Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Say the MAGAs.
30 percent
That’s the percentage of Trump supporters in a December Fox News poll that agreed “things in the U.S. are so far off track that we need a president willing to break some rules and laws to set things right.”
Those Trump supporters now have a 2024 nominee who is convicted of an illegal scheme to win the presidency in the first place. WAPO
I put a large part of the blame on the lying, propagandistic RW media for this kind of stupidity.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Those Trump supporters now have a 2024 nominee who is convicted of an illegal scheme to win the presidency in the first place. WAPO - ges
----------------------
No. He was convicted of illegally participating in NY State tax fraud.
Oh, wait??? We don't know which, do we?
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. He was convicted of illegally participating in NY State tax fraud.
Oh, wait??? We don't know which, do we?
Yes, we do know. As LM says - follow the bouncing ball. :)
No. of Recommendations: 2
>>No. He was convicted of illegally participating in NY State tax fraud.<<
Oh, wait??? We don't know which, do we?
Yes, we do know. As LM says - follow the bouncing ball. :) - lapsody
----------------
It is a serious question. How could we know, since the jury's verdict sheets did not include that question?
Now you may rightly say the verdict sheets were not required to. But that does not answer the question of how do we know whether he committed tax fraud or election fraud? Again you may say that doesn't matter either. And I agree but stand by my observation that still we do not know. If you know how we know, please share the source of that insight.
No. of Recommendations: 9
But that does not answer the question of how do we know whether he committed tax fraud or election fraud? We don't know - the verdict sheets are at the link below, and they don't provide that information.
To clarify one point - to find him guilty of the crime of falsifying business records, the jury doesn't need to find that
Trump committed tax fraud or election fraud. The statute simply requires that the false business records be intended to conceal a crime, not that the crime actually be committed
or that the defendant be the one to have committed the crime.
Example: I am a security officer at my company's building, and I make an extra key card for an accomplice of mine so that he can come in and rob the building. I falsify the key card records to hide my tracks. The accomplice gets cold feet and never does anything. I'm still guilty of
felony falsifying business records, because the purpose behind my making the false business records was to conceal a crime. The fact that the crime never occurred, and wasn't to be carried out by me personally, does not matter.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/46950...
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm still guilty of felony falsifying business records, because the purpose behind my making the false business records was to conceal a crime. - albaby
--------------
How do we know what his purpose was or even if he did make the access card? The only way I know of is for the defendant to be charged with that crime and evidence is put on and then the jury decides unanimously whether or not the evidence supports a guilty verdict for that crime.
No. of Recommendations: 5
How do we know what his purpose was or even if he did make the access card? The only way I know of is for the defendant to be charged with that crime and evidence is put on and then the jury decides unanimously whether or not the evidence supports a guilty verdict for that crime.
Right. Which is what happened here. Trump was put on trial, and for him to be convicted the jury had to decide unanimously that the evidence supports a finding that he intended to commit a crime.
Note that in the example above, making an access card is not itself a crime, and since the other guy never went through with it there's no basis for charging him with the robbery. That's why the prosecutors have to prove intent as part of the trial against the guy who falsified the business records (if they want to support the felony, rather than the misdemeanor, charge).
BTW, the way you would "know what his purpose was" is the way that intent is typically proven - by circumstantial evidence. For example, returning to Bob breaking into his ex-girlfriend's apartment, if he had spent the day before talking to his buddies about how his ex-girlfriend had just come into a lot of money, and that he knew that the money was in her apartment, and that he was having some financial difficulties....you would use that to prove up a charge of attempted robbery, and try to convince the jury that the reason he broke into her house was to steal that money. You can't prove what was literally in his head at the moment he broke in, but you can assemble enough circumstantial evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt that he was motivated by anything else at that point.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Right. Which is what happened here. Trump was put on trial, and for him to be convicted the jury had to decide unanimously that the evidence supports a finding that he intended to commit a crime.
I love this argument. It basically says that the prosecution doesn't need to actually prove anything; the jury just needs to say, "This a$$hole is guilty" and it's all good.
No. of Recommendations: 9
I love this argument. It basically says that the prosecution doesn't need to actually prove anything; the jury just needs to say, "This a$$hole is guilty" and it's all good.
No, it doesn't. And the fact that you say that means you don't understand the argument.
The prosecution needs to prove all of the elements of the crime. If all the elements of the crime are agreed unanimously by the jury to have been proven, then a guilty verdict is in order. However, the jurors do not need to be unanimous about how the elements of the crime have been proven. If Bob threatens Alice with a weapon, and the jurors are unanimous that he did in fact threaten her with a weapon but disagree whether that weapon was a knife or a gun, Bob can be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon - because the jurors are unanimous on the element being proven, even though they differ on what the weapon was.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is a serious question. How could we know, since the jury's verdict sheets did not include that question?
Now you may rightly say the verdict sheets were not required to. But that does not answer the question of how do we know whether he committed tax fraud or election fraud? Again you may say that doesn't matter either. And I agree but stand by my observation that still we do not know. If you know how we know, please share the source of that insight.
I think Ges and the WAPO article are talking about the 34 counts that he was just convicted. I think any of the three ways it could happen fulfill the requirement for a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.
Don't get stuck, the three are the "unlawful means", so any of them fulfill it I think, though, at 73 I find myself doubting what I think more often. :)
