For you idiots, the alleged crimes!

[Walt]

The crime must be proven beyong the shadow of a dooubt...not "suggestede" to find guilt.

That is not the level of doubt in our system. To be convicted of a crime, it is usually beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. A shadow of a doubt is a much more extreme standard.

Is there a reasonable doubt that business records were falsified? Not really. So it is either a felony or a misdemeanor crime. The difference in this case is whether there was an intent to commit or coverup another crime. The other crime does not need to be proven, and does not even need to have existed. Only the intent needs to exist.

 

[Walt]

Burglary requires you take things not leave them. Breaking and entering is the act of getting inside through a barrier.

Often gun crimes are worse if there is the intent to commit another crime. So if someone uses a gun with the intent of burglarizing, they can be convicted of the more serious crime, even if they did not actually take anything. It is not the actually burglary that is important, but rather the intent.

 

[domer76]

"...
nd when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

Where's the OTHER CRIME, dumbfuck.

Derp

 

[Walt]

Then why was an FEC expert going to testify that Trump broke no campaign finance laws until the judge ruled the defense couldn't use him for that?

There is no way for any FEC expert to testify to anything like that. How would they prove that no law could possibly have been broken?

What we do know is trump intended to break campaign finance laws, and business tax laws.

 

[domer76]

One cannoit be convicted of "three possble crimes" you moron. The crime must be proven beyong the shadow of a dooubt...not "suggestede" to find guilt.

No, dumbfuck. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

See, the word “reasonable” always fucks up you MAGAts because you don’t know the meaning of the word.

 

[Grokmaster]

There is no way for any FEC expert to testify to anything like that. How would they prove that no law could possibly have been broken?

What we do know is trump intended to break campaign finance laws, and business tax laws.

Madeup bullshit. What we KNOW is that the prosecution has FAILED to prosecute the Big, Secret Underlying Crime, which is the only way the business records are still relevant.

 

[Walt]

Madeup bullshit. What we KNOW is that the prosecution has FAILED to prosecute the Big, Secret Underlying Crime, which is the only way the business records are still relevant.

There is no need to prosecute the intended crime. If the intended crimes did not even happen, there would be no prosecution possible. All there needs to be is an intended crime.

 

[ExpressLane]

So you Trumppers can stop asking!

In NY a GJ charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records. All felonies.

Stop pretending that he was not charged with a crime, you are making fools of yourselves.

175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

What other crime has Trump been convicted of Jarod?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Often gun crimes are worse if there is the intent to commit another crime. So if someone uses a gun with the intent of burglarizing, they can be convicted of the more serious crime, even if they did not actually take anything. It is not the actually burglary that is important, but rather the intent.

Wrong. It's the other way around. If you commit a burglary, and you have a firearm with you, the penalty for burglary is enhanced due to the firearm. You can't be arrested for being on your way to a burglary and having a firearm (assuming possession at that point is legal). That amounts to a thought crime.

The actual burglary IS important. It is the crime committed. Even if you don't use the firearm in committing it, you get an enhancement for possession while committing another crime. No different if you were selling drugs. That's the crime, the gun is only an enhancement.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What other crime has Trump been convicted of Jarod?

Just like with Bragg and his prosecutors, you're not going to get an answer to that...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There is no way for any FEC expert to testify to anything like that. How would they prove that no law could possibly have been broken?

What we do know is trump intended to break campaign finance laws, and business tax laws.

Because they are an expert on federal campaign finance laws. Bragg and his staff aren't. The judge isn't. That's why you should have an expert from the people who normally prosecute federal campaign finance violations testify. But the judge nixed that happening here.

You should be wondering why...

 

[Walt]

The actual burglary IS important. It is the crime committed. Even if you don't use the firearm in committing it, you get an enhancement for possession while committing another crime. No different if you were selling drugs. That's the crime, the gun is only an enhancement.

There are regular drugless drug busts. There does not actually need to be drugs for their to be an intent to traffic drugs. Just the intent.

If the law says there only needs to be an intent to burgle, then actually doing it is unimportant.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There are regular drugless drug busts. There does not actually need to be drugs for their to be an intent to traffic drugs. Just the intent.

If the law says there only needs to be an intent to burgle, then actually doing it is unimportant.

Prove it. Intent alone is insufficient. That amounts to a thought crime.

I can no more be arrested for thinking about burgling my neighbor's house than thinking about selling him drugs.

 

[Walt]

Prove it. Intent alone is insufficient. That amounts to a thought crime.

It has been proven that the business records were falsified. Now the question is what was the intent.

Intent makes the actions a crime. That is how it works in the real world.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It has been proven that the business records were falsified. Now the question is what was the intent.

Intent makes the actions a crime. That is how it works in the real world.

 

[Walt]

The law is very particular on this. There needs only to be the intent to commit or coverup another crime for trump's crime to be a felony. The law has not been changed.

 

[Nordberg]

Trump co. faked 28 documents. That is a crime. Trump and his staff, did it to cover up for the coming election. They did not want the public to find out about Stormy and Karen so soon after the bus audios. He did not want them to understand what kind of person he is. So Trump did it for the election. That makes his crimes a felony.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The law is very particular on this. There needs only to be the intent to commit or coverup another crime for trump's crime to be a felony. The law has not been changed.

So what you keep trying to tell us is that all the jury has to do is think Trump committed a crime or intended to commit a crime with regards to those book keeping entries. Whether he actually did commit a crime, was convicted of said crime, or anything else tangible, is irrelevant to the case. How utterly Stalinist of you, or are you channeling Orwell's 1984?

 

[Walt]

So what you keep trying to tell us is that all the jury has to do is think Trump committed a crime or intended to commit a crime with regards to those book keeping entries.

Worth pointing out that you are looking for a legal technicality, and the jury is not the trier of the law. The jury is the trier of facts, so is not the primary party for judging your legal technicality.

Whether he actually did commit a crime, was convicted of said crime, or anything else tangible, is irrelevant to the case. How utterly Stalinist of you, or are you channeling Orwell's 1984?

trump committed a crime by falsifying business records. That was an action. The question is rather how bad his crime is, which depends upon intent. The intended crime does not have to be proven, just the intent to either commit or coverup the crime has to be proven.

Let's say trump was falsifying business records to cover up a murder. Even if the murder did not happen, if he intended to cover it up, that makes it a felony. Your legal technicality has been laughed out of court, because it does not exist.

 

[Jarod]

Then why was an FEC expert going to testify that Trump broke no campaign finance laws until the judge ruled the defense couldn't use him for that?

Because it is not relevant as to if the crime was committed, all that is required is an intent to commit or conceal a crime. You do not have to have actually committed the secondary crime.