Maggie's Farm

New York City is where Trump made his home for decades. New York City is where Trump worked for decades. New York City is where Trump's crimes were committed. Consequently, the people of New York City constitute a jury of his peers.

Regardless, it was clear that Trump committed fraud. The only tricky part was establishing that he did it for election purposes. But it wasn't really all that tricky, as testimony and audio recordings showed his involvement and why he did it.


Trump was found guilty of New York Penal Law § 175.10, a.k.a. fraud. You're welcome.


That is incorrect. The jury did not determine guilt on the predicate crimes. The statute does not require a finding of guilt on the predicate crime, only that the fraud was committed with the intention to commit or cover up another crime. The other crime may never have been accomplished. (See burglary example below.) Intention is the element of the statute. However, there are various "means" or ways of invoking that element.

Consider the New York case concerning this very issue, De Vonish v. Keane. De Vonish was charged with burglary, which means breaking and entering with the intent to commit another crime. The other crime might have been to steal or to assault or to vandalize. The jury may have disagreed on which of these predicates were De Vonish's actual intention. However, if the jury agreed that he broke and entered with the intention of committing another crime, that was sufficient for conviction under the burglary statute, New York Penal Law § 140.30. In other words, in the law, there is a distinction between an element, which requires unanimity, and a "means" or ways the element can be established.

If a criminal robbery statute requires the use of force or the threat of force to convict, then depending on the exact wording of the statute and the relevant judicial precedent, that can be considered a single element or as two elements. However, most jurisdictions see that as a single element with two “means” or ways the single element of the crime can be established. In other words, the jury may disagree on whether actual force or just the threat of force was used in fact, but can unanimously find the defendant guilty of burglary.

If Tony Soprano commits fraud in New York to cover up another crime, but that crime might be murder-for-hire or extortion or bribery, the intention of the coverup is the element, while the predicate crime is a "means". The jury doesn't have to sort through Soprano's multiple, overlapping criminal motives. The crime is fraud. The predicate just enhances the level of the crime.

In Trump's trial, the element is the intention to commit or conceal another crime, which requires unanimity. The predicate is a "means" or way the predicate is established, which does not require unanimity.

That doesn't mean Trump's conviction can't be appealed on this basis. However, New York has already ruled on the issue, though perhaps there is a wrinkle about the particular application in Trump's case. The federal courts may see it differently, but the federal courts also make the distinction between elements and means. But, if predicate crimes are generally considered a separate elements, then it might very well call into question the convictions of people like De Vonish who break into homes carrying switchblades.

NJSoldier: You aren't any better at making up crimes than Bragg or the judge.

Powerful argument—nearly as effective as shooing flies. Do you disagree on how the law treats elements and means of a law? On what basis? Examples were provided for discussion.

jack walter: I think almost any means are justified, including carpet bombing of civilian populations.

"I love the smell of genocide in the morning."
 

RL: If comparing a Vietnam war film script to WW2

It was comparing Gaza to Vietnam.

"Smells like . . . victory."

OneGuy: Genocide is one of those loaded words that you pull out to help your side win the argument when the facts and common sense is does not favor your position.

Carpet bombing the two million people who live in Gaza would fit the definition of genocide, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

OneGuy: War is about two sides committed to kill enough people on the other side so that they give up thus ending the war.

War is about the destruction of the enemy's ability and will to fight, not the destruction of the entire population.

OneGuy: That's what war is, killing all those who fight/attack you before they kill you.

The proposal was to carpet bomb civilian populations, not killing combatants.

OneGuy: {Zachriel} was stone silent about this issue as day after day, month after month and year after year Hamas committed terrorism/genocide against the Jews.

That's false. As we have noted before, Hamas is a terrorist organization and is not a viable partner for peace or for any lasting political solution.

Israel has a right to exist. However, Israel's actions in Gaza may have caused severe damage to their own security. One of the few major countries still supporting Israel's war in Gaza is the United States, but the situation has put the U.S. president in a politically untenable position. Biden is being hit by the political left and the political right, yet has largely remained committed to Israel.

feeblemind: He wants GOP AGs to fight fire with fire and wants to see a barrage of charges filed against corrupt Dems everywhere and particularly Joe Biden.

That would erode the rule of law. The proper venue is an appeal through the courts.

The law is a blunt and imperfect tool, but it is almost always better than the alternative.

SK: That's comical as hell coming from someone who for months has been justifying the pursuit and charging and suing of a man in a way that no one else would have been pursued and charged and sued, by a prosecutor and AG who ran on platforms of going after that very man.

It's always cute when people suddenly discover that the law is a blunt and imperfect tool only after it ensnares rich, old, white people.

Trump was charged and convicted because he committed fraud. However, even if you disagree with the verdict or think the process was unfair, the point remains that the solution remains within the rule of law, not with abuse of the law. The trial court and its judgment are subject to appeal.

It's also cute when (reading other forums) 'patriotic', 'small-government' conservatives openly call for the Caesar option.