The auto-pen scandal is going to be massive

[A2SG]

The voters gave their verdict on that sham. . .

The voters didn't see all the evidence. The jury did, and they found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all 34 counts.

-- A2SG, though, famously, there are a significant number of Trump supporters who would still support him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, and it was caught on camera.....

 

[BPPLEE]

No, it was a real court. With lawyers, a judge and jury, and everything.


It was a unanimous verdict, all 12 jurors agreed.


Nope, a crime on the NY state books since 1986. NY 175.10


And you base your accusations on what evidence, exactly? The tens of dollars he contributed to democratic candidates? The same judge who, after the jury found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all 34 felonies, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, imposing no penalties or punishments whatsoever?


Where on earth did you get that from? Man, you're making baseless assumptions after baseless assumptions, is there no end to them?

But, I'm confused. You're more than willing to accept that a crime was committed by someone on President Biden's staff without even a hint of evidence, but with Trump, despite massive amounts of evidence, and a jury trial where his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...you don't believe it.

-- A2SG, gee, partisan much?

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

What was the other crime ? Oh yeah, the judge told the jury that they could pick one and they didn't have to agree on which one it was.

 

[A2SG]

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

What was the other crime ? Oh yeah, the judge told the jury that they could pick one and they didn't have to agree on which one it was.

Since Trump wasn't charged with that other crime, it wasn't necessary that they all agree on it. The only issue was whether he falsified records with the intent to conceal a crime. The predicate crime wasn't relevant to the charges against Trump beyond the intent to conceal it.

EDITED TO ADD:
And the jury couldn't just "pick one" crime, there were specific predicate crimes mentioned in the jury instructions:

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy. Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws. ​

-- A2SG, but if the appeals court feels otherwise, they'll rule to that effect.....

 

[Bradskii]

What was the other crime ? Oh yeah, the judge told the jury that they could pick one and they didn't have to agree on which one it was.

You either are very ill informed about the case or you know that what you said didn't affect it in the slightest.

I'm going with the second. Which leads to me wondering why you wasted your time bringing it up.

 

[BPPLEE]

You either are very ill informed about the case or you know that what you said didn't affect it in the slightest.

I'm going with the second. Which leads to me wondering why you wasted your time bringing it up.

Sure, there's nothing unusual about that, right?

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, there's nothing unusual about that, right?

About what? You implying that there was a problem when you know that there wasn't?

 

[BPPLEE]

About what? You implying that there was a problem when you know that there wasn't?

It's all dust in the wind now.

 

[A2SG]

It's all dust in the wind now.

Pretty much, yeah. Trump was found guilty, but no penalties or punishments were imposed, and his political career seems to have suffered no damage whatsoever. The only damage seems to be to his own ego.

-- A2SG, and the judicial system isn't responsible for his ego.....

 

[Bradskii]

It's all dust in the wind now.

Actually no. It's all on record. And it will remain on record that Trump is a convicted felon.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because X posts don't embed.

Maybe your "arguments" can be made better than by Twitter posts.

 

[BPPLEE]

Actually no. It's all on record. And it will remain on record that Trump is a convicted felon.

It didn't make any difference. He still got elected, still gets to serve his term

 

[Bradskii]

It didn't make any difference. He still got elected, still gets to serve his term

It didn't affect him to any great extent. I can tell you that it quite definitely changed the opinions that a lot of people have about Americans though.

 

[BPPLEE]

His pro

It didn't affect him to any great extent. I can tell you that it quite definitely changed the opinions that a lot of people have about Americans though.

His prosecution had the opposite effect of what was intended. It helped him get elected because so many thought it was unfair

 

[A2SG]

His prosecution had the opposite effect of what was intended.

Actually, it had exactly the desired effect: it established that the evidence alleging Trump committed 34 felonies was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It helped him get elected because so many thought it was unfair

They didn't see the evidence the jury did. But hey, if slightly less than half the voters in the US preferred to vote for a convicted felon as president, that's their business. I'll never understand it, but that's me.

-- A2SG, guess some people like being led by someone who has committed fraud on multiple occasions.....

 

[Bradskii]

His pro

His prosecution had the opposite effect of what was intended. It helped him get elected because so many thought it was unfair

Whoever told you that is an idiot. Tell him I said so. If you want to think that it was a) intended and that b) some undecided voters stamped their feet and muttered 'It's so unfair!' before heading off to vote for Trump and that was what swung their vote, then...well, if someone wants to believe that there were people like that so they can at least get something positive out of the conviction, then so be it. It sounds to me more like a schoolkid yelling 'Nah, nah! Didn't work! We still won!'

No, what you lost was the dignity of the office of President. At least on the previous occasion the guy had the decency to bail out before he was convicted to try to protect that dignity. Trump has no understanding of the concept.

 

[BPPLEE]

Actually, it had exactly the desired effect: it established that the evidence alleging Trump committed 34 felonies was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


They didn't see the evidence the jury did. But hey, if slightly less than half the voters in the US preferred to vote for a convicted felon as president, that's their business. I'll never understand it, but that's me.

-- A2SG, guess some people like being led by someone who has committed fraud on multiple occasions.....

They went after Trump in search of a crime and the intent was to keep him from being elected. It didn't work. It won the primary for him and helped him get elected

 

[BPPLEE]

Whoever told you that is an idiot. Tell him I said so. If you want to think that it was a) intended and that b) some undecided voters stamped their feet and muttered 'It's so unfair!' before heading off to vote for Trump and that was what swung their vote, then...well, if someone wants to believe that there were people like that so they can at least get something positive out of the conviction, then so be it. It sounds to me more like a schoolkid yelling 'Nah, nah! Didn't work! We still won!'

No, what you lost was the dignity of the office of President. At least on the previous occasion the guy had the decency to bail out before he was convicted to try to protect that dignity. Trump has no understanding of the concept.

It won the primary for him. I thought he had no chance to win the general election but I was wrong.
Only an idiot would think that his prosecution was not politically motivated.
Anyway, what's the title of this thread? I don't think it's about Trump

 

[Bradskii]

Anyway, what's the title of this thread? I don't think it's about Trump

Something about Biden and auto pens. About as convincing as claiming that Trump did nothing wrong and was picked on by those nasty Democrats. There are a lot of extremely gullible people around...

 

[A2SG]

They went after Trump in search of a crime

And that crime was NY state law 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree. 34 counts.

and the intent was to keep him from being elected. It didn't work.

Of course it didn't...there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a convicted felon from running for president. Whoever imagined this intent you think was the motivation seems ill informed.

It won the primary for him and helped him get elected

Well, the primary happened well before the verdict was reached, but whether the 34 felony convictions helped him get elected is doubtful. I suspect most of those who voted for him would have done so no matter what the outcome of his criminal trial. I highly doubt many changed their minds solely due to Trump's criminal conviction.

-- A2SG, though, I suppose it's possible they only voted for Trump because Bernie Madoff wasn't around any more....

 

[BPPLEE]

Something about Biden and auto pens. About as convincing as claiming that Trump did nothing wrong and was picked on by those nasty Democrats. There are a lot of extremely gullible people around...

I didn't say he didn't do anything wrong.. I said people thought his prosecution was unfair.
His crime was a misdemeanor manufactured into a felony.
If you think his prosecution didn't help him you are left with him outsmarting the Democrats and being a master politician.
Is that what you want to go with?