Friday, May 24, 2024

Mixing Recursive Messages

Well, closer to the truth than Ted Cruz; if even more oblivious to the irony.
I think some of the key instructions that we haven't gotten resolved yet is how the judge is going to define the critical intent element," said Rubin. "Let's go back to what the actual charges are here, because we often lose sight of it. Trump has been charged with falsifying business records in the first, meaning, he has either falsified the business records himself or caused others to do so, with an intent to defraud, including an intent to commit or conceal another crime. That's what bumps it up to a felony." 
"The defense would like an instruction that says a person acts ... with an intent to defraud when his or her purpose is to lead another into error or disadvantage, and that matters here because the Trump Organization is a privately-held company," Rubin continued. "And so their argument is, President Trump didn't have an intent to defraud because, who was he trying to defraud, these are the records of the Trump Organization and there's nobody who would be on the receiving end of these records." 
However, she added, "Judge Merchan is not likely to give the instruction the way they want, because he says an intention to defraud doesn't require that there's a particular person out there that you are trying to defraud. You could be, for example, trying to keep up false business records for a rainy day so that when for example the SDNY or the SEC comes knocking, you have something already cooked that makes it look like something that the prosecutors would say was not. And so, that's an example of a way in which the defense is trying through jury instructions, to accomplish something that maybe the evidence in the case doesn't accomplish for them."
I keep saying that really the most important part of a trial is the jury instructions. This is why. Does fraud require a person who is the victim of the fraud? That’s the classic common law definition. But it isn’t necessarily an absolute element of fraud. It could be the fraud is meant to defraud a prospective person, like a government agency (at law a fictional person in this example). How fraud is defined to the jury can determine whether the jury finds the evidence supports, or doesn’t, a charge of fraud. Other sources say the park only holds/is permitted for 3500, and there was a sizeable crowd of protesters. Also, the park wasn’t full. Besides: Just sayin’: Simon and Garfunkel’s Concert in Central Park this wasn’t. I’m a little confused. This seems like a mixed message. As does this. If only the Central Park Five had endorsed Trump after their indictment. Although accused felons endorsing an accused felon is a little too recursive for me. Hey, freedom of speech, right?
“The inquiries represent not only your latest assault on the private sector but a naked attempt to chill rights protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment," Comer writes. 
"Individuals, including employees of these companies, have the right to consider and support the candidate best aligned with their views without your interference." 
Especially if that politician is selling his policies in order to pay the attorneys fees for all his criminal prosecutions.
House Republicans have also shared this message on X, claiming Democrats and Raskin were "attempting to chill American energy producers’ First Amendment rights and create a non-existent scandal about American energy producers’ support for former President Trump’s energy policies."
Or just nakedly sell government assets for personal gain. Which, you know, is kinda the lay definition of bribery. It’s all about the horse race. Bronx crowd shown actual size.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)