Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then we will find out if umbrella unanimity is going to fly (does not look like it will, since another justice commented on a case it was done. Saying an umbrella conviction is unconstutional since it allows some jurors to agree or disagree with other jurors for conviction. Non unanimous.And f it doesn’t?
Why wouldn't you blame the jury for that?I don't blame the jury, it was well predicted by Scholars that the jury was convinced a crime was there when there was none.
Since this is a matter of state law, it's unlikely that it will make it to the USSC. State cases do occasionally go there, but pretty much only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.This just one of the problems. I hope this gets out of new york to the supreme court.
Yeah Cohen has said a lot of thingsWe know that's why Cohen did it; he pleaded guilty to an ELECTION LAW VIOLATION.
The FBI accepted it when it was dropped as a misdemeanor. Also the witness for Trump gave testimony to that.If the Trump team's initial story were true, that Cohen did it out of the goodness of his heart, we wouldn't be here today. But that was a lie.
No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD. NON DISCLOSURES are not illegal. This court found a away to make it one.He knew he was getting repaid, because he made a deal with Donald Trump to do so. And Cohen and Trump (and Weisselberg) agreed on a fraudulent way to repay Cohen, citing legal expenses that were fictitious.
De ja vu Colorado all over again. State vs federal. the state cannot make INTENT FEDERAL ELECTION LAW WHEN IT IS NOT, concerning a non disclosure agreement..Why wouldn't you blame the jury for that?
Since this is a matter of state law, it's unlikely that it will make it to the USSC. State cases do occasionally go there, but pretty much only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.
I wonder if the Trump team may try to claim a civil rights violation because his civil right to special treatment due to privilege was violated. I know they get confused when it comes to who has the right to do what.only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.
No, the Colorado case went to the Supreme Court because it concerned interpretations of the 14th Amendment - a Constitutional matter. The USSC is the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.De ja vu Colorado all over again.
The case was in Colorado in the first place because STATE LAW (three lousy judges) had no right to ADJUDICATE FEDERAL CANDIDATES ELIGABILITY. 3 lousy people..........No, the Colorado case went to the Supreme Court because it concerned interpretations of the 14th Amendment - a Constitutional matter. The USSC is the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.
Again, you seem to be unclear on the meaning of "legal expense". The issue in this case revolves around the use of "legal expense" (as in "an expense incurred by a lawyer in the pursuit of lawyerly services") to mask payments for things that were not actually that. It has nothing to do with whether or not the expenses were legal (i.e. lawful, not illegal).No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD. NON DISCLOSURES are not illegal. This court found a away to make it one.
the kindness of his heart, was about the WHY they paid stormy. To not hurt his family.....
Nope, bragg and the judge turned that LEGAL expense into a felony, SECONDARY CRIME because of his motive not being his family, but the election. Do you understand that?
I don't see how that pertains to this case, which does not have any effect on Trump's eligibility for the presidency.The case was in Colorado in the first place because STATE LAW had no right to ADJUDICATE FEDERAL CANDIDATES ELIGABILITY.
I am not mixing anything up. The payment for the NDA *was* the illegal campaign contribution that Cohen pleaded guilty to. They are the same thing.No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD.
The "NOT ACTUALLY THAT" is the secondary crime.Again, you seem to be unclear on the meaning of "legal expense". The issue in this case revolves around the use of "legal expense" (as in "an expense incurred by a lawyer in the pursuit of lawyerly services") to mask payments for things that were not actually that.
How ironic, that is exactly how I would describe the Trump administrationHere we are again. A few people with hatred running amuk trying to take control over who can do what, who can think what.
Correct.The "NOT THAT" is the secondary crime. COHEN paid stormy Daniels money to not disclose, they signed the agreement. A legal document, legally binding. OK
Cohen's conviction is irrelevant here - the jury was specifically instructed to disregard it.What is the secondary offense That made it a federal election CRIME?
The illegal campaign contribution is a secondary crime.I am not mixing anything up. The payment for the NDA *was* the illegal campaign contribution that Cohen pleaded guilty to. They are the same thing.
Yes, if you cal an illegal bribe a legitimate legal expense. The jury didn't buy it. What was he found to be again? GUILTYNon disclosure agreement, legally binding document, paid for. Legal expense
It was for a non disclosure agreement... Which you agree.Correct.
The crime of falsifying business records comes from the Trump Organization paying Cohen back for the NDA money he paid to Daniels.
It was payment for a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense. It cost money to have someone sign a non disclosure. That was what the payment was for...They classified that reimbursement as "legal expenses, " which is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the nature of those payments.
No it is not the same. Trump did not pay for a car, or any other personal property. He paid for a NONDICLOSURE AGREEMENT. A legal agreement, between Trump and Daniels. a legal transaction to legally bind her, from further blackmail.Legal settlements (NDAs included) are not the same thing from an accounting perspective as legal expenses (i.e. reimbursements to your attorney to cover fees and expenses they've incurred while working for you). It would be like having your attorney buy you a Ferrari, then labeling the money you reimbursed him with as "legal expenses" rather than the purchase of a vehicle.
BINGO. BINGO BINGO. What makes An NDA CRIME of federal election law?The second element of the case, conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person through unlawful means, relies on the establishment of intent on Trump's part.
Here is where there is no crime, but the jury is told it is. And this court CREATED ALL ON IT'S OWN...The jury was satisfied with the prosecution's case that Trump's primary reason for paying off Ms. Daniels was in order to influence the election rather than for personal reasons and was not swayed by the defense.
If it is federal election law then I certainly do need to agree.You're not required to agree with that.
Theories? Not law...Next, they presented their theories of "unlawful means". As I outlined in a previous post, those were:
It isn't illegal. It is in fact legal. What do you call a pay me or else? But it is not illegal.Yes, if you cal an illegal bribe a legitimate legal expense. The jury didn't buy it. What was he found to be again? GUILTY
Then why was he legally found guilty? Do you honestly believe that bribery is a legitimate legal expense or do you fear blaspheming the "church of Trump" if you allow yourself to believe he is a flawed human being?It isn't illegal. It is infact legal.
It isn't illegal. It is in fact legal. What do you call a pat me or else? But it is not illegal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?