Yale Law Professor EXPOSES the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Trial Against TRUMP....

[SavannahMann]

You posted sources from conservative websites. Suspect websites Your research was slip-shod and unconvincing. Baiscally used sites you knew were and went there. Try stepping out of your comfort zone sometime.

You should have read the links. The articles were in support of the conviction.

 

[BackAgain]

You should have read the links. The articles were in support of the conviction.

Close-minded dumbasses like .0311 don’t need to read a piece in order to spout mindless shit about it.

Obviously.

 

[0311]

You should have read the links. The articles were in support of the conviction.

Your sources are highly questionable. I am reminded of my Father/Grand Father/Grand Mother/Great Grand Father/Great Grand Mother (all newspaper people) used to say. "Find no less than three sources, that indedpendently verify what you are trying to report", they never......REPEAT.......never used a biased source. YOU cannot say the same. Independent sources, NOT biased sources that YOU know will give YOU what YOU want.

 

[SavannahMann]

Your sources are highly questionable. I am reminded of my Father/Grand Father/Grand Mother/Great Grand Father/Great Grand Mother (all newspaper people) used to say. "Find no less than three sources, that indedpendently verify what you are trying to report", they never......REPEAT.......never used a biased source. YOU cannot say the same. Independent sources, NOT biased sources that YOU know will give YOU what YOU want.

If you had read them. Politico’s legal expert took serious issue with the idiocy of Trump’s defense. They ignored the weakest parts of the Prosecutions case to focus on the claim that Trump fucked Stormy Daniels, oh and that Cohen was an awful person.

The other two were written by Lawyers. One was a former Federal Prosecutor who explained why Trump was found guilty. The other was a law school professor who offered his own explanation.

I read news from many sources. I look at what they are saying. If it is all smoke and mirrors on a subject I know they are bereft of any substance.

You should try it.

 

[0311]

If you had read them. Politico’s legal expert took serious issue with the idiocy of Trump’s defense. They ignored the weakest parts of the Prosecutions case to focus on the claim that Trump fucked Stormy Daniels, oh and that Cohen was an awful person.

The other two were written by Lawyers. One was a former Federal Prosecutor who explained why Trump was found guilty. The other was a law school professor who offered his own explanation.

I read news from many sources. I look at what they are saying. If it is all smoke and mirrors on a subject I know they are bereft of any substance.

You should try it.

NOT.....NOT.....NOT....RELIABLE. Do you understand that word at all. Find THREE (03) Independent Sources that verify want you want to report. I read you post and your sources are questionable. A Conservative former Federa Prosecutor is suspect. A Conservative Law School Professor is suspect. Find better sources. my Grand Father would red lined your post.

 

[SavannahMann]

NOT.....NOT.....NOT....RELIABLE. Do you understand that word at all. Find THREE (03) Independent Sources that verify want you want to report. I read you post and your sources are questionable. A Conservative former Federa Prosecutor is suspect. A Conservative Law School Professor is suspect. Find better sources. my Grand Father would red lined your post.

So your grandfather was also a closed minded fool. I understand. It is common for the Apple to drop close to the tree.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Don't need any . The PROOF is that Fake Judges conduct.

What conduct?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Trump and his legal team were never informed of what the "another crime" he allegedly intended to cover up.

Yes they were.

In February. Trump lied to you. Do you care?

Below is the decisions and orders document from February. See "other crimes" starting halfway down page 11.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

 

[Rawley]

Yes they were.

In February. Trump lied to you. Do you care?

Below is the decisions and orders document from February. See "other crimes" starting halfway down page 11.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

We did see that. Which one did the jury find he intended to hide? Which of the crimes was proven in court?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Oh so the predicate crime was a, b, or c
Federal crime is not a jurisdiction of a district court. And the other two are misdemeanors

He wasn't charged with those predicate crimes so jurisdiction doesn't matter.

The predicate crimes do not have to be felonies nor misdemeanors.

This is explained here in the precedent case ..

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He wasn't charged with those predicate crimes so jurisdiction doesn't matter.

The predicate crimes do not have to be felonies nor misdemeanors.

This is explained here in the precedent case ..

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element.

This is why the verdict will be over turned

 

[Catsnmeters]

We did see that. Which one did the jury find he intended to hide?

One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.

This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.

Which of the crimes was proven in court?

Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.

How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.

This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.


Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.

How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?

No one knew what the crimes were until the closing statements given by the prosecution

 

[Catsnmeters]

This is why the verdict will be over turned

Why?

Because of a law that has been around and used multiple times since 1965?

This was all agreed upon by Trump's team, the prosecutors and the judge months ago.

Why would they get an appeal on something they agreed to? That isn't how appeals work.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No one knew what the crimes were until the closing statements given by the prosecution

Nonsense.

You were lied to by Trump and his sycophants.

The document in post 88 is from February.

It discusses those crimes in detail.

Trump lied to you. Are you pissed about it or you don't care?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nonsense.

You were lied to by Trump and his sycophants.

The document in post 88 is from February.

It discusses those crimes in detail.

Trump lied to you. Are you pissed about it or you don't care?

Wrong

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why?

Because of a law that has been around and used multiple times since 1965?

This was all agreed upon by Trump's team, the prosecutors and the judge months ago.

Why would they get an appeal on something they agreed to? That isn't how appeals work.

Your explanation of the verdict is the reason

 

[Rawley]

One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.

No he wasn't

This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.

No it wasn't

Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.

The Grand Jury has nothing to do with what was wasn't proven at trial.

How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?

Because none of them were shown at trial.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wrong

What is wrong?

Are you unable to open the document?

Did you see the date?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Your explanation of the verdict is the reason

You will have to be more specific.

My explanation was decades of precedent.