jerrymahoney

The current verdict was for federal charges November 17, 2023, 4:08 AM DePape, 43, was arrested at the scene and subsequently charged with attempted kidnapping and assault on account of a federal official's performance of official duties. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years and 30 years, respectively, in prison. He has pleaded not guilty. DePape also faces state charges in the incident. He pleaded not guilty to state charges including attempted murder, residential burglary and assault with a deadly weapon. A state trial date has not yet been scheduled. https://abcnews.go.com/US/paul-pelosi-hammer-attack-federal-trial-verdict/story?id=104879502

OK the full shot:

Actually this started when I said "denied" to the statement: "these things cannot be denied. NY State law says that using fraudulent accounting for the purpose of influencing an election is a felony." And both the above and the post you quote leave out the word 'intent' which is in the actual stattute. And "intent" can mean that the defendant had to know what he was doing otr intending todowas illegal.

e It is 2 separate statutes: One is the charge 34 times in the indictment and the other is the "another crime" election charge. The election charge says "by unlawful means" and the Prosecution has never said what is unlawful means. And it seems since enacted in 1976 there is no case or established precedent as to what is "unlawful" in the context of that statute. Some experts have written, regardless of the evidence presented by either side, this whole case will depend just how the Judge decides to explain this convoluted series of charges to the Jury. In 2013, Antonin Scalia made a remarkable admission at oral argument in the Supreme Court when he said, "this campaign finance law [the Federal Election Campaign Act] is so intricate that I can't figure it out." NY State law in this instance is turning out much the same as a big liberal think tank ended their analysis of this Trump case by asking: Clear as mud?

You can comment on anything you want. But this is a complicated case using a NY State Statute for which there is no case precedence. I try to unravel the 4-tier alleged crime case looking at the statutes and what legal scholars even those favoring the Bragg prosecution have to say. And nothing is clear in that Bragg has not completely identified what was the "unlawful means" in the election statute cited. Or as the one generally pro-prosecution analysis put it: Clear as mud. So you do it your way and I'll do mine.

'Key testimony'. Is that a legal term or a layman's term?

You also said a few days ago following the accountants' discusiion: Game set & match. I guess that was in layman's sense as well.

This is from what otherwise is a generally pro-prosecution article: Maybe clear as mud? Bragg’s legal theory is genuinely tangled—though the district attorney’s office is doing its best to untangle matters. Whether he’ll be able to walk the jury through it is no certainty.

The statute at issue doesn't contain the word influence although that is a reasonable description. Even so, it specifies influence by ILLEGAL MEANS but the prosecution has not hinted as yet what are the illegal means and the statute itself has little or zero case history as to what has been illegal means in prior case history.

When I first met her sitting across the table from me at the Hachiban Ramen with mutual friends, I had to say to myself: Now Mahoney-- behave yourself.

2 years ago I married a much younger Thai woman who IS substantial

In (his) opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple. If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

No. You just are not stating accurately the 2 separate laws involved.

no

Denied.

From NY Times as of 04:55 Bangkok time: 4:14 p.m. ET 2 hours ago We’ve just heard that Karen McDougal will not be called as a witness.

It is not 'a' NY State statutes: It is TWO NY State statutes.The above is a rendering of two separate laws as one. The first law is the one regarding the 34 entries. It specifies 'intent': § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. As to 'intent' S 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime. 'Intent' as above is generally interpreted to mean the person knew in advance that he or she was committing a crime. Since the primary "another crime" (as identified by Prosecution 23 APR 2024) in this case is one that, since its enactment 1976, has rarely or never been prosecuted, it is hard to say Trump knew he was committing it. That (an)other crime has now been identified as New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The rendering above left out the 'by unlawful means'. The Prosecution has yet to say what are the unlawful means. And since this law was enacted in 1976 there is little if any case law that would give some idea as to what has been considered under this law as "unlawful" in prior cases. So the structure of the Prosecution's case seems to be: Crime, within a crime, within a crime.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger countered that "the details of her story are important" while saying the prosecution will not ask about "certain details that might be too salacious." She said Daniels would be asked to testify about "how she ended up engaging in a sexual act." "It's not going to include any details about genitalia or anything of that nature," Hoffinger said. Judge Juan Merchan acknowledged Necheles' point that Daniels has "credibility issues," but said that supported prosecutors' need "to elicit certain details that led to the sexual encounter." https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-testimony-bookkeeping-gag-order-contempt/

Hearsay. Another girl who did have non-adulterous sex with Trump during the almost 6 years between his 2nd and 3rd marriage could have told her.

I voted against him twice -- and in 2016 I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Florida primary who may have been the better 2016 Democratic candidate.

I will go tomorrow or Monday. Thanks. My 7 days is 11 MAY which is a Saturday.

Based on some of the above info it seems to be a system error.

New passport in December 2023. Went to Immigration in person FEB 2024 to do TM47. May 4 for next 90 day report. Tried to do online before MAY 1 as I have for several years past but got the same REJECTION notice. Will go to IMM tomorrow or FRI. So this now seems a system problem. I thought maybe the problem was that the USofA now has a letter in the passport number and I thought maybe that was the screw-up that the system couldn't handle that.

Yes. And the case is under appeal. And part of the appeal is that the Judge excluded evidence such that the jury might not have found some witnesses as credible.

The Prosecution does not cross-examine their own witnesses.