Another LONG overdue reform.
Glad to see the sentencing commission step up where the Supreme Court would not and where the Congress has been incapable of acting.
and yet it is okay to assume Trump is guilty of a federal offense he has not even been charged with in order to charge him with a state offense.
go figure
2 Likes
Not everything is about Dirty Donald
1 Like
so in your mind, its okay to:
Charge someone with a crime they cannot have committed unless you first assume they are guilty of another crime they haven’t been charged with
but its not okay
to consider in sentencing for crime which a criminal has been found guilty of other charges for which they were not
bit of dichotomy there. don’t worry, we know, everything is justified in the pursuit of Trumps persecution.
for me, no problems, niether is justified.
1 Like
Penal Law §175.10 requires a showing that Trump falisified business records with the intent to further another crime - not that the other crime actually occurred.
1 Like
it is not possible to act on the intent to further another crime which requires the first crime to have been committed without actually committing that crime. It just isn’t.
I am having a hard time following you here, but it is absolutely possible for Trump to have intended to violate federal campaign finance law without him first being convicted of violating federal campaign finance law.
1 Like
and the FEC would have jurisdiction over that, and they have said no law was violated. In fact, they have said that in order for the law to have been violated, Trump would have had to actually claim the expenses as campaign expenses. The NY AG does not get to pretend Trump either violated or intended to violate a law he has no jurisdiction over when the party that does have jurisdiction refuses to do so.
There simply is no way around the fact that to bring this charge the DA had to assume Trump guilty of federal law. Aside from that no being his call, an assumption of guilt is not how American jurispudence is done.
4 Likes
The FEC has no jurisdiction whatsoever in prosecuting criminal campaign finance violations. And they have never said “no law was violated.”
Who said that?
The FEC said it a very long time ago when it was first bought up.
and yes the FEC is the regulating authority that would send it to DoJ for prosecution. Neither the FEC nor the DoJ have done so. The NY AG does not have any more authority to claim crimes out of his jurisdiction took place in order to file charges than the CO SC did to render their idiotic opinion.
2 Likes
Why not?
see CO SC.
he just doesn’t
The FEC isn’t a person, it’s a commission. They deadlocked on whether to pursue further actions against Trump for the Daniels and McDougal payments.
Well, because you said it so forcefully, it must be true.
It’s not like you have a long history of being so confidently wrong about everything.
2 Likes
LOL, not even in your dreams.
You on the other hand are wrong a lot. Using your TDS afflicted logic, the FEC could have gone after Trump, they could have referred it to DoJ, DoJ could have taken the case and Trump could have been acquitted.
And the NY AG could STILL use it because whether he committed a crime is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is do you think he intended to do so.
Further, not only would acquital be irrelevant, but the DA could claim a crime was intended to have been committed anywhere at anytime and require no proof since he’s not being charged with it.
“My friends the Jury, you don’t have to decide if he’s guilty of this crime, he’s not being charged with it, all you have to do is believe and then decide whether he committed this other crime that would be a misdemeanor except for your belief!”
1 Like
Yes, that’s exactly correct.
Where are you getting “require no proof” from?
It’s a criminal trial, Bragg has to prove it all to the jury.
stick to real estate
You are nothing if not predictable.
he does not have to prove the federal offense, Trump is NOT on trial for that. he only has to prove that Trump falsified documents and make the jury believe the federal offense exists.
and you have the intent wrong, it is not intent to have committed another crime, it is falsifying the documents with the INTENT of covering up another crime. The other crime does have to have been committed or there would be nothing to cover up. But this DA has NO jurisdiction over the matter and no authority to try him for it.
So what he’s doing is asking the jury to ASSUME guilt for a federal crime Trump is not charged with and for which he has no legal authority to try him.
2 Likes
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
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.
