Did you even read the OP?
1 Like
To the extent that the federal campaign violation is an element of the charges against Trump, of course he has to prove it.
In court, âmaking the jury believeâ and âprovingâ something is the same thing.
Yes I did, and I agree that judges should not use crimes a defendant has been acquitted of in sentencing just as I believe a DA should not be able to use crimes a person is not charged with the make another charge. In either case you have to assume the defendant is guilty of something even when the evidence does not support it.
2 Likes
no its not. belief only requires faith.
So, youâre just coming out against the entire concept of inchoate crimes, in general?
1 Like
They are both examples of the legal finder of fact finding facts.
1 Like
if youâre going to claim a party committed a crime, and charging them with that crime relies on them having committed another crime⌠then you gotta prove the other crime was committed. if you donât have jurisdiction over that crime (for whatever reason) then you canât charge the crime that relies on it unless and until the body with jurisdiction does. Because without that, there is no crime to begin with.
1 Like
NY is not the legal finder of fact for federal campaign violations.
Yes. In this case, Bragg just has to prove that Trump intended or attempted to commit campaign finance violations, though.
No. This is nonsense.
Sure there is. âCrimesâ donât come into existence when theyâre charged.
1 Like
As youâve pointed out several times now, Trump isnât charged with any federal campaign violations.
they donât come into existence then either. They come into existence legally when someone is found guilty. Until then⌠theyâve committed no crime.
stick to real estate
and NY is not the finder of fact for them, and has no authority to present evidence assigning guilt for them.
They are essentially attempting to try him for a federal crime over which they have no jurisdiction in order to find him guilty of a misdemeanor that the SoL has run out on. They have zero authority to try him for federal crimes.
1 Like
No. You are conflating criminal charges with crimes. If I get murdered tomorrow morning, a crime was committed - whether or not anyone is convicted of it.
Who or what is âthem?â
Sure.
They arenât.
if they arenât, then they have no reason to present evidence that any federal crime occurred.
Of course they do. They have to prove the elements of the crime they are charging him with.
which means they are trying him for federal campaign violations, which they have no jurisdiction over. If you donât âfindâ him guilty of the first, he canât be guilty of the second. Niether this judge nor this jury have any authority to assume his guilt of federal campaign violations no matter what proof is presented. And they MUST assume him guilty to find him guilty of the state law.
1 Like
No, it doesnât âmeanâ that at all.
You keep trying to ride right over that hole in the logic.
This just isnât a true statement. The NY statute is quite clear that all that is required as an elment is intent or an attempt to commit a crime - not a conviction.
No, they really donât. All they have to show is that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit another crime, or to aid in the commission or concealment of a crime.
2 Likes
a crime that is outside of their jurisdiction and for which they have no authority to assume his guilt or intent. determining whether he intended or did commit a federal campaign violation is not within the jurisdiction of this court.
1 Like
Theyâre not assuming anything. They have to prove all the elements of the crime Trump is charged with.
Sure it is. Jurisdiction determines the charges that can be brought, not the facts that can be found.
2 Likes
An Appeals Court will toss this thing farther than a Frisbee.
Unfortuantely the Election Interference will be a done deed at that point.
1 Like
