Fogbow

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

2. "Business record" means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity.

chancery wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 10:58 pm

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
eleemosynary
/ˌɛlɪiːˈmɒsɪnəri,ˌɛlɪiːˈmɒzɪnəri/

adjective FORMAL

relating to or dependent on charity; charitable.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 10:13 pm To be honest, I’m surprised more trials don’t end in acquittals. But I don’t think jurors really understand (or care about) reasonable doubt.

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?
Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.

Quinta Jurecic, Tyler McBrien Tuesday, May 7, 2024, 7:30 AM

On April 23, in Justice Merchan’s courtroom, former president Donald Trump’s defense counsel Emil Bove objected to a line of questioning pursued by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass.



Bove continued: “As the Court knows, there is no conspiracy charged in the indictment. Statements by a campaign staff member doing normal campaign work do not further any alleged conspiracy that the People are relying on as a predicate act.”

Steinglass, in his response, offered a meta-commentary. “I think there is a misperception about the law and about what this case is about,” he said.

No kidding. Misperceptions about the law and this case have abounded since District Attorney Alvin Bragg handed up the indictment in March 2023, thanks to either the case’s novelty, a dearth of New York state law expertise outside of New York state, or both.

While the indictment alleges no conspiracy, as Bove correctly mentioned, Bragg charged Trump under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree, a felony “stepped up” from the misdemeanor charge under § 175.05, by alleging that Trump cooked the books with the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” Justice Merchan has permitted the prosecution to pursue three theories related to that underlying crime, known as the object offense, but the prosecution seems to be zeroing in so far on one, in particular: New York Election Law § 17-152, a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” As Steinglass said in court on April 23, “while it's true that there is no conspiracy in the second degree charge on the indictment, it is not true that a conspiracy has not always been alleged to be part of this case.”

But even after laying out mechanics of the case as Bragg is prosecuting it, several questions—or misperceptions—remain.

Chief among these questions are: Do prosecutors have to prove that Trump committed one of the three object offenses? And if so, does the jury have to agree on which one? And to what standard of evidence? In addressing these questions, we’re not aiming to endorse nor refute the prosecution’s legal theory, nor the case law around New York Penal Law § 175.10. Rather, we’re aiming to clear up a few “misperceptions.”



This distinction might seem nitpicky. But given the high burden of proof in a criminal case—proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the lower preponderance of evidence standard in civil cases—it could be crucial. If Bragg must prove both A and B beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury retains some uncertainty as to whether the object offenses under B actually occurred, that could sink the entire case. On the other hand, if Bragg must only prove A beyond a reasonable doubt, along with the intent to commit B, that potentially leaves prosecutors with more wiggle room to secure a conviction. Jurors might not buy with 99 percent certainty that the object crime was committed, but they could still vote to convict if they believe the intent was there.

An incarcerated Trump would focus on bodybuilding

Fox News's Jesse Watters predicts that if Donald J Trump is incarcerated, he will focus on bodybuilding and personal fitness rather than his immense failures or self-reflection.

Fox News intellectual giant Jesse Watters seems to have a bizarre idea of jail; it is not likely Judge Merchan will order the Orange Blimp put away for longer than it takes to lose some water weight. Watters also seemingly forgets who he is talking about when he suggests that Donald J. Trump is going to get jacked in jail. Trump is on a 77-year bulk and doesn't intend to stop now. The man who brought hamberders to the White House!

Josh Kovensky wrote:Here’s a problem with Daniels’ testimony, as I see it at the current moment: it’s at least somewhat obvious that she is taking joy in belittling Trump.

This doesn’t necessarily go to the veracity of what she’s saying. It could all be true, she could remember all of the details, down to the magazine spank.

But she’s taking the chance to mock Trump where she doesn’t necessarily need to. At the end of the infamous spank anecdote, Daniels added: “And he was much more polite.” It drew laughs from the gallery, but does it help her credibility?

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

From afar, I would be surprised if Trump's lawyers don't move for a mistrial when Stormy Daniels is off the stand, given the level of detail Daniels went into that even seemed to bother the judge — and even after he warned prosecutors to steer clear.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 8:57 pm It looks like they’re saying even his personal checks are part of the Trump Organization.