Prosecutors Are Still Hedging on Exactly What 'Crime' Trump Tried To 'Aid' or 'Conceal'

[excalibur]

There is no case.

But the corrupt judge says you can still convict even though there is nothing to see.

This is how desperate Democrats are to run the ads 'Trump's a convicted felon'.

And funny how they telegraphed that Biden will "speak" about the verdict (and no, if Trump were acquitted or the jury is hung, Biden isn't speaking about it).

It's almost as if they have had a pipeline to the jurors who are not sequestered and have been at home for nearly a week.

The prosecution disagreed. Under "the standard application of the law," lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued, jurors can convict Trump as long as they unanimously agree that he falsified business records with "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." In Colangelo's view, jurors do not have to agree on what that underlying crime was. Merchan sided with the prosecution, adding new complications to a case that was already convoluted and confusing.​

Prosecutors are still hedging on exactly what 'crime' Trump tried to 'aid' or 'conceal'

The judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.

reason.com

 

[Vrenn]

There is no case.

But the corrupt judge says you can still convict even though there is nothing to see.

This is how desperate Democrats are to run the ads 'Trump's a convicted felon'.

And funny how they telegraphed that Biden will "speak" about the verdict (and no, if Trump were acquitted or the jury is hung, Biden isn't speaking about it).

It's almost as if they have had a pipeline to the jurors who are not sequestered and have been at home for nearly a week.

The prosecution disagreed. Under "the standard application of the law," lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued, jurors can convict Trump as long as they unanimously agree that he falsified business records with "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." In Colangelo's view, jurors do not have to agree on what that underlying crime was. Merchan sided with the prosecution, adding new complications to a case that was already convoluted and confusing.​

Prosecutors are still hedging on exactly what 'crime' Trump tried to 'aid' or 'conceal'

The judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.

reason.com

And just how long are you going to keep going AFTER he gets convicted?

 

[Blaster]

A crime needs to be committed for a conviction.

 

[Leweman]

He has an 'R' next to his name. Simple as that. It's an 'R' that will actually make changes though. We aren't fans of Nazi democrats in this country.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

There is no case.

But the corrupt judge says you can still convict even though there is nothing to see.

This is how desperate Democrats are to run the ads 'Trump's a convicted felon'.

And funny how they telegraphed that Biden will "speak" about the verdict (and no, if Trump were acquitted or the jury is hung, Biden isn't speaking about it).

It's almost as if they have had a pipeline to the jurors who are not sequestered and have been at home for nearly a week.

The prosecution disagreed. Under "the standard application of the law," lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued, jurors can convict Trump as long as they unanimously agree that he falsified business records with "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." In Colangelo's view, jurors do not have to agree on what that underlying crime was. Merchan sided with the prosecution, adding new complications to a case that was already convoluted and confusing.​

Prosecutors are still hedging on exactly what 'crime' Trump tried to 'aid' or 'conceal'

The judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.

reason.com

You nuts have a better shot at the square footage thingy.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm going to go out in a limb and suggest the judge understands more about the law than you dumb Bingos.

 

[cnm]

Does the OP not read?

​

Prosecutors say those documents were falsified because they mischaracterized Trump's reimbursement of Cohen. But to justify felony charges, they had to prove that Trump was not merely trying to hide an embarrassing transaction. They had to prove that he was trying to cover up or assist "another crime."​

​

What crime? "The primary crime that we have alleged," Colangelo told Merchan before the jury returned to the courtroom on April 23, "is New York State Election Law Section 17-152″—a provision so obscure that experts say they have never seen a criminal case based on it. That law makes it a misdemeanor for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means."​

​

Prosecutors are still hedging on exactly what 'crime' Trump tried to 'aid' or 'conceal'

The judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.

reason.com

​

 

[Winco]

It is humorous to continually hear the RWI posters here on USMB cry:

No Crime
Judge is Corrupt

Keep it up.......

 

[BULLDOG]

It is humorous to continually hear the RWI posters here on USMB cry:

No Crime
Judge is Corrupt

Keep it up.......

That's all they have. If they had a logical argument, they would be trying to use it.

 

[excalibur]

I'm going to go out in a limb and suggest the judge understands more about the law than you dumb Bingos.

Yeah, that'd be bullshit.

And I've posted threads from Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, who have both said the same.

 

[excalibur]

That's all they have. If they had a logical argument, they would be trying to use it.

The logical argument has long been made. In the OP, by Alan Dershowitz, by Jonathan Turley.

 

[Winco]

Yeah, that'd be bullshit.

And I've posted threads from Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, who have both said the same.

You FAIL to understand that Dershowitz and Turley are both currently useful idiots, regardless of their past.

When was the LAST TIME that EITHER has actually been in a Courtroom serving a Client?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The prosecutors are saying the evidence to convict is there.

The outside lawyers are saying the evidence to convict is there.

The MAGAtcritters and their commie and fascists buddies are lying as usual.

 

[HikerGuy83]

There is no case.

In a nutshell.

Lawfare at it's best (or worst).

The left sucks.

It really is so obvious what is going on that I won't be surprised at the response if he is convicted.

 

[Winco]

The logical argument has long been made. In the OP, by Alan Dershowitz, by Jonathan Turley.

You FAIL to understand that Dershowitz and Turley are both currently useful idiots, regardless of their past.

When was the LAST TIME that EITHER has actually been in a Courtroom serving a Client?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Turley and Dershowitz are on the under card. You can ignore them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yeah, that'd be bullshit.

And I've posted threads from Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, who have both said the same.

Got it. You cut and paste an article or two and think you know more than the judge. What a childishly stupid belief on your part.

 

[Winco]

It really is so obvious what is going on that I won't be surprised at the response if he is convicted.

What response are you expecting?

1). If Hung Jury on all Counts.

2). If Guilty on SOME of the Counts.

 

[BULLDOG]

The logical argument has long been made. In the OP, by Alan Dershowitz, by Jonathan Turley.

Perhaps you can have one of them replace the real judge. Until then, they are both just paid cheerleaders for trump.

 

[excalibur]

Got it. You cut and paste an article or two and think you know more than the judge. What a childishly stupid belief on your part.

The judge has been the subject of regular commentary by Dershowitz and by Turley.

They have both been in the courtroom during parts of the trial.

Your ad hominem shows your insecurity and inability to actually think. Oar for the course.