by oldedude on March 20, 2024 10:35 am
curt- you are correct. "some" laws are violations within themselves. Money Laundering for example doesn't need a criminal link. The charge itself is a criminal act per se. Some are not. All of your "examples," although they all mean nothing in this case, are specific acts. So those honestly don't matter a "fig."
There does not need to be an identifiable victim for an act to be a crime.
If you drive 80 mph through school zone, but don’t actually kill any kids you still can be arrested for speeding.
That's because the crime itself is the speeding. And yes, by law, there are victims, although it's called putting others in danger.
If you call yourself a medical doctor without ever having attended medical school, see patients who happen not to die you can still be charged with practicing medicine without a license. it does not matter if your patients were satisfied with your service.
What part of this did trumpster do? This is completely inane and doesn't mean anything in this case.
If you falsely purport to be any number of professions including attorney, engineer, building contractor, barber, and others, without having first obtained necessary credentials and training, you can be charged even without any of your customers complaining.
ibid.
If never having served in the military you march in a veterans parade with a chest full of unearned medals, you can be charged under the provisions of the stolen valor laws.
ibid
Fraud is a crime, even if your “victims” don’t realize it or don’t mind.
Fraud requires a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied12. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage1. The victim does not necessarily have to be injured for the scheme to be considered fraud, but the government must show that "some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer"3. In civil fraud cases, the individual who was the victim must prove the fraud elements and prove they suffered damages due to the fraud4. Fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim5.
I hope this clears up your misreading of the law. and the lies you've been told. So you move up from an intentionally misinformed voter, to a very low informed voter.
bing.com
by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2024 10:47 am
Fortunately for Trump we have an appeal system in this country. Maybe Trump will find some judges who know more than Judge Engoron—-that is assuming that your take on the matter is correct. There must be a Trump appointed judge somewhere that he can appeal to. Maybe the Supreme Court.
by oldedude on March 20, 2024 11:38 am
A couple of years they passed this law with a loophole for trumpster. That's why I was familiar with this particular law. They had to wait "for a time" to use it. The issue is, they were only supposed to go back "X" far, but went back another 7 years. So again, there are a lot of issues with the prosecution and their case. It's going to make the dims look really stoopid and is yet another example of selective enforcement. Engoron doesn't really have a choice to test the constitutionality, so there's that. And it's apparent they judged shopped.
by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2024 12:00 pm
Exactly, OD.
I think that many low-information voters know about the law. Apparently, intentionally misinformed voters don't.
Trump has claimed that he is worth $10 billion. He has bragged repeatedly he is very rich. According to a New York Times report in 2018, Trump received at least $413 million (in 2018 prices) from his father's business empire.