Irv Posted June 6 Posted June 6 18 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The idea that people would be *more* likely to vote for someone if they are locked up for fraudulent business records tells you a lot about those people. If only there was a word for such people who were slavishly devoted to a single leader… As usual, you are not thinking clearly. One thing most American's like is fairness. It's true in sports, politics, you name it. What the dirty Democrats did in NY flies in the face of fairness. As a result, people are responding. It's blowing up in their face. It will be worse if Trump is jailed. What a mess. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 6 Posted June 6 6 minutes ago, Irv said: As usual, you are not thinking clearly. One thing most American's like is fairness. It's true in sports, politics, you name it. What the dirty Democrats did in NY flies in the face of fairness. As a result, people are responding. It's blowing up in their face. It will be worse if Trump is jailed. What a mess. I would add, in my view the charge of falsifying business records on its own means little to nothing in regards to my viewing it as some sort of nefarious criminal act subject to imprisonment. There has to be a complementary or subsequent crime that is either being concealed or enabled by the act. And there being no indictment count for any associated crime, only some lame and illogical instructions from a judge that told the jury to pick any crime you'd like and as long as the total sum of the jury leads to 12 guilty verdicts, against no documented criminal charge I might add, then they defendant is guilty of an imaginary associated crime. You can argue the rule of law but they have the rule of law in North Korea and Russia and every country with dictators and theocracies but I wouldn't want to bet my life on that venue any more than I would a NYS court after this ruling. I conclude the entire thing is horseshit. So do most people. 2
ChiGoose Posted June 6 Posted June 6 5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I would add, in my view the charge of falsifying business records on its own means little to nothing in regards to my viewing it as some sort of nefarious criminal act subject to imprisonment. There has to be a complementary or subsequent crime that is either being concealed or enabled by the act. And there being no indictment count for any associated crime, only some lame and illogical instructions from a judge that told the jury to pick any crime you'd like and as long as the total sum of the jury leads to 12 guilty verdicts, against no documented criminal charge I might add, then they defendant is guilty of an imaginary associated crime. You can argue the rule of law but they have the rule of law in North Korea and Russia and every country with dictators and theocracies but I wouldn't want to bet my life on that venue any more than I would a NYS court after this ruling. I conclude the entire thing is horseshit. So do most people. Here’s a hypo that might help with the underlying crime confusion: Let’s say you and I decide to rob a bunch of banks. We draw up some plans, pack up our supplies in the car and head out to the first bank. On the way, we get pulled over for a taillight being out. The officer notices a bunch of duffle bags, ropes and other things in the back seat, so he has us get out of the car while he searches it. We are then arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. In the motions leading up to the trial, the prosecution files a motion stating that they plan to introduce evidence that we planned to rob Bank A, Bank B, and Bank C. But they were not charging us with a specific charge for robbery against any of the banks, just the conspiracy charge. Do you think it’s unfair that we were not charged with actual robbery in addition to the conspiracy? If all 12 jurors agreed that we conspired to rob a bank, but 3 thought we were only going to rob Bank A, 2 thought we were only going to rob Bank B, 1 thought we were only going to rob Bank C, while 6 thought we were going to rob all three banks, are we still guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery? 2
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Here’s a hypo that might help with the underlying crime confusion: Let’s say you and I decide to rob a bunch of banks. We draw up some plans, pack up our supplies in the car and head out to the first bank. On the way, we get pulled over for a taillight being out. The officer notices a bunch of duffle bags, ropes and other things in the back seat, so he has us get out of the car while he searches it. We are then arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. In the motions leading up to the trial, the prosecution files a motion stating that they plan to introduce evidence that we planned to rob Bank A, Bank B, and Bank C. But they were not charging us with a specific charge for robbery against any of the banks, just the conspiracy charge. Do you think it’s unfair that we were not charged with actual robbery in addition to the conspiracy? If all 12 jurors agreed that we conspired to rob a bank, but 3 thought we were only going to rob Bank A, 2 thought we were only going to rob Bank B, 1 thought we were only going to rob Bank C, while 6 thought we were going to rob all three banks, are we still guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery? I don't agree there's any justification for them to charge you with the conspiracy unless you're parked in front of a bank with a written plan on the car seat or you made incriminating statements to the police. There are lots of other possible explanations, non-criminal in nature, for possessing those items. How would they know what we were up to? That you were planning to rob banks is an assumption. Charges are based on facts, provable facts. And unless being in possession of those items was illegal, in that case you'd be charged with possession of illegal items of one kind or another, they have no justification beyond a reasonable doubt to charge you with conspiracy to commit robbery. Your line of reasoning opens up the law for all kinds of abuses. Let's say you and your buddy were heading out for a day of mountain climbing with the exact same items in the car. You get pulled over for the broken tail light and the cops arrest you for conspiracy to commit bank robbery or some other crime that tickled their senses. Some shady prosecutor and judge in some hick town charge and try you, a jury of locals convicts you, they take your car, and send you to the local jail. That scenario might be plausible too. Edited June 6 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Tiberius Posted June 7 Author Posted June 7 A former federal prosecutor says there is an “appreciable chance” former President Trump could be in prison until the end of his life if he loses the 2024 election, remarking on the number and scope of criminal prosecutions against him. Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania during the Clinton administration, made the remarks to former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) on his podcast Wednesday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4707359-trump-die-in-prison-reelection-new-york-georgia-2020-election-interference/
phypon Posted June 7 Posted June 7 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: A former federal prosecutor says there is an “appreciable chance” former President Trump could be in prison until the end of his life if he loses the 2024 election, remarking on the number and scope of criminal prosecutions against him. Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania during the Clinton administration, made the remarks to former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) on his podcast Wednesday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4707359-trump-die-in-prison-reelection-new-york-georgia-2020-election-interference/ Don't forget to do your daily affirmation, Tibs!
Recommended Posts