Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed
(www.politico.com)
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #1 as the predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #2 as a predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime, either.
And so on.
This begs the question: If the prosecution really thinks he was guilty of any of the underlying "predicate crimes," then why did they not charge him with one or more of those crimes, and instead go after something else that is supposedly based on some other crime for which he is NOT presumed to be guilty?
Seems like an appeal would throw out this shit show -- and should land the judge and prosecutor in a jail cell, looking for bail money and a defense attorney.
To answer why, this is an attempt to confuse civil and criminal burdens. In a civil case the fact that a crimes was committed can be determined by a preponderance of the evidence (for the purposes of the civil case). They want to get away with doing that in a criminal case where they have to prove the predicate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aren't the judge and prosecutor insulated from this? Prosecutor can be admonished for bringing nuisance cases, I would think, but up to the Judge to throw out the case.
Judges cannot violate the law.
They do it all the time, and are rarely ever held accountable, but they can and should be held accountable.
The judicial system is corrupt BECAUSE the PEOPLE who work within that system are the ones who MAKE it corrupt -- the judges and attorneys.
The only way to clean up the corruption is to take out the garbage.