quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

The trial is being held in a very politically biased area against the defendant… there is a reason why this charge was brought in NYC and not elsewhere.

Yes, those nefarious bastards charged Trump in NYC since the violations involved NY law and Trump has his business and a residence there. Crafty devils. If we look hard I am sure we might spot another boogeyman or two.

I will try and spell it out for you.

The supposed law that was invoked was it’s a felony to conceal a crime in the tax structure. The crime was the campaign violation with the payout to Daniels for hush money.

At least that was what was said and what was the ostensible reason for Daniels to testify.

If the crime is violating federal election law, which the FEC refused to sanction the campaign over, and the feds have not charged Trump with, then how is it a NY issue and not an issue equally in all states, and thus federal? This is a felony only because NY law makes covering up a crime in your taxes a felony- not all states have this the same is my understanding- the NYC court assumes this is a crime (on their say-so) and charges him with a tax crime.

As to his residence, he’s currently a resident of FL, which would make if it’s a national issue more relevant (but yes, he was a NY resident at the time)- but as not currently a NY resident, it could just as reasonably be held in a more rural NYS locale that was less predjudiced. The court refused that at the request of the prosecution.

I thought that US jurisprudence was supposed to favor the defendant when it was reasonable?

So, yes, the decision to bring charges in NYC was as strategic one by the prosecution.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

The trial is being held in a very politically biased area against the defendant… there is a reason why this charge was brought in NYC and not elsewhere.

Yes, those nefarious bastards charged Trump in NYC since the violations involved NY law and Trump has his business and a residence there. Crafty devils. If we look hard I am sure we might spot another boogeyman or two.

Fail. The crime was falsifying business records. That’s a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the falsified record was intended to conceal a crime. The alleged crime that was intended was to improperly influence an election. Those are NY laws. The charges have nothing to do with federal election laws. This has been explained to you multiple times. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

Fail. A court needs jurisdiction to hear a dispute and venue must be proper. Venue is proper in NYC since the crime was committed there. Jurisdiction is proper in NYC because Trump has sufficient contacts with NYC to establish personal jurisdiction.

Pass. Excellent display of whining and moaning.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Fail. The crime was falsifying business records. That’s a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the falsified record was intended to conceal a crime. The alleged crime that was intended was to improperly influence an election. Those are NY laws. The charges have nothing to do with federal election laws. This has been explained to you multiple times. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

Fail. A court needs jurisdiction to hear a dispute and venue must be proper. Venue is proper in NYC since the crime was committed there. Jurisdiction is proper in NYC because Trump has sufficient contacts with NYC to establish personal jurisdiction.

Pass. Excellent display of whining and moaning.

MJines is spot on in his analysis of venue and personal jurisdiction.

The laws in the NY case are:

NY175.05 - makes it a crime (misdemeanor) to falsify business records.

NY175.10 - if you violate 175.05 with intent to commit a crime the falsification is a felony.

NY17.152 - makes it a crime (misdemeanor) for two or more people to conspire to improperly influence an election.

The record falsification (175.05) became a felony (175.10) because the falsification was done to conceal a conspiracy to improperly influence an election (17.152).

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Has I have said before the only people who are qualified to say if there was a crime committed are the 12 people on the jury. They are the ones that have been empowered and authorized to make that decision. They have seen all the evidence and heard all the testimony so lets wait and see what they say. Whatever they decide I believe in our justice system so will accept their decision.

Unlike elections, trump only needs one brain challenged maga juror to get him off the hook, right?

Absolutely correct and as it should be. In a criminal case you are dealing with people's lives and the verdict has to be unanimous, if one person disagrees with the rest of the jury and they can not come to a consensus then the jury is hung and the person is not convicted again as it should be. Our justice system although far from perfect is designed to try and minimize the chance that a person is wrongly convicted of a crime. The downside of that is sometimes a guilty person is not convicted.

And in our system, he and we are presumed innocent.

That is not mere words. It is a legal status, a legal conclusion from the beginning.

That is a default legal conclusion that must be rebutted. The prosecution has the burden of persuasion to rebut. A unanimous verdict should be required to rebut innocence.

A hung jury disks to strip the legal presumption, the legal status of innocence.

It is an interesting gamble, what NY is doing, dont you think?
This is clearly about hurting Trump first and foremost, the law secondary. Many of those involved ran for office on that platform.
If they get a guilty verdict, it is bound to cost Trump votes. I doubt there are many undecideds, but there are some. In a swing state it could make a difference.
On the other hand, if he is found not guilty, the same undecideds may feel he has been wronged and could vote for him.
I wouldnt take a bet either way.

Why is the law secondary? Tell us? The FCC argument has been demonstrated to be a red hearing.

The law has been given to you. The jury will decide if the factual elements are present.

The appellate courts will decide if the judge made any errors in applying the law.

The people who brought the case did not run campaigns on cracking down on everyone. They campaigned on bringing Trump to trial.
You get to believe what you want Heym, to me it said Trump first, anyway we can.
Where did I say anything about it not being a lawful case? What happens happens, I could care less. Life goes on either way.

The two of you have been lecturing us how enforcing local law on a national issue is preempted by the federal law.

Campaign issues relating to federal campaigns is rightfully a FEC and thus federal issue.

Therefore if the feds refuse to prosecute, regardless of the merits (a la immigration) the states can’t take it in their own hands.

Trump’s issue re affecting the campaign in a federal election is federal.

Trump certainly has been shown to have signed an incorrect tax document, which ordinarily is a fine and repayment.

If that had been what happened, no one would complain.

Now, I can recognize that the law may be able to be found to allow this.

It’s hypocritical that you guys defend it re illegal immigration but when it’s charges against Trump it’s just fine.

NY state has state elections. Those laws should apply to state elections, not federal ones… and yes, then the immigration issues should be fixed at the federal level and the states (Texas) shouldn’t be allowed to do anything re it.

Strangely, the federal courts jumped all over that, but not here.

I am not a lawyer. What I deal with doesn’t really care what my construct of thought is- either it works or it doesn’t.

If the NYC jury finds him innocent, that doesn’t change my mind that these charges should never have been brought at the felony level.

I agree that his tax records were incorrect.

I don’t know that there was any proof that Trump did it or ordered it done himself… it sure sounds like he didn’t. Is it just plausible deniability? Maybe.

Seems like a pretty awful law if you can throw someone in prison for an act done by someone else, especially when the underlying crime was never charged.


I’m really getting saddened by folks I thought were more reasoned who seem to think that putting someone on trial for a case that seems like it should never have been brought as a felony case is good and is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

I’d be saying open and shut that he owes taxes and penalties over the payments. He signed his returns and is responsible for them.

Did he sleep with a porn star? Yes.

Did he act like a totally immoral cad? Absolutely.

Should he be president? IMO, hell no.

Did he commit a felony by hiding a payment in order to win an election? No.

Doc, I disagree on the bringing charges by the state. Trump, or anyone can appeal. If innocent, it makes NY look stupid. But to have junior, who has a stick up his ass so far, people can see it when he yawns, tell me I cant see things the way I do, is BS. My views are mine, I tell no one they have to agree.
He whines like a little bitch over SC decisions he doesnt like, but no-one can have a different take on things than he does.
We have two assholes running for president as far as I see. I plan on getting through the next four years regardless of which it is.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The two of you have been lecturing us how enforcing local law on a national issue is preempted by the federal law.

Campaign issues relating to federal campaigns is rightfully a FEC and thus federal issue.

Therefore if the feds refuse to prosecute, regardless of the merits (a la immigration) the states can’t take it in their own hands.

Trump’s issue re affecting the campaign in a federal election is federal.

Trump certainly has been shown to have signed an incorrect tax document, which ordinarily is a fine and repayment.

If that had been what happened, no one would complain.

Now, I can recognize that the law may be able to be found to allow this.

It’s hypocritical that you guys defend it re illegal immigration but when it’s charges against Trump it’s just fine.

NY state has state elections. Those laws should apply to state elections, not federal ones… and yes, then the immigration issues should be fixed at the federal level and the states (Texas) shouldn’t be allowed to do anything re it.

Strangely, the federal courts jumped all over that, but not here.

I am not a lawyer. What I deal with doesn’t really care what my construct of thought is- either it works or it doesn’t.

If the NYC jury finds him innocent, that doesn’t change my mind that these charges should never have been brought at the felony level.

I agree that his tax records were incorrect.

I don’t know that there was any proof that Trump did it or ordered it done himself… it sure sounds like he didn’t. Is it just plausible deniability? Maybe.

Seems like a pretty awful law if you can throw someone in prison for an act done by someone else, especially when the underlying crime was never charged.


I’m really getting saddened by folks I thought were more reasoned who seem to think that putting someone on trial for a case that seems like it should never have been brought as a felony case is good and is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

I’d be saying open and shut that he owes taxes and penalties over the payments. He signed his returns and is responsible for them.

Did he sleep with a porn star? Yes.

Did he act like a totally immoral cad? Absolutely.

Should he be president? IMO, hell no.

Did he commit a felony by hiding a payment in order to win an election? No.

Your law license has been revoked. That analysis is one big fail. Lots of crimes violate both state and federal law and can be prosecuted under either federal law or state law. Rob a bank insured by the FDIC and you committed a federal crime . . . but bank robbery is also a state crime. You obviously don’t understand the issues despite repeated attempts to explain it to you.

It is not the state enforcing Fed law.

It is anchored in state statutes NY criminal code. There is nothing in the Constitution reserving to the Federal Government tax filing laws. Certainly not reserving into the Feds power over state tax filing laws.

I have provided the indictment along w a Fed indictment to compare.

The fact you did not read them, or cannot understand is not my fault.

The NY jury will tell us if he committed a felony by falsifying reports to advance a crime under NY law.

Not you.

It is not me lecturing on Fed power over the border. It is the Supreme Court for decades now. I just tell you what the law says. I am not in the your feelings, how you want to works to be, nor what you care about business.

Maybe I'm obtuse.

But the crime being "covered up" is a federal crime that he has not been charged for.

Not that he didn't commit a crime in placing the incorrect information in his taxes. He hasn't been found guilty of any federal court of election irregularities, and I do remember the FEC deciding not to investigate further the whole Stormy Daniels payout. The DOJ didn't charge him with anything regarding the whole issue. If the feds say its not a election crime and refuse to charge it, how is it a state crime?

So how does NY get to decide that this federal issue is a crime in order to charge Trump with covering up a crime?

Yes, the tax issue is a state one for his state taxes.

I'm not against charging him for the misdemeanor tax filing that your quoted law states applies unless one is covering up a crime.

You are also silent on the part about multiple witnesses saying that Trump was not part of the discussion on putting this in as a legal expense.

If he did not do it or direct it, how is he generating intent as per your whole rationale re HRC not having criminal intent in the Comey discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not the state enforcing Fed law.

It is anchored in state statutes NY criminal code. There is nothing in the Constitution reserving to the Federal Government tax filing laws. Certainly not reserving into the Feds power over state tax filing laws.

I have provided the indictment along w a Fed indictment to compare.

The fact you did not read them, or cannot understand is not my fault.

The NY jury will tell us if he committed a felony by falsifying reports to advance a crime under NY law.

Not you.

It is not me lecturing on Fed power over the border. It is the Supreme Court for decades now. I just tell you what the law says. I am not in the your feelings, how you want to works to be, nor what you care about business.

Kind of hard to revoke a law license I never had...

Its simple as above. If the crime that he is covering up (which he has never been charged or convicted of) is a federal crime, then how can they adjudicate on the crime that they cannot judge him on as he is not charged with it?

Falsifying a tax return is a crime. I get that. State tax return, state crime. I get that.

What I don't get is if hiding a hush payment in a federal election is a federal crime, how does a NY state jury get to decide if he committed the crime that they are not allowed to judge him on in order to judge him on whether or not he falsified his tax statement to benefit by hiding it in his taxes?

This sounds like a law that was made to get mafiosos that were hiding things in there taxes and they could prove that they were hiding illicit profits (money laundering) in their taxes to make it legal money.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The two of you have been lecturing us how enforcing local law on a national issue is preempted by the federal law.

Campaign issues relating to federal campaigns is rightfully a FEC and thus federal issue.

Therefore if the feds refuse to prosecute, regardless of the merits (a la immigration) the states can’t take it in their own hands.

Trump’s issue re affecting the campaign in a federal election is federal.

Trump certainly has been shown to have signed an incorrect tax document, which ordinarily is a fine and repayment.

If that had been what happened, no one would complain.

Now, I can recognize that the law may be able to be found to allow this.

It’s hypocritical that you guys defend it re illegal immigration but when it’s charges against Trump it’s just fine.

NY state has state elections. Those laws should apply to state elections, not federal ones… and yes, then the immigration issues should be fixed at the federal level and the states (Texas) shouldn’t be allowed to do anything re it.

Strangely, the federal courts jumped all over that, but not here.

I am not a lawyer. What I deal with doesn’t really care what my construct of thought is- either it works or it doesn’t.

If the NYC jury finds him innocent, that doesn’t change my mind that these charges should never have been brought at the felony level.

I agree that his tax records were incorrect.

I don’t know that there was any proof that Trump did it or ordered it done himself… it sure sounds like he didn’t. Is it just plausible deniability? Maybe.

Seems like a pretty awful law if you can throw someone in prison for an act done by someone else, especially when the underlying crime was never charged.


I’m really getting saddened by folks I thought were more reasoned who seem to think that putting someone on trial for a case that seems like it should never have been brought as a felony case is good and is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

I’d be saying open and shut that he owes taxes and penalties over the payments. He signed his returns and is responsible for them.

Did he sleep with a porn star? Yes.

Did he act like a totally immoral cad? Absolutely.

Should he be president? IMO, hell no.

Did he commit a felony by hiding a payment in order to win an election? No.

Your law license has been revoked. That analysis is one big fail. Lots of crimes violate both state and federal law and can be prosecuted under either federal law or state law. Rob a bank insured by the FDIC and you committed a federal crime . . . but bank robbery is also a state crime. You obviously don’t understand the issues despite repeated attempts to explain it to you.

This a law intended for what it says. Falsify state income records get a M. Do that to further some other crime get an F.

I give up. I hope you are feigning being that obtuse. THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW INVOLVED. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH ANY ELECTION VIOLATES NY LAW.

State law can be broken by cheating in a federal election.

So there is always the chance that Trump will be unanimously acquitted or convicted. But if the jury hangs and polling the jurors indicts that those holding out for acquittal were one or two and the vast majority supported conviction, will that give any Trumplicans pause? Almost a rhetorical question, of course not. Should it? Again, almost rhetorical, of course.

The evidence shows that he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond unreasonable doubt.

We have found that to be true in the court of public opinion and demonstrated herein.

How deep is it in the jury, supposedly following instructions from the judge - we shall see.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The evidence shows that he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond unreasonable doubt.

No way you can know that. Only the jury that sat in the jury box every day, heard all the testimony, observed the demeanor of the witnesses, saw all the exhibits, can make that statement. Sorry, reading news clips, live posts from inside the courtroom, etc. ain't gonna cut it.

Well, let's agree that's reasonable.

There's still a lot of unreasonable doubt.

I'll defend my take on it this way.

You are correct in that my being "informed" comes from media, which includes Fox. The key people informing have been in the courtroom. observed the witnesses, listen to the testimony, seen the exhibits, and are actually qualified.

Most Fox spew is not in that class, so I look at that source as untrustworthy, but I want to know what they say, so I know the flip side.

Also, I base my opinion on knowing the prosecution is not even close to the farce Trump True Believers think it is.

Therefore, I trust the prosecution team have made their case, upholding their burden of proof. This case is too important for them to flop from incompetence.

There is much evidence in the public realm.

The defense's excuses are lame.

All this BS that the indictments and prosecutions are just Biden admin political persecution is, IMO, the flip-far side of reality. For someone to say, and apparently believe that, utterly destroys their credibility IMO. If anything is true about justice not being equal, Trump proves it by not being held accountable per the rule of law long ago.

IMO, if the hung jury, mistrial, happens it will not be for lack of evidence to reach conviction. It will be the same thing we are seeing herein, which is there is no way, not enough evidence anywhere anyhow to overcome unreasonable doubt.

Also, IMO, the unreasonable doubt is not just about insufficiency of evidence, but about insufficiency in critical thinking and objectivity, ideologically tainted, which we see demonstrated herein all the time.

I'm sure the defense has managed to get one or two such people on the jury.

It is unreal to me that anyone came to that^^^conclusion. ME

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The two of you have been lecturing us how enforcing local law on a national issue is preempted by the federal law.

Campaign issues relating to federal campaigns is rightfully a FEC and thus federal issue.

Therefore if the feds refuse to prosecute, regardless of the merits (a la immigration) the states can’t take it in their own hands.

Trump’s issue re affecting the campaign in a federal election is federal.

Trump certainly has been shown to have signed an incorrect tax document, which ordinarily is a fine and repayment.

If that had been what happened, no one would complain.

Now, I can recognize that the law may be able to be found to allow this.

It’s hypocritical that you guys defend it re illegal immigration but when it’s charges against Trump it’s just fine.

NY state has state elections. Those laws should apply to state elections, not federal ones… and yes, then the immigration issues should be fixed at the federal level and the states (Texas) shouldn’t be allowed to do anything re it.

Strangely, the federal courts jumped all over that, but not here.

I am not a lawyer. What I deal with doesn’t really care what my construct of thought is- either it works or it doesn’t.

If the NYC jury finds him innocent, that doesn’t change my mind that these charges should never have been brought at the felony level.

I agree that his tax records were incorrect.

I don’t know that there was any proof that Trump did it or ordered it done himself… it sure sounds like he didn’t. Is it just plausible deniability? Maybe.

Seems like a pretty awful law if you can throw someone in prison for an act done by someone else, especially when the underlying crime was never charged.


I’m really getting saddened by folks I thought were more reasoned who seem to think that putting someone on trial for a case that seems like it should never have been brought as a felony case is good and is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

I’d be saying open and shut that he owes taxes and penalties over the payments. He signed his returns and is responsible for them.

Did he sleep with a porn star? Yes.

Did he act like a totally immoral cad? Absolutely.

Should he be president? IMO, hell no.

Did he commit a felony by hiding a payment in order to win an election? No.

It is my understanding that the FEC doesn't prosecute criminal cases. Their jurisdiction extends only to civil violations of campaign laws.
Criminal prosecutions are left to the discretion of the DOJ. In other words, the US Attorney's office with jurisdiction over the charged offense.

But, there's no federal preemption issue here which seems to be what you are trying to get at. When state law is violated, state DA's are entitled to present cases to the grand jury and see if there is a true bill and an indictment. Doesn't make any difference if the feds decide to prosecute or not. And, again...the FEC doesn't criminally prosecute anybody so that argument is misinformed.

Finally, regarding whether or not his actions constitute a felony. The statute that was violated says what it says. Arguments similar to yours have already been heard by the court and rejected. If the jury makes the determination that the facts and evidence fulfill the statutory requirements, the jury convicts for the offense charged. If the people of New York don't like the criminal statute, they need to elect somebody that can try to change it. If trump is convicted, he can appeal and make the argument to the appeals court.

Quite frankly, my impression of your argument is that you want to readily admit trump is guilty, you just don't think he should be punished per the statutory requirements.

Shit doesn't work that way. Called Rule of Law.

quote:

ideologically tainted

Ronald Reagan “The trouble with our Liberal friends is....”

https://youtu.be/GctmcVoshIo?si=sguKZHZ04ubX6N3Q&t=39


Does anyone know what "taint" is?

On a dog's rear end there's a space between it's AH and balls which t'ain't neither AH or balls.

The problem with our conservative friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that t'ain't so.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

ideologically tainted

Ronald Reagan “The trouble with our Liberal friends is....”

https://youtu.be/GctmcVoshIo?si=sguKZHZ04ubX6N3Q&t=39


Does anyone know what "taint" is?

On a dog's rear end there's a space between it's AH and balls which t'ain't neither AH or balls.

The problem with our conservative friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that t'ain't so.

Oh, the "ignorance" box can be checked too for quite a few of them. Probably would run a close second to the "stupid" box.

I hate to have to post links to articles or videos because I think they mostly don't make any difference, and most herein don't read them or listen to them,

However, I think they are important for us to evaluate the content and presentation or message(s).

Here's something that turns my stomach. On the surface it supports practically all of Trump's narrative that he and many others want to be real.

And it's from the WSJ, generally a respected source. Granted, it's an opinion piece, but put on your analysis hat when listening, please.

I watched it twice and didn't see or hear one solid basis in fact or evidence for the opinions, which were stated as factual. There are coincidental facts as part of the narrative, perhaps to lend credibility, but they are not basis for the opinions stated as factual following. The premise or presumptions of their opinions is so flawed, yet if one doesn't listen carefully, for evidence, it's convincing. This is not journalism. It's propaganda. And some wonder why we are so divided, and as they say in the video, as a matter of fact, that the nation is seeing a massive decline in faith of our institutions. That may be so, but this sort of "media" is part of the problem. Again, this is not journalism.

An example of the flawed reasoning and premise is, if in fact Trump's poll numbers are turning more in his favor because of the publicity he's getting from these indictments and prosecutions it's absolutely NOT an indicator of flaws in the indictments or prosecutions, his guilt or innocence, but something else - this type of video narrative for example.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...395568288cbd94&ei=32

WSJ Opinion: Trump's Manhattan Courtroom Melodrama

============================================================

Furthermore, since I presume you still have your analysis hat on, think about what is not said outright in these narratives.

They blame democrats for lawfare with using the rule of law as a political tool for Trump's indictments and prosecutions. That's clear.

It's also clear that GOPers would not indict, prosecute or impeach Trump for any of the crimes or behavior he's accused of, with evidence. They would actively support and facilitate and participate in such crimes and behavior and actually rationalize retaliation with lawfare, politically motivated, and righteously justified in their view.

Trumpsters pretend that they have the high ground. They do not.

I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.