|
Post by cadman on May 31, 2024 5:07:23 GMT -5
Just for fun, check Google to see what civil rights Floridians lose when they are convicted of a felony. One of the restrictions is that they can no longer hold public office. Does that mean that citizen Trump can not hold any public office? Even if it's decided that the law only applies to Florida, doesn't that mean that citizen Trump cannot be on any ballot in the state of Florida? Maybe Bullfrog can help clarify this question. He shouldn’t be disqualified off the Florida ballot. That’s basically what the Colorado case was about. The States cannot define who goes on the Federal ballot. But yes, Trump is now disqualified from Florida political offices. He can still vote in Florida even though felons in Florida can't vote. Could DeSantis restore his rights by executive order?
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 31, 2024 5:25:37 GMT -5
That’s the instructions they gave Trump. Those instructions are likely wrong Constitutionally as to that specific aspect. . To explain further, it appears the judge made up the jury instructions in question per the State’s request and over Trump’s objection. He didn’t use the standard jury instructions for the charge, which are silent as to whether the jury has to be unanimous on finding what the further crime is. The jury is unanimous on what the further crime was. Ther further crime was "defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means". I see it as similar to you having a drug dealer on trial. The charge is selling narcotics. You have three people who swear he sold them drugs, he was caught with drugs on him. But the users are the only witnesses to the sale. You have all three testify and the defense counters with they are all drug users and liars. Now, I would say if some jurors believe witness A but not witness B or C, your guy is guilty. If other jurors believe witness B and not A or C, your guy is guilty. If others believe C and not A or B. your guy is guilty. He committed the crime you charged him with even if some of the jurors did not agree on which unlawful act led to that conclusion. In my opinion. you seem to be saying the jury has to all believe the same witness or your guy is innocent and you deprive the defendant of his due process if they do not. The jury all agree Trump falsified business records, that he did so to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. that is the charge and the further crime to make it a felony. What they may or may not agree on, we do not know, is which of the unlawful acts they believe he committed to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. The jury may believe he committed all three unlawful acts or just one or two. But they all agreed 100% that he committed the crimes he was charged with. I am not trolling and I have read opinions saying both sides from various "legal experts" online. I am just presenting one opinion as a layman and not trolling. I can not see how this deprives Trump of anything. But we will find out as the appeals go forward.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 31, 2024 5:39:28 GMT -5
I just read that Trump's lawyer said the appeals process does not start until after sentencing. I had thought Trump could appeal as soon as the guilty verdict was entered. I guess that means he can't start the appeal until after July 11th and has until August 11th to appeal the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 31, 2024 5:46:48 GMT -5
It's a reference to the last time (to my memory) of you prognosticating over a case...and us disagreeing on the topic.
His name was Ahmaud Arbery. He was murdered in Brunswick, Georgia.
That one didn't turn out so well either, so I can understand your reticence. I think your recollection is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 31, 2024 5:48:59 GMT -5
He shouldn’t be disqualified off the Florida ballot. That’s basically what the Colorado case was about. The States cannot define who goes on the Federal ballot. But yes, Trump is now disqualified from Florida political offices. He can still vote in Florida even though felons in Florida can't vote. Could DeSantis restore his rights by executive order? In terms of a pardon, I think DeSantis only can for Florida-convicted crimes. In terms of a restoration of rights without a pardon, that I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 31, 2024 5:50:52 GMT -5
Biden didn't convict him, a jury did. Unanimously. A jury of what was likely New York Democrats. What’s the percentage of Biden voters in Manhattan?
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 31, 2024 6:07:21 GMT -5
To explain further, it appears the judge made up the jury instructions in question per the State’s request and over Trump’s objection. He didn’t use the standard jury instructions for the charge, which are silent as to whether the jury has to be unanimous on finding what the further crime is. The jury is unanimous on what the further crime was. Ther further crime was "defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means". I see it as similar to you having a drug dealer on trial. The charge is selling narcotics. You have three people who swear he sold them drugs, he was caught with drugs on him. But the users are the only witnesses to the sale. You have all three testify and the defense counters with they are all drug users and liars. Now, I would say if some jurors believe witness A but not witness B or C, your guy is guilty. If other jurors believe witness B and not A or C, your guy is guilty. If others believe C and not A or B. your guy is guilty. He committed the crime you charged him with even if some of the jurors did not agree on which unlawful act led to that conclusion. In my opinion. you seem to be saying the jury has to all believe the same witness or your guy is innocent and you deprive the defendant of his due process if they do not. The jury all agree Trump falsified business records, that he did so to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. that is the charge and the further crime to make it a felony. What they may or may not agree on, we do not know, is which of the unlawful acts they believe he committed to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. The jury may believe he committed all three unlawful acts or just one or two. But they all agreed 100% that he committed the crimes he was charged with. I am not trolling and I have read opinions saying both sides from various "legal experts" online. I am just presenting one opinion as a layman and not trolling. I can not see how this deprives Trump of anything. But we will find out as the appeals go forward. This sort of thing happens a lot, and gets convictions overturned. In any finding of fact the jury has to make, the finding has to be unanimous and specified on the verdict form. That’s true of any finding that enhances a sentence and is going to be especially true of a finding of fact that involves the finding of another crime. They’re not likely going to be allowed to say “we all agree he committed this is the furtherance of a crime, but we don’t agree on which crime.” It will be both an error in the jury instructions and an error in the verdict form. There’s lots of other errors in the case such as the various prejudicial testimony allowed in that had little to no probative value. Like I said, there’s no intent to make the conviction stick. That’s not the point. In your drug dealer analogy, its actually more like generically accusing the drug dealer of dealing some drug, either meth or cocaine, and letting the jury convict him of dealing “some drug” while disagreeing what the drug was. That can’t be done.
|
|
|
Post by richm on May 31, 2024 6:42:36 GMT -5
This was a good read.
I saw the conviction on all 34 counts and was surprised, they didn't even give him 1. LoL! Anyway - here we are.
Pete said he wanted democrats int he house and senate - the best thing is to have an even split in both, make em fight and haggle over stuff so it benefits all people. The only way the system truly works well is when both sides compromise on every issue.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 31, 2024 7:12:00 GMT -5
The jury is unanimous on what the further crime was. Ther further crime was "defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means". I see it as similar to you having a drug dealer on trial. The charge is selling narcotics. You have three people who swear he sold them drugs, he was caught with drugs on him. But the users are the only witnesses to the sale. You have all three testify and the defense counters with they are all drug users and liars. Now, I would say if some jurors believe witness A but not witness B or C, your guy is guilty. If other jurors believe witness B and not A or C, your guy is guilty. If others believe C and not A or B. your guy is guilty. He committed the crime you charged him with even if some of the jurors did not agree on which unlawful act led to that conclusion. In my opinion. you seem to be saying the jury has to all believe the same witness or your guy is innocent and you deprive the defendant of his due process if they do not. The jury all agree Trump falsified business records, that he did so to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. that is the charge and the further crime to make it a felony. What they may or may not agree on, we do not know, is which of the unlawful acts they believe he committed to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. The jury may believe he committed all three unlawful acts or just one or two. But they all agreed 100% that he committed the crimes he was charged with. I am not trolling and I have read opinions saying both sides from various "legal experts" online. I am just presenting one opinion as a layman and not trolling. I can not see how this deprives Trump of anything. But we will find out as the appeals go forward. This sort of thing happens a lot, and gets convictions overturned. In any finding of fact the jury has to make, the finding has to be unanimous and specified on the verdict form. That’s true of any finding that enhances a sentence and is going to be especially true of a finding of fact that involves the finding of another crime. They’re not likely going to be allowed to say “we all agree he committed this is the furtherance of a crime, but we don’t agree on which crime.” It will be both an error in the jury instructions and an error in the verdict form. There’s lots of other errors in the case such as the various prejudicial testimony allowed in that had little to no probative value. Like I said, there’s no intent to make the conviction stick. That’s not the point. In your drug dealer analogy, its actually more like generically accusing the drug dealer of dealing some drug, either meth or cocaine, and letting the jury convict him of dealing “some drug” while disagreeing what the drug was. That can’t be done. You keep saying the part in bold, but that is not true. The crime he committed in the furtherance of a crime was "defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means". That is a New York State statute and the "secondary" crime that makes the first one a felony. 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.
What the jury did not have to agree on was the unlawful means used to violate 17-152. They know the drug he sold.
|
|
|
Post by bridgeman213 on May 31, 2024 8:06:19 GMT -5
Can somebody explain to me what taking monies from someone else in exchange for not revealing an act is called? I always thought that was blackmail. And. If said person was often a subject in the media for decades wouldn't he be a prime target for some easy cash?? Don't get me wrong hear me out he was a fool for what he did. Essentially he bumped uglies with a high dollar whore it's what it is. The media and the left are exaggerating this as much as they possibly can. I'm betting 90% of those pushing this has something 10x more repulsive in their past.
|
|
|
Post by gandy on May 31, 2024 8:17:16 GMT -5
Anyone have a list of his 34 felonies?
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on May 31, 2024 8:28:19 GMT -5
Can somebody explain to me what taking monies from someone else in exchange for not revealing an act is called? I always thought that was blackmail. And. If said person was often a subject in the media for decades wouldn't he be a prime target for some easy cash?? Don't get me wrong hear me out he was a fool for what he did. Essentially he bumped uglies with a high dollar whore it's what it is. The media and the left are exaggerating this as much as they possibly can. I'm betting 90% of those pushing this has something 10x more repulsive in their past. Called a non disclosure agreement. Totally legal.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on May 31, 2024 8:38:50 GMT -5
Anyone have a list of his 34 felonies? The verdict form can be found online. It lists each of the documents. Checks, and other paperwork. There are 34 of them. Dry reading.
|
|
|
Post by dragonbait on May 31, 2024 9:15:04 GMT -5
Jenna Ellis: “Guilty, Your Honor! Kenneth Cheseboro… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Sydney Powell: “Guilty, Your Honor!” Michael Cohen: “Guilty, Your Honor!” Allen Weiselberg… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Rick Gates: “Guilty, Your Honor!” Paul Manafort… “Guilty, Your Honor!” George Papadopoulis… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Roger Stone… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Michael Flynn… “Guilty, Your Honor!” George Nader… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Elliot Broidy… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Steve Brannon… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Chris Collins… “Guilty, Your Honor!” Sam Patten: “Guilty, Your Honor!” Imaaz Zuberi… “Guilty, Your Honor!” The Trump Corp., “Guilty Your Honor!” Trump Payroll Corp. “Guilty, Your Honor!” Trump Foundation: “Guilty, Your Honor!” Trump University: “Guilty, Your Honor!” DONALD TRUMP…
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 31, 2024 9:16:42 GMT -5
This was a good read. I saw the conviction on all 34 counts and was surprised, they didn't even give him 1. LoL! Anyway - here we are. Pete said he wanted democrats int he house and senate - the best thing is to have an even split in both, make em fight and haggle over stuff so it benefits all people. The only way the system truly works well is when both sides compromise on every issue. Agree, but if the pres is republican I think it works, and vice versa.
|
|