Three ways for the Jury to convict Trump

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You are the one flailing, Poopiehead.
If Cohen provided legal services then it would be easy for Trump to show that occurred by providing evidence of the work performed. I wonder why no such work has been provided during the trial. You seem to be arguing that Cohen provided some magical legal advice that involved no contact and no paperwork and we should accept that happened with no testimony from anyone.
Click to expand...
Cohen was Trump's fixer. He would do the dirty work and coverups. When Trump was running, Cohen's job was to threaten every school Trump attended with lawsuits if Trump's records leaked out. You can see how proud of his educational achievements Trump was.
Trump's business was patterned after a Mafia organization. The first rule was a complete blind loyalty to Trump. When he got in office, he was pissed off because some in the admin were more loyal to America than to him. He slowly weeded them out.
Trump's coverups were a normal type of job for Cohen. He operated through threatening legal pressure or buying them off.
Trump's mistake was not paying Cohen's legal fees. He would likely have stayed loyal to Trump through it all. Trump decided he did not need him anymore and threats against him would be cheaper and more effective.
Trump is a cold-hearted user.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What part of the law is the judge disregarding?
Click to expand...

That part that requires a second underlying crime which the business records were concealing.

You can't lie to law away,

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Let's see if you can tell us that, cuntselor [sic].
Click to expand...

You're getting angry because this lynching is fully exposed as what it is.

Do you think that it should be illegal to oppose a party member in an election - any election?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry dude.....we are currently at the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage........the jury doesn't get to make up "likely".......
Click to expand...
Reasonable doubt is for the crime one is indicted for. It is not the standard for crimes one is not indicted for, cuntselor [sic]. Trump is indicted for falsifying documents not for any other crime he was likely to be covering up.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
That part that requires a second underlying crime which the business records were concealing.

You can't lie to law away,



You're getting angry because this lynching is fully exposed as what it is.

Do you think that it should be illegal to oppose a party member in an election - any election?
Click to expand...
The judge isn't ignoring that at all since the judge has already ruled on which underlying crimes the prosecution can claim were the ones that made the falsifying recrds a felony. It's interesting that you don't seem to have any knowledge of the actual facts of the case.

Defendant further argues
that the four theories set forth by the People to satisfy the “other crime” element, are not viable
and therefore cannot serve as “object offenses” under the starute. The four theores being
violations of the: (1) Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA™); (2) N.Y. Election Law § 17-152;
(3) Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3), 1802; and (4) Defendant’s intent to violate PL. §§ 175.05 and 175.10 by
intending to commit or conceal the falsification of other business records.
...
The Court has considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that the
evidence presented to the Grand Jury for the first three theories was legally sufficient to support
the intent to commit the “other crime” element of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.


But don't let facts get in the way of your unsupported bullshit.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I think the defense wasn't informed what the underlying crime that turned that 175.10 violation into 34 felonies was as required by that NY state law.
Click to expand...
I wonder why the defense filed a motion to contest the underlying crimes that the prosecution intended to use if they were never informed. I wonder why the judge agreed with them that one of the 4 didn't meet the standard because the grand jury wasn't told about it.

Defendant further argues
that the four theories set forth by the People to satisfy the “other crime” element, are not viable
and therefore cannot serve as “object offenses” under the starute. The four theores being
violations of the: (1) Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA™); (2) N.Y. Election Law § 17-152;
(3) Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3), 1802; and (4) Defendant’s intent to violate PL. §§ 175.05 and 175.10 by
intending to commit or conceal the falsification of other business records. Defendant’s Memo at
pgs. 15, 17,19, and 21.


It seems what you think has nothing to do with reality or facts.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Reasonable doubt is for the crime one is indicted for. It is not the standard for crimes one is not indicted for, cuntselor [sic]. Trump is indicted for falsifying documents not for any other crime he was likely to be covering up.
Click to expand...
falsifying documents in an effort to commit a second crime........Reasonable doubt is applied to both.......
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The judge isn't ignoring that at all since the judge has already ruled on which underlying crimes the prosecution can claim were the ones that made the falsifying recrds a felony. It's interesting that you don't seem to have any knowledge of the actual facts of the case.

Defendant further argues
that the four theories set forth by the People to satisfy the “other crime” element, are not viable
and therefore cannot serve as “object offenses” under the starute. The four theores being
violations of the: (1) Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA™); (2) N.Y. Election Law § 17-152;
(3) Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3), 1802; and (4) Defendant’s intent to violate PL. §§ 175.05 and 175.10 by
intending to commit or conceal the falsification of other business records.
...
The Court has considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that the
evidence presented to the Grand Jury for the first three theories was legally sufficient to support
the intent to commit the “other crime” element of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.


But don't let facts get in the way of your unsupported bullshit.
Click to expand...
it is the jury not the judge who must decide that.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top