FISA

Apparently you missed the news about the DOJ and FBI obtaining illegal FIAS warrants to spy on Trump.

Not exactly a "Trump DOJ". huh?

How far would Trump have gotten firing the people investigating him for Russian collusion?

The Swamp ran the DOJ, not Trump.  Comey admitted as much after he left.  "Had I known then what I know now, we would have never asked for those warrants."  He was referring to the facts surrounding Carter Page and the fake dossier.

I refuse to click on fake news links for more details about this, which is why I ask it here.

What's this I was hearing that there need not be a unanimous (12 jurors) vote guilty for each of the 34 counts. SOmething about if 4 vote guilty for count 1, then 4 for count 2, then 4 for count 3, that equals 12. Which then counts as guilty for all 34 counts.

I never paid too much attention to this trial, as what I knew prior to it was all BS anyways.  But now that it's a talking point, I would like to get my facts straight.  Example: My TDS father was celebrating this.  We have discussions and he gets all his info from the fake news.

Apparently you missed the news about the DOJ and FBI obtaining illegal FISA warrants to spy on Trump.

Not exactly a "Trump DOJ". huh?

How far would Trump have gotten firing the people investigating him for Russian collusion?

The Swamp ran the DOJ, not Trump.  Comey admitted as much after he left.  "Had I known then what I know now, we would have never asked for those warrants."  He was referring to the facts surrounding Carter Page and the fake dossier.

Didn't they call him paranoid for thinking that the DOJ/Gov was spying on him?  Oh wait...

no
the prosecution said there are three possible crimes for each count
has to be unanimous for each separate count
but the judge's instruction said the jury did not have to be unanimous one on of the three crimes, just had to be 12 for any of the three crimes...

I refuse to click on fake news links for more details about this, which is why I ask it here.

What's this I was hearing that there need not be a unanimous (12 jurors) vote guilty for each of the 34 counts. SOmething about if 4 vote guilty for count 1, then 4 for count 2, then 4 for count 3, that equals 12. Which then counts as guilty for all 34 counts.

I never paid too much attention to this trial, as what I knew prior to it was all BS anyways.  But now that it's a talking point, I would like to get my facts straight.  Example: My TDS father was celebrating this.  We have discussions and he gets all his info from the fake news.

Jury Instructions

mahalo

Jury Instructions

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT
FALSIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS
VIOLATION OF TAX LAWS
these are the prosecution's theories of "unlawful means"
the judge instructed the jury that they had to find trump guilty of only one of these three theories on each count, NOT that he violated all three theories...

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT
FALSIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS
VIOLATION OF TAX LAWS
these are the prosecution's theories of "unlawful means"
the judge instructed the jury that they had to find trump guilty of only one of these three theories on each count, NOT that he violated all three theories...

And 4 of 12 for each of the 3 in caps?  Flapps doc was 55 pages and I don't have the time right now to read 55 pages.

no, 4 of each was an example
he said you have to decide if they committed one or more of the three
and then you should vote guilty

And 4 of 12 for each of the 3 in caps?  Flapps doc was 55 pages and I don't have the time right now to read 55 pages.

no, 4 of each was an example
he said you have to decide if they committed one or more of the three
and then you should vote guilty

Thanks.

This tactic that they used looks like what anti 2a lawyers are using to show history and tradition. Basically, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

watched a video that had a short explanation of the appeals process in NY
there are 2 levels of appeals court in NY
the first level is automatic for both the verdict and sentencing
they can uphold ruling, overrule, or send to the higher level
either side can appeal the first level ruling to the higher level
and the higher level ruling can be appealed to the USSC...

I wonder if this type of finding someone guilty procedure is common?  As in the 1 of 3 or the intent of committing crime B that was never proven in court.

I mean, CRS Firearms was found guilty of selling a machine gun because his "intent" was that the key card can make a gun into a machine gun. Never mind that the AFT failed 3 times to get said keycard to work.  Which means, he could draw on a piece of paper and with that logic, that paper is a machine gun.  But yet the Anarchist Cookbook is protected by the 1st amendment.  You know, that book they sell on Amazon that teaches u how to make explosives and stuff.

i watched a video about this in the past 2 days, but i've watched so many videos i can't remember what they said or which one it was on...
no focus...

I wonder if this type of finding someone guilty procedure is common?  As in the 1 of 3 or the intent of committing crime B that was never proven in court.

I mean, CRS Firearms was found guilty of selling a machine gun because his "intent" was that the key card can make a gun into a machine gun. Never mind that the AFT failed 3 times to get said keycard to work.  Which means, he could draw on a piece of paper and with that logic, that paper is a machine gun.  But yet the Anarchist Cookbook is protected by the 1st amendment.  You know, that book they sell on Amazon that teaches u how to make explosives and stuff.

i watched a video about this in the past 2 days, but i've watched so many videos i can't remember what they said or which one it was on...
no focus...

Forgot to add in "or did they change the law so they can get a guilty verdict".

i remember it was a NY thing
but i cannot recall if it was the 3 theories thing or the misdemeanor to felony thing...

Forgot to add in "or did they change the law so they can get a guilty verdict".

$51 million raised in less than a day

lul

$51 million raised in less than a day

i remember it was a NY thing
but i cannot recall if it was the 3 theories thing or the misdemeanor to felony thing...

I believe it’s both.

Falsifying business records (crime A) in NY is a misdemeanor, unless you do it with the intent to further another crime (crime B), in which case it’s a felony.

The People in this case offered three possible crime Bs: crime B1, crime B2, and crime B3.

For any given count, to reach a guilty felony verdict, all 12 jurors have to agree that 1) the defendant committed crime A, and that the defendant did so with the intent to further any one of crimes B1, B2, or B3.  They don’t all have to agree on WHICH crime B the defendant intended to further, just that he intended to further one of them. 

As I understand it, 11 jurors could say “he committed crime A with the intent to further crime B1,” and one juror could say “he committed crime A to further crime B2” and get a felony guilty verdict. 

If 11 say he committed crime A in order to further crime B1, and one juror says he committed crime A but NOT with intent to further any of the crime Bs, the best they could do is a misdemeanor conviction.

Based on what I read in the jury instructions, that’s a bit of a simplification but generally accurate.

I believe it’s both.

Falsifying business records (crime A) in NY is a misdemeanor, unless you do it with the intent to further another crime (crime B), in which case it’s a felony.

The People in this case offered three possible crime Bs: crime B1, crime B2, and crime B3.

For any given count, to reach a guilty felony verdict, all 12 jurors have to agree that 1) the defendant committed crime A, and that the defendant did so with the intent to further any one of crimes B1, B2, or B3.  They don’t all have to agree on WHICH crime B the defendant intended to further, just that he intended to further one of them. 

As I understand it, 11 jurors could say “he committed crime A with the intent to further crime B1,” and one juror could say “he committed crime A to further crime B2” and get a felony guilty verdict. 

If 11 say he committed crime A in order to further crime B1, and one juror says he committed crime A but NOT with intent to further any of the crime Bs, the best they could do is a misdemeanor conviction.

Based on what I read in the jury instructions, that’s a bit of a simplification but generally accurate.

Thats a bit of a stretch

Thats a bit of a stretch

Just saying what I think the law in New York is.  Not making any value judgement.