Jonathan Turley ... suggested the case was more about political targeting than a clear-cut felony, pointing out that the prosecution’s reliance on uncharged crimes...was a novel and potentially overreaching legal strategy.
Those words do a lot of work, here. Turley's (I should have known.
That hurts your credibility) analysis tends to be
far beyond his area of expertise, and his views are decidedly libertarian and quite outside of the mainstream, but let me not digress.
David Sklansky (Stanford Law School): In a Stanford Legal podcast, Sklansky noted that the New York case is unusual because falsifying business records is typically a misdemeanor unless tied to another crime, and the prosecution’s theory about what that other crime was (e.g., campaign finance or tax violations) has been "a little convoluted."
But not
unsupported or
incorrect. Again, this smacks of special pleading. Just because a particular application of the criminal code is unusual, or novel, does not make it
inappropriate. I've had to be creative in how I charged crimes, but ensured that they were
legally correct and
supported by the law and evidence. Successfully, I might add. That's routine for prosecutors. The judge in the case, and the appellate court, agreed that the charges were not unfounded and could proceed to trial. The jury understood the charges and convicted him of the crime. The judge confirmed that conviction.
Jed Shugerman (Boston University School of Law): Shugerman has critiqued the New York case specifically, arguing in outlets like Slate that the legal theory behind elevating falsification to felonies was "unprecedented and shaky." He expressed concern that the prosecution’s reliance on federal campaign finance law as the "other crime" was problematic, as it’s unclear whether state prosecutors can enforce federal law in this way.
It's clear
now. You have yet to convince me this is
not special pleading. All of this commentary was
before the case went to trial. These issues are now settled.
If your evidence that he has committed sexual crimes is so rock solid, why has he never been convicted of these crimes in a criminal court?
Hundreds of thousands of sexual crimes go unprosecuted simply because they are not identified in time, or the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma publicly. That's extremely weak sauce. It's like Gislaine Maxwell's equivocal assertion, "I never
saw Trump participate", or the canard "I can produce a hundred witnesses who didn't see him commit the crime." It
means nothing; it has no legal relevance. It's a fallacy.
Falsifying business records is not a sexual crime.
But is a crime of moral turpitude. He was convicted.
I earlier referenced the innocence project being involved with exonerating over 500 people who were falsely accused of committing crimes, (often sex crimes), what evidence do you have that I would hold someone else to a different standard for the same issue?
I have none that you
would. None. Again, you persist in this fallacy: "I can produce a hundred witnesses who didn't see him commit the crime." It
means nothing; it has no legal relevance.
Here's the problem:
Your entire presentation is a challenge to prove a negative. I can only surmise based upon what you have presented. That, however, has been wholly unconvincing. I have a hard time believing that it is NOT special pleading, based solely upon what you have presented, and what I have provided in response. The sum makes accepting your claims at face value
extremely difficult. It boils down to, "trust me on this". I have no basis to do so, and a lot of reasons not to.
