Yes, Florida does and it's not BS. I explained this earlier, but in Florida in order to prove a burglary, the state only has to prove you unlawfully entered the premises with the intent to commit a crime...any crime. The state doesn't have to allege what crime and it makes no difference if that crime was actually committed or not. It's the intent that matters, not whether or not you were successful. It is that nonspecific intent that elevates a misdemeanor trespass to a felony burglary.
I've still got to have fun with Fox. While the so-called MSM has straightforward headlines about what happened at the trial today, Fox, of course, goes with nasty stuff that Trump said about Democrats after the trial. Which, by the way, he assures us went very well for him.
I’ll yield to that as I have zero background in criminal law. It would seem to me if you are going to charge someone for felony burglary, they would actually have to be caught stealing something. What is the burden of proof on the state to say someone was trespassing on this property and we think their intent was to steal something? Seems to easy to lay a more serious charge on someone in my opinion which of course admittedly lacks a real study into criminal law.
Sorry I don’t follow. What guilty plea and which documents? Documents that pertain to this specific case?
Is there any law that says he can’t pay Stormy off even if for campaign reasons? Anyone running for office can’t pay for an nda on someone? I get the falsified payment part but I don’t understand why it matters for what reason he did it. It seems to me the reason for why he wanted to pay her off means nothing since this is about paying Cohen back for something that was labeled as a retainer fee when it was not correct?
Yes. Don't falsify the records and call it a campaign expense. No false records, no state crime. Might be embarrassed to call it a campaign expense, and there would have to be disclosure of the payment, which would defeat the purpose of keeping things hush. Trump could also paid Pecker back from his personal account. That might work. Not sure. I'm not a lawyer either. Maybe best not to screw porn stars, especially when married. Elimates the need to pay for their silence later.
Michael Cohen's federal case. Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution to keep Daniels quiet to advance the cause of the campaign. In turn, Cohen was "paid back" by corporate entities controlled by Trump. This would also be illegal. In order to do so and to hide the activity, Trump is accused of falsifying business records. That is the current trial.
That's not the law. First of all, it doesn't have to be a theft. Earlier, I said ANY crime. If you enter my home unlawfully to smoke weed (no card), that's a burglary. Enter to have consensual sex with your underage GF, burglary. Enter your ex-GF's apartment to punch her new BF, burglary (and if charged properly, punishable by life in prison.) When I worked for the state, my division prosecuted a guy for burglary who entered a barn and had sex with a horse. The legislature made it much easier to prosecute a case as a burglary in the situations you are concerned with. All the State has to show is that the defendant entered "stealthily" and without consent and that's prima facie evidence of intent to commit an offense, essentially shifting the burden to the defendant to prove he had no intent to commit any crime. 810.07 Prima facie evidence of intent.— (1) In a trial on the charge of burglary, proof of the entering of such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense. (2) In a trial on the charge of attempted burglary, proof of the attempt to enter such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense. Frankly, the problem you have (and it is not an uncommon one) is that you have some notion in your mind as to what you believe constitutes a burglary and you're stuck there. Your beliefs and thoughts don't matter, it's how the law defines burglary that matters. Florida law has no attempted theft statute. An attempt to commit a theft is a theft. That one throws a lot of people off, too.
And this is why maga will believe it was rigged if he is convicted. How could it have gone so well every day and he still loses
Much like the whole issue of "Trump didn't collude with Russia" where there is no crime on the books called collusion, MAGAts listen to right wing commentators that make up non-existent defenses to crimes Trump has committed and they believe them to be valid.
This is Trump's superpower - getting people to abandon their values and morals bit by bit until they have none. There's a number of actions by Trump that I can pretty much guarantee his supporters wouldn't try to defend had they been done by Biden or even if they were done by a politician not named Trump in a foreign country: Trump tower meeting with Russians and coordinating on the release of the DNC email hack Providing internal polling data to Russia Cheating on his wife with a pornstar while she's home with their newborn and devising a scheme to hide the payments to prevent it from hurting his election chances Firing Comey for investigating ties to Russia and the other instances of obstruction in the Mueller report Withholding Ukraine aid unless they announce an investigation into his political opponent Tear-gassing protestors outside the White House for a photo op Getting his supporters and the crowd riled on on Jan 6th and then not taking any action as President to prevent or stop what was happening Fake electors scheme Willfully taking and refusing to return classified documents up to and including the highest levels of sensitivity That's just off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot because there's so much. Are all of these crimes? No, but they're not behavior becoming of a President. And the ones that are crimes get dismissed as "political." I think it would bother me less if people were just honest in saying they don't like, support, or condone these things but they're going to vote for him anyway because of taxes, abortion, judges, whatever. It's the constant defense of the indefensible that's exhausting.
HAHA right!! I dont believe her though. She spent years denying anything happened, signed two letters, and now suddenly gives a completely different story. Hell even Bill Maher who HATES Trump called Stormy out. I'm sure they had sex but nowhere near what she claimed on the stand the other day. Bill Maher dredges up 2018 Stormy Daniels interview that totally undermines her Trump trial testimony
I know what you said and that is why I told it's crazy. How can you charge someone for felony burglary when all you can prove is they unlawfully entered the property and smoked weed. Nothing was stolen. All I am saying is that leaves too much power to prosecutors to overcharge people.
Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.” Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cohen-hearing-2019/card/1P82BT0mJNlEnExi2Dti Donald Trump Jr.’s name has come up a number of times at Michael Cohen’s hearing today. In the afternoon session, Mr. Cohen identified the president’s son, apparently incorrectly, as an unnamed Trump Organization executive referenced in the charging documents filed against him by federal prosecutors in New York. The executives were referenced in connection with the plan to reimburse Mr. Cohen for the payment to Stormy Daniels. In the charging document, federal prosecutors said the first executive, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, forwarded an invoice from Mr. Cohen to the second executive, and it was approved. The Journal has previously identified “Executive-1” as Mr. Weisselberg. Mr. Cohen testified today that “Executive-2” in the charging document was Donald Trump Jr. However, according to people familiar with the matter, the second executive was Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, not the president’s son. Mr. McConney previously referred requests for comment by the Journal to a Trump organization representative, who declined to comment. This was Mr. Cohen's exchange with Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat: Mr. Khanna: "The criminal charge against you then states that executive one forwarded your invoice to someone referred to as executive two, presumably Donald Trump Jr., who's signing this check as executive two, correct?" Mr. Cohen: "I believe so." Mr. Khanna: "Are you telling us, Mr. Cohen, that the president directed transactions in conspiracy with Allen Weisselberg and his son, Donald Trump Jr., as part of a civil -- as part of a criminal conspiracy of financial fraud, is that your testimony today?" Mr. Cohen: "Yes." So which part of his story are we supposed to believe? Not like he is a proven liar or anything. lol
Yeah, I wonder why Donald Trump wouldn't hire a completely honest person to do things like engage in illegal campaign finance activity with falsified business records in order to cover up his affairs. Seems like the type of job that you would expect an ethical person to do happily and without any issues.
Daniels story first leaked in 2011. Cohen testified to this. Trump was considering a 2012 run and tasked Cohen to identify potential landmines. Daniels came up, but Daniels decided to sit on the story, because at the time, she and Trump had a decent relationship. And Daniels was hoping for a spot on Celebrity Apprentice. But that spot never materialized, and Trump became the R nominee. Trump distanced himself from Daniels and McDougal, and Cohen, along with Pecker, were tasked with silencing the issues. Pecker paid McDougal $150k, and would have paid Daniels too, but Trump never paid back the monies for McDougal. So, Trump had Cohen do it, and Trump repaid Cohen back claiming it was a legal retainer, and here we are today. Whether or not Daniels and Trump had sex is irrelevant to the case except that Trump has claimed the tryst never happened. This opened the door for the Prosecution to allow Daniels to tell her story to the jury. Basically, when Daniels thought she might be able to get something other than sex from the relationship, she lied and protected Trump. But when that turned sour, she went back to the exact same story she told back in 2011. And that story has remained the same every time she tells it.
I think I'd heard about that theft example. You don't have to answer my hypos of course, but as someone who doesn't practice criminal law, I've often pondered these sorts of questions, and you're right IMO about people having lots of preconceptions about the elements of various crimes. If I intend to walk over and push someone but I trip before I am able to actually touch them....or let's say I swing at someone and my punch hits only air because I'm just a lousy aim, could those actions constitute "attempted battery"? Or what if I say something to someone that would otherwise be considered a true threat or assault but the person has bad hearing and didn't hear what I said? Could that still constitute a crime of "attempted assault" if they had no perception of it?
Wow, are you that incapable of following? Burglary doesn't require proof of a theft or even an attempt to take something. Any crime means ANY crime. Nothing crazy about it. A burglary is what the legislature says it is, not what you think it is.
