• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Final jurors seated for Trump’s hush money case, with opening statements set for Monday (1 Viewer)

Athanasius68 said:
Note 2188.
Pages 11-17.
The above argument was rejected by Judge Merchan.
Click to expand...


Am I missing it? I've read the indictment several times in the past and revisited it just now.

I don't see anything about needing to show "damages". I do see this regarding "intent to defraud", though:


This Court finds that legally sufficient evidence was presented to the Grand Jury to satisfy this element of the crimes charged. The term "intent to defraud" carries a broad meaning and is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property... To reiterate, controlling authority holds that the People need not demonstrate intent to cause financial harm to prove that Decfendant had the requisite intent to defraud under the Falsifying Business Records statutes... The Defendant's argument to the contrary is unavailing and contrary to settled law...A long line of cases not only within the First Department but in other departments as well, have so held. Evidence presented to the Grand Jury demonstrated that Defendant, starting in 2015, intended to pay Daniels and McDougal a sum of money to prevent the publication of information that could have adversely affected his presidential aspirations. The payments were made through Cohen who was reimbursed by Defendant in the form of payments through the Trump Organization. The Grand Jury, when viewing this evidence, could find reasonable cause that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it, namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.



That's not a "rejection" of my argument - it's actually a confirmation of it.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No. Because he breaking a state law.


They do.
However Mr. Bragg is trying to figure out a way to prosecute Mr. Trump for violating federal finance election law.
Click to expand...
The trial has started. We're way past the DA "trying to figure our a way to prosecute". Trump is being prosecuted. Present continuous. It's happening now.
 
hooligan said:
Am I missing it? I've read the indictment several times in the past and revisited it just now.

I don't see anything about needing to show "damages". I do see this regarding "intent to defraud", though:


This Court finds that legally sufficient evidence was presented to the Grand Jury to satisfy this element of the crimes charged. The term "intent to defraud" carries a broad meaning and is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property... To reiterate, controlling authority holds that the People need not demonstrate intent to cause financial harm to prove that Decfendant had the requisite intent to defraud under the Falsifying Business Records statutes... The Defendant's argument to the contrary is unavailing and contrary to settled law...A long line of cases not only within the First Department but in other departments as well, have so held. Evidence presented to the Grand Jury demonstrated that Defendant, starting in 2015, intended to pay Daniels and McDougal a sum of money to prevent the publication of information that could have adversely affected his presidential aspirations. The payments were made through Cohen who was reimbursed by Defendant in the form of payments through the Trump Organization. The Grand Jury, when viewing this evidence, could find reasonable cause that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it, namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.



That's not a "rejection" of my argument - it's actually a confirmation of it.
Click to expand...
As an aside how did you copy that part of the judges decision? Every time I try I get annotated gobbledygook!
 
Callen said:
As an aside how did you copy that part of the judges decision? Every time I try I get annotated gobbledygook!
Click to expand...


Pasted into Notepad and manually fixed the gobbledygook.

:cautious:
 
hooligan said:
Am I missing it? I've read the indictment several times in the past and revisited it just now.

I don't see anything about needing to show "damages". I do see this regarding "intent to defraud", though:


This Court finds that legally sufficient evidence was presented to the Grand Jury to satisfy this element of the crimes charged. The term "intent to defraud" carries a broad meaning and is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property... To reiterate, controlling authority holds that the People need not demonstrate intent to cause financial harm to prove that Decfendant had the requisite intent to defraud under the Falsifying Business Records statutes... The Defendant's argument to the contrary is unavailing and contrary to settled law...A long line of cases not only within the First Department but in other departments as well, have so held. Evidence presented to the Grand Jury demonstrated that Defendant, starting in 2015, intended to pay Daniels and McDougal a sum of money to prevent the publication of information that could have adversely affected his presidential aspirations. The payments were made through Cohen who was reimbursed by Defendant in the form of payments through the Trump Organization. The Grand Jury, when viewing this evidence, could find reasonable cause that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it, namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.



That's not a "rejection" of my argument - it's actually a confirmation o
Click to expand...

You are insisting that the allegedly falsified documents by itself show an intent to defraud.
But Judge Merchan rejected that argument.
Instead, as cited above, Merchan said
namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.
 
uptower said:
The trial has started. We're way past the DA "trying to figure our a way to prosecute". Trump is being prosecuted. Present continuous. It's happening now.
Click to expand...

The better way to have phrased it is that Bragg is making up the law as he goes.
 
Athanasius68 said:
namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.
Click to expand...
Want to read that again and explain how that says he didn't have the intent to defraud?
 
Callen said:
Want to read that again and explain how that says he didn't have the intent to defraud?
Click to expand...

How could he have?

NDA's are lawful.
The documents in question were 'falsified' in 2017. What is the fraud?
 
Athanasius68 said:
How could he have?

NDA's are lawful.
The documents in question were 'falsified' in 2017. What is the fraud?
Click to expand...
Yup they are which is precisely why there are no charges related to the NDA's

That has been explained ad nauseam again I will point you to the judges decisions documents where he specifically describes what constitutes fraud in this matter. The answers to all your questions are there.
 
Athanasius68 said:
You are insisting that the allegedly falsified documents by itself show an intent to defraud.
But Judge Merchan rejected that argument.
Instead, as cited above, Merchan said
namely that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud either the voting public, the government, or both.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to argue that falsified documents and defraud are two separate crimes? Falsified records IS the act of defraud.
 
uptower said:
So it's legal to falsify business records if the intent is other than to defraud? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

People can make mistakes.
The state of New York doesn't think people in such a circumstance should be prosecuted for such a misdemeanor.
 
Athanasius68 said:
People can make mistakes.
The state of New York doesn't think people in such a circumstance should be prosecuted for such a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
Unless of course it's a deliberate act to cover up another crime.
 
triharder said:
Are you trying to argue that falsified documents and defraud are two separate crimes? Falsified records IS the act of defraud.
Click to expand...

I am saying that simply 'falsifying' a document as a result of an innocent mistake is not a crime.
There has to be a reason behind it.
And New York says there has to be an intent to defraud.
And because New York doesn't see this as a big deal, they have made it no more than a misdemeanor.
 
triharder said:
Are you trying to argue that falsified documents and defraud are two separate crimes? Falsified records IS the act of defraud.
Click to expand...

No. Because people can make mistakes. Nobody is perfect.
That is why the law requires there be an intent to defraud while producing the 'falsified' documents.
 
Rather Trump committed a crime or the "hush money" was just an innocent mistake it tells me something about Trump's character. One I do not find to be that of a good honest leader.

Especially when Trump sells himself as a religious, law and order type person. imo, he is far from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom