Why Do Trump Supporters Have Such A Hard Time Admitting He's A Convicted Felon?

[Mick2]

The law that was broken was § 17-152.

This instruction (Judge Merchan's) seems contrary to Apprendi and its progeny because the “unlawful means” were necessary to elevate the falsifying crimes into a felony and any fact that increases the potential punishment must be proven unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, proof of what exactly the unlawful means was should have been proven unanimously. Under the trial judge’s instruction and theory of the law, if a person was only charged with an Election Law violation under 17-152, the jury would not need to unanimously agree as to what the specific “unlawful means” was used.

IS THERE AN APPRENDI PROBLEM WITH THE TRUMP CONVICTION? RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ERLINGER V. UNITED STATES SUGGESTS THE ANSWER IS YES. - Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Andrew Salemme examines potential violations of Trump’s jury trial rights under Apprendi v. United States:.

tuckerlaw.com

A finding of guilty of 17-152 requires jury unanimity on what specifically was unlawful.

 

[Mick2]

Cohen’s crime was before B the jury.

Cohen had nothing to do with the trial judge's unconstitutional instructions to the jury.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Read the links provided. They are explicit. A jury cannot be instructed to come up with "a crime". How would a defendant defend against the accusations of "a crime" in court? The jury must be instructed and come up unanimously with THE crime that justifies charging enhancement.

They didn't "come up" with a crime. The defendant was made aware of § 17-152 in a bill of particulars. That's how Trump could have defended himself in court.

And there was no legal requirement that the jury be unanimous on what the underlying crime was. The had to be unanimous a crime was committed. They did that.

Just like your armed robbery analogy. To upgrade a charge from robbery to armed robbery, prosecutors need only convince a jury the robber was armed. The jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on the weapons the robber was armed with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Cohen had nothing to do with the trial judge's unconstitutional instructions to the jury.

Sure he did.

His was the crime Trump was laundering money to hide.

WW

 

[Political-Junkie]

This instruction (Judge Merchan's) seems contrary to Apprendi and its progeny because the “unlawful means” were necessary to elevate the falsifying crimes into a felony and any fact that increases the potential punishment must be proven unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, proof of what exactly the unlawful means was should have been proven unanimously. Under the trial judge’s instruction and theory of the law, if a person was only charged with an Election Law violation under 17-152, the jury would not need to unanimously agree as to what the specific “unlawful means” was used.

IS THERE AN APPRENDI PROBLEM WITH THE TRUMP CONVICTION? RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ERLINGER V. UNITED STATES SUGGESTS THE ANSWER IS YES. - Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Andrew Salemme examines potential violations of Trump’s jury trial rights under Apprendi v. United States:.

tuckerlaw.com

A finding of guilty of 17-152 requires jury unanimity on what specifically was unlawful.

Apprendi merely means any facts related to upgrading a charge must be proven to the jury. That was done. Apprendi was upheld.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Cohen had nothing to do with the trial judge's unconstitutional instructions to the jury.

Of course he was. Prosecutors alleged 3 distinct crimes concealed by Trump's falsified business records. Cohen's illegal campaign contribution was one of them. That was even in a link you posted.

 

[Mick2]

Apprendi merely means any facts related to upgrading a charge must be proven to the jury. That was done.

Any fact that enhances punishment exposure must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury. That's Apprendi. That was not done per the trial judge's unconstitutional instructions to the jury in this case. In order to upgrade business record falsifying to a felony Trump had to be guilty of violating 17-152.

Heres the catch. Trump could not be guilty of violating 17-152 unless a jury unanimously determined what Trump did unlawfully so that the Apprendi requirement was met. This was explained clearly by the link in post 1241. Go back and read the link.

 

[Mick2]

Of course he was. Prosecutors alleged 3 distinct crimes concealed by Trump's falsified business records.

Prosecutors cannot just allege something to achieve guilt. They must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous jury.

 

[Mick2]

Sure he did.

His was the crime Trump was laundering money to hide.

The underlying other crime was the initial crime? Huh? That's some dizzying, bizarre reasoning there. I think you were dropped on your head a few too many times, winger. Lol

Either way that doesn't change the fact that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were unconstitutional.

 

[Dante]

Does it matter what the left pushes or the right defends? In the eyes of our justice system, Trump is still a convicted felon and the only convicted felon to ever be elected president.

He's acting proud of it, even as he and his dopey allies try to rid history of that fact.

 

[Dante]

Prosecutors cannot just allege something to achieve guilt. They must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous jury.

The underlying other crime was the initial crime? Huh? That's some dizzying, bizarre reasoning there. I think you were dropped on your head a few too many times, winger. Lol

Either way that doesn't change the fact that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were unconstitutional.

Trump was indicted, tried, and convicted.

And if this maga-nonsense were even close to be true "Either way that doesn't change the fact that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were unconstitutional," he would not be needing...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Using your analogy of an armed robber, yes, the prosecution has to show evidence in court to convince the jury the robber was armed.

Just like in Trump's case, the prosecution had to convince the jury that Trump conspired to aid his election prospects in an illegal manner. Which he did by paying a porn star to not speak about an alleged affair years earlier. The prosecution was successful.

"Promoting a campaign" isn't illegal.
Committing a misdemeanor to "promote a campaign" doesn't turn it into a felony.

Which he did by paying a porn star to not speak about an alleged affair years earlier.

Which isn't illegal. Or a campaign expense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They didn't "come up" with a crime. The defendant was made aware of § 17-152 in a bill of particulars. That's how Trump could have defended himself in court.

And there was no legal requirement that the jury be unanimous on what the underlying crime was. The had to be unanimous a crime was committed. They did that.

Just like your armed robbery analogy. To upgrade a charge from robbery to armed robbery, prosecutors need only convince a jury the robber was armed. The jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on the weapons the robber was armed with.

Just like your armed robbery analogy. To upgrade a charge from robbery to armed robbery, prosecutors need only convince a jury the robber was armed. The jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on the weapons the robber was armed with.

Exactly!
It could be a gun, a knife or the guy's finger in his pocket.
DURR

 

[Mick2]

Trump was indicted, tried, and convicted.

Unconstitutionally. Just like every other lawfare case against him that will be the final outcome on appeal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The underlying other crime was the initial crime? Huh? That's some dizzying, bizarre reasoning there. I think you were dropped on your head a few too many times, winger. Lol

Either way that doesn't change the fact that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were unconstitutional.

Now you are just being obtuse.

Cohen’s crimes occurred well before Trumps money laundering through his company.

Do yes, the underlying crime was the “initial” crime were “initial” means first in a sequence of events occurring over a timeline.

WW

 

[Robert W]

At Trump's direction.

Were you present at the time or is this only what you imagine happened?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Were you present at the time or is this only what you imagine happened?

Meaningless question.

What there was was testimony regarding the Trump/Pecker/Cohen meeting pertaining to the “catch-n-kill” scheme and further testimony by Trump employers on the money laundering scheme. He’ll the had written notes in the CFO’s own handwriting.

But you would have had to post attention to the court proceedings to know that.

WW

 

[Robert W]

Meaningless question.

What there was was testimony regarding the Trump/Pecker/Cohen meeting pertaining to the “catch-n-kill” scheme and further testimony by Trump employers on the money laundering scheme. He’ll the had written notes in the CFO’s own handwriting.

But you would have had to post attention to the court proceedings to know that.

WW

This is of course up to the US Supreme Court to decide.

 

[Southern Dad]

Yep...he didn't crack 50%. More than 1/2 the nation didn't want a 34 time convicted felon as President.

Are you ignorant of how our elections work in this country? Let me enlighten you. Trump did indeed crack 50%, so you are wrong. Trump won 312 electoral votes to 226 electoral votes for Harris. That was an even larger result than Biden had in 2020 or what he got in 2016. Now, I know you are talking about the national popular vote. We don’t have a national popular vote election so no one runs a popular vote campaign. The point is Trump won. He’s the President. That conviction didn’t stop him. #fail

 

[Southern Dad]

And that is a terrible situation.

Then maybe, just maybe you all should have run a better candidate who actually knew how to campaign instead of a DEI pick full of excuses and blame.