Yale Law Professor EXPOSES the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Trial Against TRUMP....

0311 said:
You posted sources from conservative websites. Suspect websites Your research was slip-shod and unconvincing. Baiscally used sites you knew were and went there. Try stepping out of your comfort zone sometime.
Click to expand...

You should have read the links. The articles were in support of the conviction.
 
SavannahMann said:
You should have read the links. The articles were in support of the conviction.
Click to expand...

Your sources are highly questionable. I am reminded of my Father/Grand Father/Grand Mother/Great Grand Father/Great Grand Mother (all newspaper people) used to say. "Find no less than three sources, that indedpendently verify what you are trying to report", they never......REPEAT.......never used a biased source. YOU cannot say the same. Independent sources, NOT biased sources that YOU know will give YOU what YOU want.
 
0311 said:
Your sources are highly questionable. I am reminded of my Father/Grand Father/Grand Mother/Great Grand Father/Great Grand Mother (all newspaper people) used to say. "Find no less than three sources, that indedpendently verify what you are trying to report", they never......REPEAT.......never used a biased source. YOU cannot say the same. Independent sources, NOT biased sources that YOU know will give YOU what YOU want.
Click to expand...

If you had read them. Politico’s legal expert took serious issue with the idiocy of Trump’s defense. They ignored the weakest parts of the Prosecutions case to focus on the claim that Trump fucked Stormy Daniels, oh and that Cohen was an awful person.

The other two were written by Lawyers. One was a former Federal Prosecutor who explained why Trump was found guilty. The other was a law school professor who offered his own explanation.

I read news from many sources. I look at what they are saying. If it is all smoke and mirrors on a subject I know they are bereft of any substance.

You should try it.
 
SavannahMann said:
If you had read them. Politico’s legal expert took serious issue with the idiocy of Trump’s defense. They ignored the weakest parts of the Prosecutions case to focus on the claim that Trump fucked Stormy Daniels, oh and that Cohen was an awful person.

The other two were written by Lawyers. One was a former Federal Prosecutor who explained why Trump was found guilty. The other was a law school professor who offered his own explanation.

I read news from many sources. I look at what they are saying. If it is all smoke and mirrors on a subject I know they are bereft of any substance.

You should try it.
Click to expand...

NOT.....NOT.....NOT....RELIABLE. Do you understand that word at all. Find THREE (03) Independent Sources that verify want you want to report. I read you post and your sources are questionable. A Conservative former Federa Prosecutor is suspect. A Conservative Law School Professor is suspect. Find better sources. my Grand Father would red lined your post.
 
0311 said:
NOT.....NOT.....NOT....RELIABLE. Do you understand that word at all. Find THREE (03) Independent Sources that verify want you want to report. I read you post and your sources are questionable. A Conservative former Federa Prosecutor is suspect. A Conservative Law School Professor is suspect. Find better sources. my Grand Father would red lined your post.
Click to expand...

So your grandfather was also a closed minded fool. I understand. It is common for the Apple to drop close to the tree.
 
bigrebnc1775 said:
Oh so the predicate crime was a, b, or c
Federal crime is not a jurisdiction of a district court. And the other two are misdemeanors
Click to expand...
He wasn't charged with those predicate crimes so jurisdiction doesn't matter.

The predicate crimes do not have to be felonies nor misdemeanors.

This is explained here in the precedent case ..

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element.
 
Catsnmeters said:
He wasn't charged with those predicate crimes so jurisdiction doesn't matter.

The predicate crimes do not have to be felonies nor misdemeanors.

This is explained here in the precedent case ..

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element.
Click to expand...
This is why the verdict will be over turned
 
Rawley said:
We did see that. Which one did the jury find he intended to hide?
Click to expand...

One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.

This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.

Rawley said:
Which of the crimes was proven in court?
Click to expand...
Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.

How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?
 
Catsnmeters said:
One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.

This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.


Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.

How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?
Click to expand...
No one knew what the crimes were until the closing statements given by the prosecution
 
bigrebnc1775 said:
This is why the verdict will be over turned
Click to expand...
Why?

Because of a law that has been around and used multiple times since 1965?

This was all agreed upon by Trump's team, the prosecutors and the judge months ago.

Why would they get an appeal on something they agreed to? That isn't how appeals work.
 
bigrebnc1775 said:
No one knew what the crimes were until the closing statements given by the prosecution
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

You were lied to by Trump and his sycophants.

The document in post 88 is from February.

It discusses those crimes in detail.

Trump lied to you. Are you pissed about it or you don't care?
 
15th post
Catsnmeters said:
Why?

Because of a law that has been around and used multiple times since 1965?

This was all agreed upon by Trump's team, the prosecutors and the judge months ago.

Why would they get an appeal on something they agreed to? That isn't how appeals work.
Click to expand...
Your explanation of the verdict is the reason
 
Catsnmeters said:
One of the three. It doesn't matter which because he wants charged with those crimes.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't
Catsnmeters said:
This was all explained and accepted by Trump's team.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't
Catsnmeters said:
Intent was proven by the grand jury. It explains the details in the motions document I posted above.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury has nothing to do with what was wasn't proven at trial.
Catsnmeters said:
How come Trump said he didn't know what the crimes were when he had to have known since last February based on court documents?
Click to expand...
Because none of them were shown at trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

does the militia clause in art 1 section 8

< Previous Thread

Roe v Wade Revisited, Forcefully

Next Thread >

Similar threads

munkle
AI Robot Attacks Man on Scooter in China, Trump Plows Ahead with No AI Safety Regulations
Replies
7
Views
453
kyzr
kyzr
munkle
‘Godfather of AI’ Dr. Geoffrey Hinton Gives Humanity 'Deer Hunter' Russian Roulette Odds of Extinction by AI Unless Stopped
Replies
8
Views
350
EvilCat Breath
EvilCat Breath
C_Clayton_Jones
Red States' Fascist Campaign Against Colleges and Professors
2
Replies
26
Views
308
airplanemechanic
airplanemechanic
DonGlock26
Professor sanctioned for alleged discrimination against white students
2 3
Replies
45
Views
623
Lisa558
L
B
Perfect Justice: Bill Gates Confesses to Russian Connection That Trump Was Falsely Accused of for Years
Replies
1
Views
75
Mack The Finger
Mack The Finger

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom