- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Zachary
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 1678 |
| Registered on: | 1/18/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 11:36 am
You did not even put the defendant on notice of what the alleged other crime was.
You did not require the jury to articulate what it was.
You did not require the jury to be unanimous about it in its guilty verdict....
1
re: PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 11:25 am
That graphic does zero to explain the alleged "other crime." Just like the indictment....
re: PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 11:14 am
The misdemeanors were time-barred by the statute of limitations.
The ONLY way the case had life was with the "other crime" to make them alleged felonies....
re: PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 10:59 am
You answered your own question -- there is no prosecution without the alleged "other crime" to go with the alleged misdemeanor falsifying of business records. 175.10....
re: PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 10:44 am
So the ONLY way this prosecution has life is if -- and only if -- "another crime" is intended or facilitated, and without said other crime, the defendant absolutely cannot be prosecuted or found guilty...
AND YET:
- the prosecution does not have to identify the other crime so that the defendan...
re: All the jurors had to do was think Trump was guilty without picking a specific crime.
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 9:18 am
No.
Name the crime....
re: Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 9:17 am
Got "it" right? No one even explained what "it" was....
re: What were the 34 different felonies?? were there really 34 different actions?
Posted by Zachary on 5/31/24 at 8:53 am
Those were not felonies. Rather, they were alleged misdemeanors, time-barred by the statute of limitations.
In order to "get Trump," the Manhattan D.A. had to manufacture a felony by linking the expired alleged misdemeanors to alleged other crimes.
But even though elevating the case to a felo...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 9:42 pm
Not analogous at all -- murder requires finding intent, but not motive. Here the statute specifically requires another crime.
Let me ask you this: 175.05 and 175.10 require a finding of an intent to defraud. Whom, did the jury find, Trump intended to defraud, and by doing what?...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 9:21 pm
The bot won't answer because he/she/it does not know.
Awesome due process, huh? The entire reason you might be imprisoned is because you may be found to have done something in furtherance of a specific crime, yet not the prosecution, nor the judge, nor the jury has to tell you what that crime is...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:56 pm
Which felony did the jury unanimously find was at issue?...
re: All the jurors had to do was think Trump was guilty without picking a specific crime.
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:53 pm
Of which of the three was he found guilty? What was the evidence of a federal elections crime? Why was the defense not permitted to introduce evidence that no federal elections crime had been committed?...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:50 pm
Those had to be tethered to another crime -- what was it?...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:49 pm
What was the underlying crime?
Of what crime was he found guilty that elevated a time-barred misdemeanor records charge to a felony?
This is not triviality; it is the heart of the matter. What is the answer?...
re: All the jurors had to do was think Trump was guilty without picking a specific crime.
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:44 pm
Why don't you answer the question?...
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:40 pm
RedStick, identify the felony. Go....
re: Eventually, they will come for you too...
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:37 pm
What, exactly, was the felony in this case?...
re: All the jurors had to do was think Trump was guilty without picking a specific crime.
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:36 pm
Yes, because, stunningly, Merchan expressly told them they didn't have to agree on the crime.
RedStick, why don't you tell us what the crime separate from the alleged records crime was?...
re: Do I have the basics of the charges correct?
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 8:25 pm
No, you do not have that right.
The records charge would have been only a misdemeanor. Moreover, it was time-barred -- that is, it was barred by the statute of limitations.
They wanted, and needed, a felony to "get him." Thus, they had to concoct a felony, by "linking" the misdemeanor record...
The spinelessness of the Republican Party lately has been a thing to behold.
Posted by Zachary on 5/30/24 at 6:19 pm
They just sit there watching it burn while living off of us....
Popular
10
