Poll: Which court will overturn Trump's conviction for his NDA?

[OKTexas]

All the law states is that intent to commit a crime is needed or to aid or conceal a crime. The prosecution offered 3 such crimes. The jury did not have to agree with which of those crimes he intended to conceal. They only had to agree he intentended to conceal at least one of them. That does not violate the Constitution.



Of course they were. They were listed in the statement of facts issued with the indictment.



Not true. She had relevant testimony to offer. Specifically how Trump was trying to stall paying her until after the election.



How could he testify to something he has no knowledge of? And yes, there was a campaign finance violation. Cohen was convicted and incarcerated for it, among other crimes.

All I'll say it we'll see how the apelet court handles it. You have your theories, I have mine.

.

 

[Skylar]

All I'll say it we'll see how the apelet court handles it. You have your theories, I have mine.

.

yeah, but some of your theories are provably false. For example, your claims that Trump's team wasn't informed of the underlying crimes.

That's just not true. They were informed numerous times. With documentation. With dates on them. There were entire hearings about them. They were part of the jury instruction. It was well known, well verified information.

On the 'lack of unanimous verdict' and on 'stormy daniel's testimony being prejudicial', that's involves more subjective interpreation. You're almost certainly wrong, but time will tell.

I think the strongest basis for overturning is probably going to be on the Statutes of Limitations. Not for the violations of 175-10, but possibly with the others. The underlying crimes (more accurately, the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime) doesn't require charges, trials or convictions. Merely intent.

But without charges, would it be subject to a statute of limitations? And without a statute, would there be legal or constitutional complications?

Dunno. Maybe? This is the one area I'm not quite sure on.

 

[OKTexas]

And the jury did unanimously find that Trump violated 175-10 with the felony enhancement. Everyone single one of them.

As for the 'informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' part, you've been misinformed on what Trump's legal team was told. Both 17-152 and the FECA citations as underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were cited specifically in the prosecution filings made available to defense in November 2023.

The underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were again discussed in detail in a February 2024 hearing where both 17-152 and the FECA laws were cited. In fact, the judge actually winnowed the list from 4 to 3 in this ruling. Something he couldn't do without all 4 of the original underlying crimes being sited in detail.

You're just wrong on this one.

Constitutionally every charge has to be specified, that would include the felony enhancement. You can't have a Chinese menu.

.

 

[OKTexas]

yeah, but some of your theories are provably false. For example, your claims that Trump's team wasn't informed of the underlying crimes.

That's just not true. They were informed numerous times. With documentation. With dates on them. There were entire hearings about them. They were part of the jury instruction. It was well known, well verified information.

On the 'lack of unanimous verdict' and on 'stormy daniel's testimony being prejudicial', that's involves more subjective interpreation. You're almost certainly wrong, but time will tell.

I think the strongest basis for overturning is probably going to be on the Statutes of Limitations. Not for the violations of 175-10, but possibly with the others. The underlying crimes (more accurately, the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime) doesn't require charges, trials or convictions. Merely intent.

But without charges, would it be subject to a statute of limitations? And without a statute, would there be legal or constitutional complications?

Dunno. Maybe? This is the one area I'm not quite sure on.

That's what appeals courts are for.

.

 

[Skylar]

Constitutionally every charge has to be specified, that would include the felony enhancement. You can't have a Chinese menu.

.

Every charge was specified. 175-10, with felony enhancements. Trump was never 'charged' with any of the underlying crimes. Nor is there any requirement under 175-10 that any of these crimes be committed, that there be charges, trials, or convictions.

Merely the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime is sufficient for the felony enhancement. And Bragg had already applied such enhancements over 120 times on other upgraded charges of 175-10 violations with other defendants.

The underlying crimes were communicated to Trump's team repeatedly. That's just factual and verifiable. All 4 of them. And after the February 2024 hearing, all 3 of them.

 

[OKTexas]

Every charge was specified. 175-10, with felony enhancements. Trump was never 'charged' with any of the underlying crimes. Nor is there any requirement under 175-10 that any of these crimes be committed, that there be charges, trials, or convictions.

Merely the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime is sufficient for the felony enhancement. And Bragg had already applied such enhancements over 120 times on other upgraded charges of 175-10 violations with other defendants.

The underlying crimes were communicated to Trump's team repeatedly. That's just factual and verifiable. All 4 of them. And after the February 2024 hearing, all 3 of them.

Once again, everything has to be specified and agreed to by the jury..

Now I'm going to bed.

.

 

[Skylar]

Once again, everything has to be specified and agreed to by the jury..

Now I'm going to bed.

.

And the jury did agree. Everyone one of the found Trump violated 175-10 with felony enhancements.

 

[Dragonlady]

Explain how a bookkeeping entry done years after the election was a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person?

This is fun.

You keep jumping on rakes and bashing yourself in the face.

Trump is guilty. We don't have to explain it to idiots like you. Follow the trial.

 

[konradv]

Why Donald Trump likely has strong grounds for appeal

Trump has already said he will appeal the 34 convictions in his hush money case.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/02/trump-conviction-appeal-juror-00161110

Sounds like garbage to me. There are no legitimate grounds and I don’t think the court should rule until after the election, because that’s what’s happening in GA, FL and DC.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yeah, that article never once mentions the Supreme Court.

You really put this little thought into your own argument before starting an entire thread about this?

What basis would the SCOTUS itself use for overturning the NY State case? They generally don't step in on State cases without some greater constitutional issue that needs to be defined at stake.

You've cited none.

Well, one could be that Bragg is guilty of abusing his office by vowing to “get trump” during his campaign.

Another could be from the result into the investigation into how the Biden administrstion may have played a role in this, through the odd act of colangelo leaving the Biden doj to help bragg

One might be that Bragg broke the rules of issuing an indictment by not including all relevant information in the indictment, such as the underlying crimes used to bring this case forward

One could be that this legal theory that was untested, was used to revive a case 5 years past its statute of limitation.

One might be that, they convicted him based on a law where the letter of the law was not met (no intent to defraud)

One might be that there was actually no falsification of business records, marking a payment to your attorney for implementing an NDA IS ACTUALLY a legal expense. Even if the reason for that payment WAS to conceal the payment to cohen, it technically was not a false business record. What they should have done is charge him with campaign finance violation, or attempt to conceal a campaign finance violation, but that would have been a federal charge and out of braggs jurisdiction, thus the law he chose.

Those are just some things I could think of that might possibly be a reason..

 

[Nostra]

Of course there was.

To highlight there was no violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Which you still haven't shown any such violation. It's why you, like your thread, is a monumental failure.

I'll take the interpretation of constitutional scholars over an innerweb troll who had to admit reading his posts makes you stupid, Simp.

 

[konradv]

Well, one could be that Bragg is guilty of abusing his office by vowing to “get trump” during his campaign.

Another could be from the result into the investigation into how the Biden administrstion may have played a role in this, through the odd act of colangelo leaving the Biden doj to help bragg

One might be that Bragg broke the rules of issuing an indictment by not including all relevant information in the indictment, such as the underlying crimes used to bring this case forward

One could be that this legal theory that was untested, was used to revive a case 5 years past its statute of limitation.

One might be that, they convicted him based on a law where the letter of the law was not met (no intent to defraud)

One might be that there was actually no falsification of business records, marking a payment to your attorney for implementing an NDA IS ACTUALLY a legal expense. Even if the reason for that payment WAS to conceal the payment to cohen, it technically was not a false business record. What they should have done is charge him with campaign finance violation, or attempt to conceal a campaign finance violation, but that would have been a federal charge and out of braggs jurisdiction, thus the law he chose.

Those are just some things I could think of that might possibly be a reason..

Coincidences of life shouldn’t get a felon off the hook.

#FELONinCHIEF

 

[Nostra]

So you don't understand there didn't have to be an underlying crime committed? Although in this case, there was.

Yes, there had to be another crime to resurrect dead misdemeanors. You are clueless.

There was no other crime offered, nor proven in court.

 

[Nostra]

statue of limitations.

Thanks for your insight, Matlock.

 

[Nostra]

You don't have to. NY already took care of it.

Gonna be fun watching your head explode when this kangaroo court is bitchslapped on appeal like Colorado was.

 

[Nostra]

Good thing for NY, Trump was formally charged with violating NY § 175.10 and convicted unanimously of that charge by all 12 jurors. Which included 2 attorneys.

And it will be overturned.

 

[Nostra]

Constitutionally every charge has to be specified, that would include the felony enhancement. You can't have a Chinese menu.

.

If you are going after Trump, in Skylar's Banana Republic you can have a Chinese menu.

 

[Nostra]

Trump is guilty. We don't have to explain it to idiots like you. Follow the trial.

Gonna be fun watching your head explode too when this farce is bitchslapped in a real court.

 

[Crepitus]

I have my money on the US Supreme Court since it looks like the NY State court of appeals is packed with nothing but Democrats. But hey, this trial was such a joke maybe they will try to save a little face for the state of NY.

There is no question this will be reversed once it gets to a real court.

New York State Court of Appeals

What "NDA"?

 

[Nostra]

What "NDA"?

Are you really that clueless? No need for us to go any further until you get educated on the topic.