Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48466 
Subject: Re: Guilty on all counts
Date: 05/30/2024 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 11
The most bizarre and worrisome thing about these instructions to the jury is that the judge gave jurors an a la carte menu of three choices — three crimes on which jurors may decide for themselves, individually, not unanimously what they think were Trump's motivations for making 34 bookkeeping notations. All Trump's complicity involves, and I'm not making this up, is if he may have been motivated to win the 2016 election, which means they can conclude he's guilty of a federal or state campaign law, or that he violated a tax law, for which there was no evidence offered.

Why is that bizarre and worrisome? As I noted in the other thread, this is what New York criminal law provides - jurors do not need to be unanimous on predicate crimes. Regardless of whether you think that they should be, that's not the law in New York.

As for the rest of this, it's nonsense. The jury wasn't required to find only that he was motivated to win the election - they had to find affirmatively that he intended to violate FECA. It might help to read the actual jury instructions for yourself:

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttool...
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds