Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
No, they really can’t. Stop making shit up.
Bragg has still not specified the underlying crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors.
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
Liar
The way the judge instructed the jury they can
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 34,576
- 27,564
- 2,915
Lisa558 was correct. If they can get Trump on what they THOUGHT he was thinking, they can get anyone for their thoughts. Try to comprehend.
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
That’s tomorrow at 10 AM.
Trump verdict full coverage: Trump vows to appeal criminal conviction, while Biden says verdict proves 'no one is above the law'
The former president was found guilty on Thursday in the hush money case.
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
Juries make decisions about what people intended all the time. It’s the difference between manslaughter and murder, for example.
There are ways to prove intent. You can’t just make it up.
para bellum
Diamond Member
The judge has not given the jury instructions yet, so we shouldn't jump the gun.
He has telegraphed part of it in the charging conference, and it sounds to me like he is going to totally gloss over the "intent to defraud" element with a lame instruction from the CJI.
"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so."
"Intent" is the easy part, it just means someone meant to do what he did.
"Defraud" is the hard part, because criminal fraud always requires a target of the fraud, and some advantage gained by the person committing the fraud.
The only target the prosecution has identified is "the people of the United States", and that just doesn't cut it as far as criminal fraud goes.
So tomorrow Merchan will give the jury charge, and we will know what they are supposed to be deciding. Until then we are just guessing.
He has telegraphed part of it in the charging conference, and it sounds to me like he is going to totally gloss over the "intent to defraud" element with a lame instruction from the CJI.
"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so."
"Intent" is the easy part, it just means someone meant to do what he did.
"Defraud" is the hard part, because criminal fraud always requires a target of the fraud, and some advantage gained by the person committing the fraud.
The only target the prosecution has identified is "the people of the United States", and that just doesn't cut it as far as criminal fraud goes.
So tomorrow Merchan will give the jury charge, and we will know what they are supposed to be deciding. Until then we are just guessing.
Numbnuts I recall you said you watched the trail.That’s tomorrow at 10 AM.
Trump verdict full coverage: Trump vows to appeal criminal conviction, while Biden says verdict proves 'no one is above the law'
The former president was found guilty on Thursday in the hush money case.www.yahoo.com
Judge tells jurors they must disregard 'improper' comment from Trump's lawyer that they shouldn't send him to prison
NEW YORK (AP) — Judge tells jurors they must disregard 'improper' comment from Trump's lawyer that they shouldn't send him to prison.
www.the-journal.com
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
Those aren’t jury instructions, dipshit.
Good god, you’re even dumber than I thought.
Did the judge instruct the jury to do something?
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
So which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
The other thing with “intent” is that it has been used in the opposite way: to excuse people from wrongdoing because they didn’t INTEND to break the law. A prime example is Hillary’s taking classified documents: Comey let her off because she didn‘t INTEND to do it,
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
they don’t have to prove any of them beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is precedent for this.
They just have to prove intent to commit one.
It is almost impossible to prove intent, as I learned when I was on a jury. The exception is if the jury is made up of people like you, who already determined they were going to find Trump guilty of SOMETHING.
Reasonable doubt is the standard.
Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for civil infractions - like the wrong entry on books. But that’s a misdemeanor, and Trump is not being charged with that. The statute of limitations has run out.
Lotta leftists on this site willing to believe in North Korea tactics if it means it will hurt Trump, and keep him off the campaign trail.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 34,576
- 27,564
- 2,915
So, Trump (according to Cohen) had no knowledge of the payoff. Cohen said he paid the hush money all by himself. Where is the evidence of intent on Trump's part and, there is no evidence even if Trump paid by himself he did it for any other reason that for his own private reasons. You have to have some real evidence, not insinuations.
para bellum
Diamond Member
Only regarding a comment made by someone in the courtroom. That happens every day in the trial.
The comment by Blanche was probably uncalled for, but the prosecution has gotten away with a lot worse, so oh well, haha.
Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,284
- 19,773
- 2,173
No, it’s not almost impossible and is necessary to prosecute many crimes. If it were almost impossible, tons of criminals would go free.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
DHS hints at arrest of Wisconsin governor who ordered state workers to obstruct ICE- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
D. Trump: What caused the war to start was when they (Ukrainians) started talking about joining NATO
- Started by Dissident
- Replies: 2
