I've seen them.
Nope, that's not the underlying crime. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. I'm asking for what crime of which he committed that turned misdemeanors into felonies. You can't tell me what that is.
No it's not.
Judge allowing Jury to pick between 3 "crimes"
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Cool.
You said "nobody knows what Trump was convicted of," which is factually false. It's public record what he was convicted of.
It was some combination of FECA violations, further falsification of records, or tax fraud. According to the law, which one doesn't matter.
Citation needed.
For the record, here's mine:
Page 4403, Line 7 - Page 4404, Line 14
The most important passage:
THE COURT: Do you agree, that's not ordinarily required?
MR. BOVE: Certainly.
Last edited:
It does matter. You're changing nothing crimes that hurt nobody into a felony.
How am I supposed to prove a negative? The onus is on you to prove that it's common practice.
Not according to the law, evidently.
It's not a negative. You're arguing that the jury is required to be unanimous about the predicate crimes. That should be something you're able to demonstrate. If you're not able to, then you're certainly not justified to come here and type "no it's not" as if you know.
Here is the lead legal analyst from CNN:
"Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law." I'll highlight some passages."Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess."
"The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not."
"The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.
Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.""In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.""Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey."
Yes, Riveting linked this same thing, even suggesting (without evidence) that Honig risked his job to say these things. Is it possible Honig could be wrong? And at no point have I denied that there are legal experts who think these things. You're the one saying that these things are the ONLY things legal experts are saying (or that anyone saying the opposite must necessarily be biased), which is just simply not true.
Also, good job not actually answering my question and supporting your claim that it is not normal that the jury need not be unanimous with respect to the predicate crime. You all are really good at shifting the topic to avoid answering questions.
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about? You asked me to prove a negative which you cannot do. I stated as much, and you come back at me as if I did something wrong?
Here is a good conversation about the case between two people that disagree whether it was justified or not. You can see that the person in favor of the case even knows that there was some legal gymnastics done in order to take it to court.
You did do something wrong, because you stated something as fact that you now admit that you can't justify. But also, you can restate your position as a positive claim, which I was kind enough to do for you.
Regardless, Trump's defense team agrees with me (as well as with the judge and with the prosecution) that unanimity among the jury with respect to predicate crimes is "not ordinarily required."
Wow, could Dr. Phil poison the well any harder? "Arguing side A, a former prosecutor. Arguing side B (which is also the title of this program and the position I've already stated I agree with), the most brilliant person I have ever met and the best lawyer ever." Congrats, though, on proving my point that there are knowledgeable people on both sides of this argument, so perhaps it's not as clear-cut as it's being presented on this board.
Not that suggestions and predictions are required to have evidence, but Honig works for an anti-Trump network, which is evidence that Honig may have risked his job by going against the cnn party line.
Of the Honig quotes above, pretend to be a lawyer again and tell us which you do not think are not justified and why, JM.
No. I said it can't be proven. How can I provide proof for something that doesn't exist?
Maybe that's because the best of the best can't argue the side you want to hear.
So are you saying the NY procedural law (or whatever) guideline that says the jury has to be unanimous regarding predicate crimes doesn't exist? They how can you possibly say they they ARE required to be?
And I'll again mention that Trump's lawyers explicitly agreed (on the record, in court) with the idea that it was NOT required. Are they, somehow, in cahoots with the rigged prosecution?
Forgive me if I don't take Dr. Phil's word for it that this person is "the best of the best." That said, there are other highly-accomplished people in the field who do make such an argument or who have gone on record to state that they believe the trial represents the justice system working as intended. Though I resent the accusation that it's the argument I "want" to hear. I'm simply stating it's an argument that exists whereas you seem to be saying everyone who disagrees with you must necessarily be compromised in some way.
Probably the two most acclaimed lawyers on constitutional law are Alan Dershowitz (a liberal who never voted for Trump) and Jonathan Turley (a Libertarian lean). Both are embarrassed by what went on in the court. My daughter’s roommate's (in undergrad) brother could have went to any law school and he choose George Washington because of Jonathan Turley. https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickcvalencia He was surprised that he had so many Libertarian views. The courts and FBI have been politicized against republicans.
They agreed that it was not required? Sounds to me the way this is stated that they simply acknowledged what the Judge ordered. Not that they agreed with it. Those are very different things.
Well, he states the awards the man has received. You think he made that up?
The facts are that this was a political hit job. If this was anyone other than Trump, there would have been no case. You cannot deny that fact. It's also a fact that they had to lift the statute of limitations for one year in order to bring this case. Something that also would have never happened if it was anyone but Trump.
How can you not possibly see that this is a political hit job that the Fascists of old would be proud of?
Here's the transcript again, pages 4403-4404:
And the relevant passage:
THE COURT: Do you agree, that's not ordinarily required?
MR. BOVE: Certainly.
And earlier than that, they said, "We understand the law that's been cited here. We think your Honor has some discretion."
The defense then goes on to say, after agreeing with the judge in passage above, that they think the judge should use his discretion to make an exception in this case, which he refuses to do, apparently content to hold Trump to the same standard anyone else would be held to. Seems pretty clear to me. Suffice to say, if the case is overturned on appeal, I highly doubt this will be the reason.
No, I think he purposefully set out to make the person arguing the point he agreed with look like more of an authority, like a more reliable and trustworthy source, than the person arguing against it.
I don't know if that even IS a fact. How could I, or anyone other than Alvin Bragg, or maybe someone he explicitly told, possibly know that? You labeling your opinion a fact doesn't make it a fact.
The statute of limitations was changed in 2020 due to COVID. Do you have any evidence that it was because of Trump? Were you also aware that the statute of limitations pauses in NY if the person in question out of the state continually? Prosecutors could very well have brought this case even without the extension.
Because, near as I can tell, it seems that he actually did the thing that he was accused of and that thing was illegal, as found by a jury of his peers (a jury that I have no good reason to believe was biased against Trump). I also think, if something was done improperly at the trial court level, it will be corrected at a higher level. I just am not yet convinced that anything was done improperly. You evidently are.
A hypothetical question: if the conviction is never overturned and he's not given a new trial. Let's say even SCOTUS either refuses to hear it or rules to uphold it, would that be enough for you to change your opinion?
On a related note, if SCOTUS agrees to hear it, do you think the three justices appointed by Trump should recuse themselves? If giving $35 to Democrats was enough to show Merchan couldn't be impartial, certainly owing your career to one of the parties in a case is enough, too, right?
Last edited:
Perhaps there was nobody with similar credentials to argue the other side. What was he supposed to do? Make stuff up about her so she sounded more important? I think it's important to list someone's accomplishments in a situation like this in order to prove they aren't just some joe shmoe.
Don't have time to argue the rest of this. Leaving for Europe.
But he didn't just list credentials, which would've been fine.
Enjoy!
And be sure to report back what socialist hellholes those countries are! TIC
Last edited:
Can you provide citation of a case where a jury was given options of a predicate crime and told they didn’t have to agree? If it’s common I am sure that you can provide citation.
Can you tell me what the predicate crime was that he was found to commit in order for the 34 counts were made to be felonies. Citation needed.
Can you provide list of legal experts that say their are no constitutional or administrative issues with the case that Trump has no grounds for appeal? Not that he won’t win in a NY court. That he doesn’t have any grounds for appeal. Citation needed.
None of the lawyers (including the defense) nor the judge in the case seemed to be of the opinion that NY law requires they agree. So, maybe take it up with them? I'm not a lawyer, and don't have knowledge in navigating, nor time to invest in searching, the NY judicial records system to find precedent. But, Trump's lawyers, in court, stating that they understand the law does not make any such requirement is enough evidence for me, as if ANYONE were to argue the opposite, it seems it would be them.
I've cited the position of Trump's defense on this issue twice.
I asked another poster to provide citation of the NY law which states the jury must agree on predicate crimes, as they made a very definitive statement that this must be the case, and they were unable, or unwilling, to do so. Mind you this was a poster who had previously linked me to a NY law, indicated that they know how to find them.
No, because members of the jury was not required to indicate which of the three they were convinced of. It was some combination of FECA violations, further falsification of business records, or tax fraud.
I'm not aware of anyone saying he has "no" grounds for appeal, thus I do not hold that position.
Edit: here's one:
But anyway, I think there are arguments he can make that may or may not have legs. Having grounds for appeal and having grounds for a SUCCESSFUL appeal are different things, though, and plenty of people are saying the appeal likely won't be successful. But since you've ruled out me providing those citations, I guess you'll have to find them yourself.
If it's not obvious from my previous posts in this thread, I'm simply pushing back on the notion that several have presented that this case was so poorly handled that it is inevitable that it will be overturned on appeal. That ALL of the legal experts, ALL of the lawyers who are offering commentary are saying this case was a baseless political hack-job with a corrupt judge and biased jury (one of the posters holding this position that ALL the experts agree, posted a video in which two experts disagree, disproving that very notion, which is a special kind of cognitive dissonance). To me, that position seems as if it cannot be justified, and some of the arguments for appeal being presented look to be non-issues as they, as best I can determine, are SOP for criminal proceedings.
Last edited:
Ok good. You keep referencing experts with another option but you don’t have citations. Ok, cool. No citations.
Also. You are not an attorney so you are probably not smarter than Johnathan Turley who disagrees with basically everything you are saying https://thehill.com/opinion/crimina...trump-jury-is-out-but-is-the-case-in-the-bag/
Unless you have citations disproving this long article detailing every error we can agree that your push back is a/o merit.
Thanks. We finally got here.
Look for yourself. It'll take like 10 seconds. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss any contrary opinions as "biased" or "partisan" or "beholden to corporate media."
But, since you're apparently dependent upon me to do your work for you:
Some of the people referenced in these various articles who either don't bring up any problems or explicitly say the trial was handled appropriately:
Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg
Former 3rd U.S. Circuit Court Judge Timothy Lewis
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman
Temple Law Professor Laura E. Little
Pittsburgh Law Professor Jerry Dickinson
Fordham Law Professor Cheryl Bader
So, like other posters here, you're content to present ONE opinion and assume that because it's from a knowledgeable person, then ALL knowledgeable people must necessarily hold the same opinion.
And one not need be smarter than Johnathan Turley to recognize that there are other people who also are experts that disagree with him.
What a ridiculous standard you're holding me to here. If I don't have a link disproving every argument by Turley, it disproves my position that there are experts that disagree with Turley?
Let me just ask this, is it at least POSSIBLE that Turley is wrong? I mean, he predicted that the trial was going "very well" for the defense (when many others have come out since the verdict criticizing the defense strategy) and that Trump would win the trial, and he was clearly wrong about those two things.
It seems to me the place we've gotten to is that none of you are willing to do the simplest of Google searches to determine whether or not there are other knowledgeable people who hold different opinions. You're more interested in your echo chamber, apparently.
This whole argument is ridiculous anyway. We don't have to agree on what we think will happen. I don't understand why it's so hard to admit that there exist varying opinions among those in the legal field. Were I to summarize, I'm saying "there are differing opinions," and your response is "no there aren't, because Johnathan Turley," or "no there aren't, because Elie Honig." It's such a ridiculous argument that I think I'm done with it. I don't know how to have a conversation when we can't agree on the simplest of demonstrable facts.
Are you planning another dramatic announcement that you are leaving the board, JM? The last one was quite comical, especially after you came crawling back in a few days.
I think you have to wonder if he or she really believes all he or she writes? No fraud in the 2020 election. A real threat and insurrection as stated in the movie production of Jan 6 and the imagination of the imagination of trannies not having mental illness. Is it possible that someone could miss the obvious and write with sincerity or that the person doesn't know what to believe without google telling that person. Which one could possibly lead to real understanding?
So tired of this.
There was NO CHANCE they were taking over the government, nor was that their intent.
So it wasn’t a “real threat”, whatever that means, or an insurrection. What would you call it? What was the intent if the rioters? What was the outcome they were hoping for? What outcome were you hoping for?
Have I written anything about 2020 election fraud on this board? Have I written anything about January 6 on this board?
I HAVE written about trans issues, so congrats on saying one thing accurately. Although you should stop using slurs. Your use of them is especially bad since you think trans people have a mental illness (despite the medical and mental health communities disagreeing with you). Why are you using derogatory terms for people you believe to be mentally ill? That's really shitty. Would you use slurs to refer to people with autism? With depression? With eating disorders?
"Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex. Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.”
Last edited:
Reality can do that to you. I am so tired of the open border and complained about it long before it became fashionable, but it too was reality. Some were just taking pictures. Some got stuck in the crowd and pushed forward. Some reacted in a way that justified police actions and some did not. As I watched it, or what the camera showed me, I thought it was just the opening act for the big boys such as Antifa and BLM that could last for months and therefore thought it too was encouraged by the democrats. Then I thought surely the democrats were not going to let them burn down the capitol and whatever looting could take place. They were royalty, not like the peasants that lost businesses. You could understand why the Dems encouraged those actions for peasants...but not going to let it happen to royalty. Did the ones that were violent deserve punishment? Sure, but it was never a real insurrection attempt. The only person shot and killed was an innocent woman and she wasn't a threat for an insurrection. Nancy has said that she took responsibility https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...in-video-shot-by-her-own-daughter/ar-BB1nYWK0. Still, I don't want her to lose sleep as it wasn't nearly as big a deal as the Summer of Love, Antifa and BLM in many cities...in many states and not just for a couple of hours...with REAL damage. Then the Dems said we have a lot of stupid people and so let's hire a movie producer to create the scenes for Jan 6 commission for those that want to see the programming...not only of the theatrics, but of the mind as well.
If you think grandma and grandpa of which there were many were a problem for a couple of hours on Jan 6 and ignore the real problem with the destruction and looting inside cities encouraged by democrats for months, then IMO your angst is misdirected
Like the camera views were only what LBJ wanted on Vietnam, we were showed only what teh dems wanted us to see to gain more control
just cause I'm reminded
Last edited:
"Conservative group doesn't like trans people" isn't quite the flex you think it is. But, this thread is not about trans issues, and you and I have already discussed this, making no headway, so no need to start again."Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex. Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.”
But I do want to ask why you're apparently not willing to apologize for your use of a slur that denigrates people that you think suffer from a mental illness?
Last edited:
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nothing to receive sound, did it make sound? Europe is not conservative, but instead of trying to ignore reality since a labeled "conservative group" in the USA joined Europe in agreement, what does the hard science say?
"A big part of the reason for the end of the trans craze is the accumulation of scientific studies, patient testimonies, and the testimonies of gender clinicians themselves.
The WPATH Files themselves should be seen in a broader context of revelations and confessions from the whistleblowers and employees of the gender medicine industry itself. The UK government shut down its leading gender clinic at Tavistock Hospital after its own employees blew the whistle. A St. Louis gender clinician last year similarly blew the whistle. One of the founders of gender-affirming care in Europe recently denounced the overuse of drugs and surgeries. Dr. Erica Anderson has argued for years that too few guardrails protect children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.
Meanwhile, medical journals are publishing a growing number of scientific articles debunking the leading trans myths. A major Finland study found gender medicine to offer no benefits in terms of reducing suicide and suicidal feelings among people with gender dysphoria. And earlier this week, journalist Ben Ryan resurfaced a 2021 study that found that trans women who underwent genital surgery had twice as many suicide attempts after the surgery than before.
Defenders of gender medicine are responding to these revelations. In response to the WPATH Files, StatNews claimed we had exaggerated the link between hormones and cancer in trans-identified natal females.
But even a cursory review of the evidence shows that testosterone has already been linked to cancer. A 2020 paper in the Lancet found that a 17-year-old trans-identified natal female had developed liver tumors in connection to testosterone use. Although the research has been inconclusive (as we noted), another 2023 paper found multiple cases of liver tumors linked to testosterone use.
What’s more, we were not the ones to make the cancer link from the WPATH Files – it was suggested by WPATH-affiliated doctors themselves. And it turns out that testosterone can cause far worse damage to livers than we had realized. The liver is a sexually dimorphic organ, meaning it exhibits major differences in males and females."
Trying to pretend that a mental issue is actually a physical issue when the physical biology disagrees is indoctrination, not science
Wow, an opinion piece by two non-scientists, I'm convinced! Good of you to not include the link nor list the authors so that you could present them as people who have some sort of authority on the issue. But, again, we're not going to come to consensus on this, so you can stop bringing it up.
But, it seems you're just cool with being the kind of person who uses slurs against people you think have mental illnesses. Good to know.
Last edited:
The tree is the forest kinda got you lost didn't it...and that was before the hard science. It is okay, hard science is probably not your thing. We need those like you or it would get awfully boring. Now about Europe being so conservative...
I'm really trying to make this easy for you, but you are getting lost. The tree has NO position. It is not about a position. It has nothing to do with a position. It is a simple statement that has been used for years before so much indoctrination. It is straightforward and should be easy to understand. It is like a variable in that it can be used against many constants. So, I'll try to explain what I thought didn't need explaining...only because I like you. If there is nothing to receive sound, did sound exist? Hopefully the dots are close enough that no further explanation is needed. However, if you still don't get it...that is okay...that doesn't mean you are a bad person and so just carry on my wayward son (credit to Kansas)
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
This word salad makes no perceivable point, other than maybe that you think a proposition is true because we used to believe it was true in the past?
Argument from Age
The misconception that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen accepted as true or more true than they actually are.
Also, you didn't explain anything. You said "let me explain" and than asked a riddle (by the way, the pressure wave that entities with the ability to hear would perceive as sound would exist, because we understand that falling trees create pressure waves and have no justification for believing that unobserved falling trees would not do the same, unless you're going to argue that Newtonian physics is contingent upon observation). A riddle is not an explanation.
But again, I get it. I understand your point with regards to trans issues. I disagree with it, as does the scientific and medical communities at large. You are entitled to your opinion, and you and I are not going to agree. So let's end it here.
Last edited:
as I said...if nothing is there to pick up sound...did sound exist? It should be easy to understand the difference between describing mental illness and telling a Tranny it is F*cking nuts! Saying Trannies have mental illness is not a slur. What you don't understand perhaps is that I have earned the "arrogant a$$" label in the past. You can add to that red badge of courage by calling me the arrogant a$$ that used a slur be describing trannies as having mental illness...like the conservative doctors in Europe and the USA have stated.Sir, this is a Wendy's.
This word salad makes no perceivable point, other than maybe that you think a proposition is true because we used to believe it was true in the past?
Argument from Age
The misconception that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen accepted as true or more true than they actually are.www.logicallyfallacious.com
Also, you didn't explain anything. You said "let me explain" and than asked a riddle (by the way, the pressure wave that entities with the ability to hear would perceive as sound would exist, because we understand that falling trees create pressure waves and have no justification for believing that unobserved falling trees would not do the same, unless you're going to argue that Newtonian physics is contingent upon observation). A riddle is not an explanation.
But again, I get it. I understand your point with regards to trans issues. I disagree with it, as does the scientific and medical communities at large. You are entitled to your opinion, and you and I are not going to agree. So let's end it here.
The use of the term "mental illness" is not the slur you're using, but you did use the slur three more times in this post.
My point regarding the slur is that you believe they have a mental illness, which means they are dealing with a condition that they do not control and have no choice in, yet you continually use the T word to refer to these people who YOU believe are merely victims of a mental disorder. I suggest that you would not use derogatory terms for people dealing with other mental illnesses and have a special disdain for trans people.
And the fact that you have to use the qualifier "conservative" doctors is funny. If ONLY "conservative" (or only "liberal" ones, for that matter) doctors believe a thing, that might indicate to me that it's an ideological position rather than a scientific one.
Last edited:
First, you are the one that typed politics into the thread. Second, no matter how close the dots are you still don't get it. Those that "transition" are trannies. That is the meaning of the word. Because you don't like the word is your issue, not mine. The appearance of a disconnect between describing those trannies as having a mental illness (a scientific fact since it isn't physical illness) and telling a tranny that it is itself mentally messed up apparently skips past you. Why would you suggest to me anything when you believe trannies are not mentally ill? What would give me the appearance you know something of worth? Your opinion is yours and that is fine. I'm not here to save the world and had no idea that there would be one...such as yourself, that struggles as you do connecting things. I hope the 23 in your moniker has nothing to do with graduation and/or your age as that answers a lot of questions...
So I read the article that I think you reference and the “experts” you listed. All it is, is a bunch of “nobody is above the law” “jury of his peers” and “the system works” and they are just quotes. Not a single person provides justification for the actions taken and why they do not constitute violations of the defendants 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment, nor explains the 5 elements required for a crime (this is basic) nor the lack of jurisdiction by a local level DA to prosecute a federal election crime?
I get that you like the buzz phrases but the references I provide go into detail about the specific constitutional and administrative errors.
Maybe I just like factual references and citations, and you lean towards more of emotion and lawn sign phrases.
But like I said prior, looks like you didn’t have any citations so we are good.
What is the intent of somebody who chants “from the river to the sea” “wear Hamas bandannas “ chants death to Jews, etc, etc. ?
