- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The underlying crime.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:39 pm to I20goon
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:39 pm to I20goon
quote:
1. Violation of fed campaign finance laws 2. Violation of ny state election laws 3. Fed tax code Violation
This is where his ridiculous cumulative vote comes into play. The vote can be 8 to 4 not guilty in all three of those but the judge has said the 4 guilty votes are cumulative and therefore a unanimous guilty verdict of an underlying crime. By running an end around on the other 8 jurors they can open up the door to vote on the other crimes because it would elevate them to a felony. Currently they are misdemeanor violations beyond the statute of limitations unless you can prove they were committed in the furtherance of another crime. If they can’t agree on a predicate crime and fail to reach 12 cumulative votes, they can’t find him guilty of the other crimes.
1
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:45 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
SFP’
quote:
since he practices criminal law and I do not.
You serious Clark? You really think that Nut Job Liberal Activist practices law? She is on this damn board all day.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:46 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
This is where his ridiculous cumulative vote comes into play. The vote can be 8 to 4 not guilty in all three of those but the judge has said the 4 guilty votes are cumulative and therefore a unanimous guilty verdict of an underlying crime.
Is this just for Trump's trial?
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:47 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I also told y'all why it was bullshite.
lol....like we didn't know this was BS.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:51 pm to udtiger
quote:
Hence, why Merchan barred the defense's federal election law expert
Yep. He could have destroyed their case. Merchan couldn’t risk looking like a biased idiot.
Not negotiating the jury rules with the defense and prosecution is another red flag.
As is the “prick any” menu of underlying crimes.
100% overturned on appeal, but by then they will have called him “convicted felon Donald Trump” for months.
That’s all they care about.
This post was edited on 5/29/24 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 5/29/24 at 10:08 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Is this just for Trump's trial?
It’s unprecedented. You can’t take your guilty votes and cobble them together and claim you have a unanimous guilty verdict. You could convict anyone of anything you wanted if you bury them with enough charges and take the guilty votes from each charge to make a determination of guilt.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 10:11 pm to geauxkoo
Did we learn that? I’m still waiting on evidence.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 10:12 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
It’s unprecedented. You can’t take your guilty votes and cobble them together and claim you have a unanimous guilty verdict. You could convict anyone of anything you wanted if you bury them with enough charges and take the guilty votes from each charge to make a determination of guilt.
It's laughable.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:09 am to geauxkoo
Not a convicted criminal…yet.
The underlying crime is nonexistent. Trump has never been formally accused of what the “underlying crime” is, much less stood trial.
US Constitution governs such under inalienable rights. ( trials, witnesses, evidence, the whole concept is covered).
What Bragg and Merchan are trying to do is convict of a crime that does not meet Constitutional muster.
The underlying crime is nonexistent. Trump has never been formally accused of what the “underlying crime” is, much less stood trial.
US Constitution governs such under inalienable rights. ( trials, witnesses, evidence, the whole concept is covered).
What Bragg and Merchan are trying to do is convict of a crime that does not meet Constitutional muster.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:14 am to David_DJS
quote:the inept defense should have had an expert on election law testify. Maybe someone who actually wrote the laws. That would be helpful.
Did they bother to disclose exactly what campaign finance laws?
Oh wait they tried but the kangaroo judge wouldn't let him testify about that
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:15 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
I’m interested to hear SFP’s 14th amendment due process analysis of this. I’m not joking or being facetious. Genuinely curious since he practices criminal law and I do not.
She's not an attorney.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:17 am to David_DJS
They are maintaining that the crime committed was what Cohen did and plead guilty for in Federal Court...or at least that is their twist. So his falsifying records was a crime in furtherance of covering up Cohen's crime .
What's crazy though, still is that the Feds still maintain that Trump was not in violation
What's crazy though, still is that the Feds still maintain that Trump was not in violation
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:22 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:Uhhh, "Hence, why Merchan barred the defense's federal election law expert"
the inept defense should have had an expert on election law testify.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:28 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
Genuinely curious since he practices criminal law and I do not.
he does title work and home closings. He probably hasn’t been in a court room since Richard Murphy was our RB.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:31 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
I’m interested to hear SFP’s 14th amendment due process analysis of this. I’m not joking or being facetious. Genuinely curious since he practices criminal law and I do not.
There have been like 100 threads on this. I posted on one of them yesterday. It's getting tiring.
Are you asking about the criminal law or the unanimity issue?
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:34 am to Rebel
quote:
he does title work and home closings.
You're getting as good as Walt
quote:
He probably hasn’t been in a court room since Richard Murphy was our RB.
I was in court Tuesday, and have to swing by this am to make sure I'm withdrawn from a case, actually. I'm in court at least 1 morning pretty much every week.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I was in court Tuesday, and have to swing by this am to make sure I'm withdrawn from a case, actually. I'm in court at least 1 morning pretty much every week.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:40 am to geauxkoo
quote:Of course it does. This Berian BS gets overturned on appeal 30 different ways.
And doesn't that mean that Alvin Bragg does not have the authority to even try the case in the first place?
Trump's defense was denied the ability to bring that case, or to alert the jury.
There are lawyers on the jury. They would, or should, fully understand the false predicate here.
In a case of the prosecution and judge joining hands to baffle the jury with bullshite, they could also easily sway jurors to accept the prosecution's absurd arguments.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Night Court
I'm in court at least 1 morning pretty much every week.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:09 am to dafif
What this becomes, is that NY in particular can hold you liable for violations of federal law. Cohen is guilty of Federal violations....he plead guilty.
Bragg is saying the law does not differentiate between state or federal, just that a crime was committed. The jurisdiction does not really matter. Trump violated a state law causing Cohen to violate a federal law. This statute was considered by Vance and he rejected it because he rightly thought and maintained that Trump was not covering up a state crime and even if he was violating a federal statute, his office was not in the business of enforcing federal law. That would have been the job of a USA in SDNY who did not pursue at the time. If I were the USA in The SDNY I would tell Bragg that he (the USA) will begin transferring all similar cases to his office going forward since he now sees himself as a defacto Federal Prosecutor.
Asst. USAs celebrate.
Bragg is saying the law does not differentiate between state or federal, just that a crime was committed. The jurisdiction does not really matter. Trump violated a state law causing Cohen to violate a federal law. This statute was considered by Vance and he rejected it because he rightly thought and maintained that Trump was not covering up a state crime and even if he was violating a federal statute, his office was not in the business of enforcing federal law. That would have been the job of a USA in SDNY who did not pursue at the time. If I were the USA in The SDNY I would tell Bragg that he (the USA) will begin transferring all similar cases to his office going forward since he now sees himself as a defacto Federal Prosecutor.
Asst. USAs celebrate.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News