03-04-2019, 09:25 PM
(03-04-2019, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:
But perhaps I went too far in my comments and for that I WILL apologize. And I have edited them for that reason. Allow to me explain further:
Apology accepted, thank you.
Quote:I am presented with two propositions. One there is some evidence of, one there is a history off. They can both be true.
Yes, they can both be true.
Quote:When answering that they can both be true ("yes") and then saying that I personally cannot say until there is further research that is exactly what I mean. If someone else wishes to interpret that "yes" as only answering one way or the other reflects on the quality of the question...not the answer. And if they choose to ignore a declarative statement that "I don't know and did not say either way" that is on them.
Except you said yes to a question that literally cannot be answered in the affirmative with the evidence at hand.
Quote:With that...enough about me.
I'll take on last stab at the concept of proving intent, why it matters in this case and how it cannot be definitively determined in this case, at this time.
In most criminal cases the prosecution is seeking to prove you committed the alleged offense and the defense is trying to inject reasonable doubt that you did. A robbery is a robbery is you took property from the victim's person by force or fear. Your intent in committing the robbery is not consequential in regards to proving your guilt. It can be a mitigating or aggravating factor, which is important in sentencing, but it has almost no bearing on your guilt or innocence. Where intent become very important is when you're dealing with enhancement such as hate crime or gang enhancements. Given the sensitive nature of hate crime enhancements I'll use the gang enhancement for this example.
Scenario 1: Man approached another man, brandishes a firearm and demands the victim's wallet. Suspect then flees the scene. A clear cut case of robbery, intent is not important in proving this case.
Scenario 2: Man approaches another man, brandishes a firearm and then states, "You in Rollin 30's hood, your ass is getting taxed". This is also a clear cut case of robbery but will carry the gang enhancement.
The gang enhancement alleges that the enhanced offense was committed at the behest of, in furtherance of or to the benefit of a criminal street gang. If the suspect in scenario one was a known and documented gang member his mere membership in a gang would not trigger the gang enhancement. His intent may very well have been the financial benefit of his gang, but the DA would have a very difficult time proving that was his intent. In scenario 2 the suspect would not even have to be a known or documented gang member. His intent is exemplified by his won words and subsequent action.
In the Daniels case the entire alleged offense, campaign finance violations, is predicated solely on the allegation that Trump's intent in the payoff was to prevent damage to his campaign. If you cannot prove this was his intent then you have no case at all. This being the case, the fact that there are other, highly plausible, reasons he made the payment, and in fact has a history of doing exactly that, is highly relevant to any defense and severely damages any attempt to prove his intent was to prevent damage to his campaign.
Consequently, unless there is concrete evidence that Trump's intent was demonstrably to prevent damage to his campaign you have a non-starter of a case. It is highly possible, even probable, that Trump's intent was to prevent damage to his campaign. However, unless you can demonstrably prove this you have no violation of campaign finance law.
