How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction

[Skylar]

What's the underlying crime?

NY Penal Law 175.05

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

NY Penal Law 175.05

That's the misdemeanor. What's the underlying crime that makes it a felony?

 

[Skylar]

That's the misdemeanor. What's the underlying crime that makes it a felony?

NY Election law, SECTION 17-152.

 

[Rogue AI]

Correct, this is not right.

#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.

#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.

WW

The defendant gets no due process for the state's allegation? No evidence is needed to prove these allegations even relate to the state's claim? If you don't see the problem, you've never read or understood the Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The defendant gets no due process for the state's allegation? No evidence is needed to prove these allegations even relate to the state's claim? If you don't see the problem, you've never read or understood the Constitution.

Psst there is a trial going on right now for his due process.

And yes I’ve read the Constitution many times since I carry a pocket edition in my backpack. Makes great reading when you have a few minutes wait time. Found that out during my military career.

WW

 

[Rogue AI]

Psst there is a trial going on right now for his due process.

And yes I’ve read the Constitution many times since I carry a pocket edition in my backpack. Makes great reading when you have a few minutes wait time. Found that out during my military career.

WW

Not for this mystery crime, of which there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Try harder.

 

[Skylar]

Not for this mystery crime, of which there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Try harder.

There's no presumption of innocence....says who?

You just randomly offering us your imagination isn't a violation of the constitution, the law, or due process.

Is that really it? Just you going 'uh-uh'?

If so, that was easy.

 

[Rogue AI]

There's no presumption of innocence....says who?

You just randomly offering us your imagination isn't a violation of the constitution, the law, or due process.

Is that really it? Just you going 'uh-uh'?

If so, that was easy.

If the mystery crime is not even charged, possibly not related to this trial at all, and exists only by the say so of the state, where is the due process for the defendant? Without said mystery crime this trial doesn't exist, as it is the whole basis to upjump expired misdemeanors to felonies.

 

[Skylar]

If the mystery crime is not even charged, possibly not related to this trial at all, and exists only by the say so of the state, where is the due process for the defendant? Without said mystery crime this trial doesn't exist, as it is the whole basis to upjump expired misdemeanors to felonies.

Who says that the 'mystery crime' is not related to this trial at all? Who says that there is no presumption of innocence?

You citing you. And your source is utterly insufficient to carry your argument. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard.

As for due process, its the grand jury. The arraignment. The bail. The opening statements. The trial. The seating of a jury.

That you don't 'feel' its sufficient is irrelevant. Your feelings aren't a legal standard either.

Is that all you've got?

 

[Rogue AI]

Who says that the 'mystery crime' is not related to this trial at all? Who says that there is no presumption of innocence?

You citing you. And your source is utterly insufficient to carry your argument. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard.

As for due process, its the grand jury. The arraignment. The bail. The opening statements. The trial. The seating of a jury.

That you don't 'feel' its sufficient is irrelevant. Your feelings aren't a legal standard either.

Is that all you've got?

Utter nonsense. The entire basis of this trial is this mystery crime. It exists only because we are told it does, it exists without a conviction in a court of law, it exists under the presumption of guilt without the benefit of due process. If that is not the case feel free to present evidence proving otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

Utter nonsense. The entire basis of this trial is this mystery crime.

All nonsense, says you. Again, your feelings aren't a legal standard. Your emotions are literally all you're offering.

Back in reality, NY Penal code 175.10 is a very real crime.

As is NY Election law 17-152.

Your willful ignorance doesn't make either the charges, the evidence, nor the law disappear. As demonstrated by Trump's perfect record of failure in any court, State of Federal, to get these charges dismissed or the trial delayed.

It exists only because we are told it does, it exists without a conviction in a court of law, it exists under the presumption of guilt without the benefit of due process. If that is not the case feel free to present evidence proving otherwise.

Or, because the duly elected legislators of NY wrote bills containing these statutes that were signed into law by the governor.

The laws of NY vs your feelings have the same winner every time.

Not you.

 

[Rogue AI]

All nonsense, says you. Again, your feelings aren't a legal standard. Your emotions are literally all you're offering.

Back in reality, NY Penal code 175.10 is a very real crime.

As is NY Election law 17-152.

Your willful ignorance doesn't make either the charges, the evidence, nor the law disappear. As demonstrated by Trump's perfect record of failure in any court, State of Federal, to get these charges dismissed or the trial delayed.




Or, because the duly elected legislators of NY wrote bills containing these statutes that were signed into law by the governor.

The laws of NY vs your feelings have the same winner every time.

Not you.

Where is the charge, much less conviction under 17-152? Without even a charge and the opportunity for due process it's nothing but a baseless allegation. Otherwise feel free to show us how these laws have ever been used in this manner before.

 

[Skylar]

Where is the charge, much less conviction under 17-152? Without even a charge and the opportunity for due process it's nothing but a baseless allegation. Otherwise feel free to show us how these laws have ever been used in this manner before.

Show us a presidential candidate falsifying business records in NY to pay off pornstars in an attempt to change the outcome of an election.

And 175.10 doesn't require conviction of any secondary crime in order to upgrade to felonies. It requires the intent to commit that crime or to cover it up.

Trump can rebut this application of 17-152 in this trial. Satisfying every requirement of due process

 

[Rogue AI]

Show us a presidential candidate falsifying business records in NY to pay off pornstars in an attempt to change the outcome of an election.

And 175.10 doesn't require conviction of any secondary crime in order to upgrade to felonies. It requires the intent to commit that crime or to cover it up.

Trump can rebut this application of 17-152 in this trial. Satisfying every requirement of due process

Until or unless there is a conviction, no such person exists. So your first point is moot.

Intent to commit what crime? If the defendant is not charged with said crime it is an allegation, nothing more.

How can a defendant refute an unofficial allegation that may or may not ever come to light? There is no due process for the mystery crime. Nor have you shown this has ever been used in this way before.

 

[para bellum]

Intent to commit what crime? If the defendant is not charged with said crime it is an allegation, nothing more.

It's a show trial. They are trying to bullshit the jury into thinking the NDA's were an illegal conspiracy to influence the election because the amounts were more than the allowable campaign contribution.

And that a personal check is a business record, and the President of the United States is an "Enterprise" engaged in commerce in the State of New York, and that he was trying to defraud some unnamed victim because the payments to Cohen were recorded as "legal expenses".

It's a slam-dunk case in New York, the laughingstock of the legal world.

 

[Skylar]

Until or unless there is a conviction, no such person exists. So your first point is moot.

Says you, citing yourself, making up imaginary requirements. The law makes no such requirement. It requires the intent to commit a crime. says who? Says NY Penal Code 175-10

"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."

It requires intent. Not conviction.

Your imaginary requirements for conviction are not part of the law. Making your made up additions to the law meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Which only demonstrates how meaningless your 'legal analysis' is on issues of due process or presumption of innocence. You simply don't know what you're talking about regarding the law.

Intent to commit what crime? If the defendant is not charged with said crime it is an allegation, nothing more.

How can a defendant refute an unofficial allegation that may or may not ever come to light? There is no due process for the mystery crime. Nor have you shown this has ever been used in this way before.

Look at 175-10. You refuse to look at the law in question, then insist that because you won't look at it, the charges are a 'mystery'. Nope. They're quite clear. Its you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Trump has every opportunity to rebut the application of 175-10, or offer witnesses to refute the allegations of intent to violate 17-152 in THIS trial. And of course, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that 175-10 applies, and that it was Trump's intent to commit the crime outlined in 17-152 or that he tried to cover it up.

Satisfying every requirement of due process.

Again, you don't understand what due process is. You don't understand the law in question and starkly refuse to look at it. And you're willful ignorance is no more a legal standard than your feelings are.

 

[Rogue AI]

Says you, citing yourself, making up imaginary requirements. The law makes no such requirement. It requires the intent to commit a crime. says who? Says NY Penal Code 175-10

"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."

It requires intent. Not conviction.

Your imaginary requirements for conviction are not part of the law. Making your made up additions to the law meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Which only demonstrates how meaningless your 'legal analysis' is on issues of due process or presumption of innocence. You simply don't know what you're talking about regarding the law.




Look at 175-10. You refuse to look at the law in question, then insist that because you won't look at it, the charges are a 'mystery'. Nope. They're quite clear. Its you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Trump has every opportunity to rebut the application of 175-10, or offer witnesses to refute the allegations of intent to violate 17-152 in THIS trial. And of course, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that 175-10 applies, and that it was Trump's intent to commit the crime outlined in 17-152 or that he tried to cover it up.

Satisfying every requirement of due process.

Again, you don't understand what due process is. You don't understand the law in question and starkly refuse to look at it. And you're willful ignorance is no more a legal standard than your feelings are.

This imaginary 'intent' must be backed more than accusations. Since when does the defendant have to prove their innocence, it for the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is still America. That is not the case when baseless accusations are used to create 'intent'. How does 17-152 apply to a federal election? It doesn't. Again, you cannot show how these laws have ever been used in such a corrupt and egregious way.

 

[Skylar]

This imaginary 'intent' must be backed more than accusations.

Intent being 'imaginary' says you, citing yourself as a legal standard. Which is meaningless.

You insisting that intent is 'imaginary' has no more relevance to the law or its application than you making up non-existent 'requirements' of conviction for Trump to be charged with felonies under 175-10.

Your imagination has no more legal relevance than your feelings.

If the prosecution can convince a jury that Trump violated 175-10 and intended to violate 17-152, he'll be convicted. And there's nothing imaginary about that.

Since when does the defendant have to prove their innocence, it for the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Strawman. No one is saying that Trump has to prove his innocence. Only you are. To quote me on the topic:

"And of course, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that 175-10 applies, and that it was Trump's intent to commit the crime outlined in 17-152 or that he tried to cover it up."

You asked where Trump would have a right to defend himself against allegations that he intended to violate 17-153. I told you:

This trial.

This is still America. That is not the case when baseless accusations are used to create 'intent'. How does 17-152 apply to a federal election? It doesn't. Again, you cannot show how these laws have ever been used in such a corrupt and egregious way.

Baseless says you, citing yourself. Intent being imaginary says you, citing yourself.

Your feelings, your imagination, your made-up pseudo-legal 'requirements', your personal opinions.....not one of them is a legal standard. And not one of them is needed to satisfy due process and any constitutional obligation.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Rogue AI]

Intent being 'imaginary' says you, citing yourself as a legal standard. Which is meaningless.

You insisting that intent is 'imaginary' has no more relevance to the law or its application than you making up non-existent 'requirements' of conviction for Trump to be charged with felonies under 175-10.

Your imagination has no more legal relevance than your feelings.

If the prosecution can convince a jury that Trump violated 175-10 and intended to violate 17-152, he'll be convicted. And there's nothing imaginary about that.



Strawman. No one is saying that Trump has to prove his innocence. Only you are. To quote me on the topic:

"And of course, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that 175-10 applies, and that it was Trump's intent to commit the crime outlined in 17-152 or that he tried to cover it up."

You asked where Trump would have a right to defend himself against allegations that he intended to violate 17-153. I told you:

This trial.



Baseless says you, citing yourself. Intent being imaginary says you, citing yourself.

Your feelings, your imagination, your made-up pseudo-legal 'requirements', your personal opinions.....not one of them is a legal standard. And not one of them is needed to satisfy due process and any constitutional obligation.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Nonsense, 17-152 doesn't apply to the presidency. There is no crime. Nor does due process for the imaginary intent exist if 17-152 isn't charged, since that isn't possible this is nothing but a sad farce.

 

[Care4all]

What's the underlying crime?

Cohen's crimes directed at the bequest of individual#1....that Cohen was charged and convicted of and served some time in a cell a few years back involving campaign finance laws, trump was un-indicted Individual #1

The falsifying business records was to cover up Cohen's crimes, is my best guess.....