results don't show a drop in his support in the next two to four weeks to match those earlier polls, prognostication is going to be really hard for the people paid to make the guesses.

I doubt there is wide spread legitimacy granted to this case that will result in much of a negative poll number. But if there is widespread illegitimacy, an indicator would be a boost in his support.

I wasn't referring to the charged offenses. I was referring to the predicate crimes, without which the charged offenses couldn't be decided. Commentators were left to speculate right up until the closing arguments what the actual predicate crimes were, which overwhelmingly suggests the issue of the particulars and the evidence to support the particulars was never presented to the jury.

If "you just have to believe one of the predicate crimes was committed" doesn't strike people as absurd, try it out as "you just have to believe he's a bad man". They're essentially the same thing, but the clarity of the latter makes it easier to see the absurdity.

That is the issue. Absurdity. A lot of people are locked into the "I hate this guy so it's ok to manipulate the system to get him" or rather anything to stop the orange hitler is permissible. The broader danger is in fact the abuses of process that have been carrying for years.

 

[brihard]

I doubt there is wide spread legitimacy granted to this case that will result in much of a negative poll number. But if there is widespread illegitimacy, an indicator would be a boost in his support.



That is the issue. Absurdity. A lot of people are locked into the "I hate this guy so it's ok to manipulate the system to get him" or rather anything to stop the orange hitler is permissible. The broader danger is in fact the abuses of process that have been carrying for years.

Hypothetically, if these convictions are ultimately upheld after all appeals have been exhausted, would you accept the legitimacy and validity of it then?

 

[FJAG]

Honestly this was low hanging fruit but in the grand scheme won’t matter much.

It matters when I see how many elected officials are jumping on the bandwagon proclaiming that the trial was political and the jury decision was rigged.

 

[FJAG]

Commentators were left to speculate right up until the closing arguments what the actual predicate crimes were

A) Commentators aren't that bright to start with; and B) commentators take a selective view of what they want their target audience to hear.

If the "predicative" crime wasn't there in the indictment then a judge would have struck the charges on one of the many attempts by the defence to strike the cases. The underlying offence is a matter of law for the judge to decide. The jury merely applies the evidence presented to see if it proves the crime alleged in the indictment was, in fact, committed.

 

[Pelorus]

I doubt there is wide spread legitimacy granted to this case that will result in much of a negative poll number. But if there is widespread illegitimacy, an indicator would be a boost in his support.



That is the issue. Absurdity. A lot of people are locked into the "I hate this guy so it's ok to manipulate the system to get him" or rather anything to stop the orange hitler is permissible. The broader danger is in fact the abuses of process that have been carrying for years.

Ah, so being convicted of felonies can only be good for Trump.

Trump supporters, in every possible scenario:

 

[TacticalTea]

The cardinal rule of calling a witness is to know what he will say. That goes with an appreciation of what the impact of that will be.

When one sees a side not calling an otherwise "obvious" witness, the most probable conclusion is that he has, at best, nothing to say to help your case and, at worst, something to say that will damage your case.

I have once been told that it was best not to interact with witnesses at all to prevent contaminating their testimony.