Reply to Trump found Guilty on all charges!

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump found Guilty on all charges! "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken? [/quote]

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet. 
So, no, we don't know.  Blatantly unConstitutional.  [/quote]

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

[/quote]

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here.  What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status.  There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s).  Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue.  https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.[/quote]

Except…there was unanimity.

The jurors all agreed, unanimously, on all of the predicate acts.

Do you honestly believe that Merchan would not have been excruciatingly careful in every single aspect of this trial? [/quote]

Hre is the instruction:

"Merchan’s jury instructions state:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.""

There is no way to know whether the jury was unanimous wiht respect to any of those three items.  2 might have found one of them, 4 others another, 6 the third.

That's the problem.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics