right so the claim that the jury was not required to be unanimous isn't entirely correct. He wasn't being charged with the predicate crimes, ergo they didn't need to be unanimous on them. The jury was unanimous of his guilt on every one of the 34 criminal charges he faced.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
Brad says:
"Merely falsifying business records is a misdemeanour. Falsifying with intent to commit or conceal another crime is what elevates the charge to felony"
What I am interested in finding out is what the crime he was accused of having falsified records with the intent to commit or conceal is.
Nobody seems to know.
If the jury was unanimous in finding him guilty on each of the 34 charges then they would have had to know what the crime he was supposedly concealing or committing is - and if the jury know then it must now be public record.
Anybody?
- Reaction score
- 1,831
- Points
- 1,190
I dony have the exact codes, but there were 3: one was a tax crime, and the other two were each a federal and state election crime, respectively. There was apparently a 4th that the judge through out at the beginning of the trial.
This is the very thing I find to be very dubious about the case.
Nobody seems to be able to state in words what the three crimes were.
"a tax crime, and the other two were each a federal and state election crime, respectively" comes closer than anything else I've heard - but is still extremely vague.
To sentence someone to prison time, it is far from sufficient to say, in effect, "well, yes, the offence is a misdemeanour - but, you know, he was probably trying to conceal some attempt at some actual crime or other".
The jury must, surely, have had those alleged crimes spelt out in detail if they were able to quickly and unanimously decide that he definitely attempted to conceal or commit them - yet nobody involved with the case can explain what they were?
It looks very much to me as if what is really going on is an attempt to keep him tied up in the courts by treating a misdemeanour (for which, incidentally, the statute of limitations has somehow been ignored) as a crime because it is alleged that the misdemeanour offence was committed in order to conceal or attempt to commit some sort of actual crime - but a crime which even the jury are unable to define.
I think the real goal appears to be to keep Trump mired in the courts until after November at least to prevent him winning the election.
If so, that really is a crime in a democratic Republic.
All of the questions you’re posing were asked and answered in fairly specific detail on pages 346 and 347 of this thread, just two days ago. Start by clicking my reply I’ll quote below, and read two pages of this thread from there. I address the actual predicate offences underlying the elevation to felony, h in unity question, and that it’s normal in criminal law for there to me multiple ways for triers of fact to find that a set of actions and behaviours fit the elements of an offence.
- Reaction score
- 1,831
- Points
- 1,190
What the hell does it matter if the people on the Canadian military forum site can't list the exact words of the crimes? Go do your own research.
The crimes wouldn't have been brought up if they weren't legit. The Judge would have been given very clear instructions to the jury regarding these crimes and how they fit into the whole case. If none of this was done, or if the underlying crimes weren't "real" as you seem to imply, then this case would get thrown out on appeal.
I even literally did, and spoon-fed it. Some people can’t or won’t read. None of this was difficult to find or confirm.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,512
- Points
- 1,040
They might not have ever been specified in detail (eg. references to penal code), just in nature.
Here, Johnathan Turley describes:
"Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know."
Here, by Elie Honig:
"So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) – and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations – the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York state election law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were – and the judge declined to force them to pony up – until right before closing arguments. So much for the Constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)"
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,512
- Points
- 1,040
Sure. Jury instructions happen after arguments and closing, which narrows the window for the defence to defend against anything new or specified in more detail to "none". As Honig noted: "Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were – and the judge declined to force them to pony up – until right before closing arguments. So much for the Constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)"
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,512
- Points
- 1,040
No. Felony conviction is not a disqualifier.
Well, it matters. Take yourself, for example.
You are convinced of his guilt, without actually having any real notion of what you think he is guilty of. You are just convinced of his guilt - and apparently on a somewhat emotional level.
If the jurors are of your same mindset, then the conviction is unsound.
It isn't about Trump, per se - it is about having a properly functioning legal system. The legal system cannot be allowed to be weaponized against people simply because we don't like them.
Both sides picked the jury. They have their say to avoid that. What evidence is there that indicates the entire jury had that mindset. The decision was unanimous on all counts.
Sure. It should also not be denigrated or called into question if a decision doesn’t go the way one wants it to.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,371
- Points
- 1,160
Well that's good. Hopefully Trump ousts Biden, doesn't screw up too much in 4 years, then maybe they'll get a good candidate next time.
"It should also not be denigrated or called into question if a decision doesn’t go the way one wants it to"
While I understand the nuance of what you mean by this (and I agree with you) this is of course the basis of the entire concept of an appeals system.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,512
- Points
- 1,040
With only Trump or Biden to choose from, all hope is already lost. And whether or not either screws up much is not very consequential, because most of what's been done by the administrations looks to me like whatever agenda-pushers in the administrations have been able to sell to their easily distracted and not particularly thoughtful principals.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,512
- Points
- 1,040
Denigration maybe not, but "calling into question" is simply criticism. Anything may be legitimately criticized.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,371
- Points
- 1,160
The nice (for lack of a better word) thing about Trump is that he does away with the pretense that the position isn't that of a CEO of a business.
Having Biden sitting up on the throne is scary, the guy gets lost walking off a stage.
If the judge failed to do anything he is required to do, or if the prosecution likewise did not actually provide sufficient legally required information, I’m sure that will be raised on appeal. Short of that there’s no reason prosecution would go to greater lengths than necessary to prove things beyond their already high burden of proof. The elevation of the charges from misdemeanour to felony doesn’t change any of the elements of the actual offences; it’s a question of proving motive, not proving new yet unindicted offences.
In any case, the context of all of my replies this morning has been dispensing with this silly “nobody can say” line that’s being trotted out to try to illegitimate the conviction when it fact it can be said, has been said (including where it legally mattered), and was all repeated and explained here two days ago. There’s a lot of wilful ignorance around this that is unsupported by facts.
