Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

They are voting on the SAVE act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) and I would like like to hear an argument as to why to vote against this as many democrats are.  There are many places that voter registration is tied to motor vehicle registrations and there is a box to check as to whether you are a citizen without having to provide evidence.  This opens up the box for non citizens to vote.  I can think of only one reason for this but I don't think any one here would be rooting for election fraud.

Chris

"There are many places that voter registration is tied to motor vehicle registrations and there is a box to check as to whether you are a citizen without having to provide evidence.  This opens up the box for non citizens to vote."

NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE!

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/may/20/mike-johnson/mike-johnsons-false-claim-that-immigrants-paroled/

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

In light of recent developments I would think you have reason to suspect the validity of your fact checking sources.  If it were to be determined that the scenario exists for non citizens to check a box without proving citizenship be allowed to vote in federal election, would you be for preventing that?

Chris

Recent developments?! Sheesh...

That said, you have to be either an idiot or fully intoxicated from drinking the MAGA Kool Aid to think you can merely check a box on a DMV form without doing anything else and believe a non-citizen can vote in a federal election.

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

So why not just vote for the bill to make sure? Or is there a reason not to?

Chris

Only U.S. citizens may vote in federal elections. Congress banned noncitizen voting in federal elections in 1996.

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

Not intoxicated or drinking Kool Aid.  From the California website for registering for voting.

Chris

If people apply to register to vote, they must attest to being citizens under penalty of perjury and election officials vet the application.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

There you go posting your fancy links again. It's not Trump fans are going to believe politifact.com or any other website that doesn't agree with their narrative of the matter.

Here's one more in depth fact check that includes the politico fact check and more:


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/fact-check-noncitizens-voting-19476873.php

That aptly explains why MAGA Mike is full of crap...

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

Just wanted to post an update.  While the headline is clearly deceptive the truth is non citizens are registering and I would argue being encouraged to register to vote in the next federal election.

https://wokespy.com/shocking-video-claims-14-of-swing-state-voters-are-non-citizens/

Does anyone here not think non citizens are registering to vote in November?


Chris

Does anyone here besides Chris think the above post is not HS?

Originally Posted by Chris Pagan

Rod, I stated that the headline was misleading but the video is undeniable.  You may chose to disagree however I will be open minded of the effort to get non citizens registered to vote. AND since you stated before you are against non citizens voting I would think you would be interested in any information that would shed light in such a thing.

Chris

"the video is undeniable"

Lol!

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'm kind of surprised.   Looks like the jury deliberated carefully.

I'm not. The guy is guilty as sin and then some.

That said, it's only a temporary victory since it will be overturned on appeal on the basis of a legal technicality, advanced by a conservative legal professor, that it's all unconstitutional. SCOTUS cons are all in on it like flies in an outhouse. They will proudly proclaim they will NOT hear the merits of the case and overturn the conviction. Trumptoids everywhere will think he's been acquitted and vindicated...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I don't buy your Supreme Court conspiracy theories, but I would not be surprised if this is overturned at the State level.   Remember that the appeals go through multiple layers of New York State appeals courts.

I agree that he is guilty of knowingly paying hush money and falsifying business records - a misdemeanor.   My issue has always been with the law leveraging this misdemeanor to a felony based upon an object crime advanced by the false business record.  The jury was given a choice of state election fraud, federal election fraud, or tax laws as the object crime.  To my knowledge, none of these possible object crimes has been formally alleged in a separate proceeding, much less tried and proved.   It seems to me to be a lack of due process to advance a misdemeanor to a felony on this sort of unproven object crime allegation.   

But that is apparently how the NY law works.   In other words, given the law and instructions, I am not surprised that the jury found him guilty.   (I thought they might find reasonable doubt based upon the secretary's testimony that Trump would sign anything you put in front of him.)  Not sure that the boost to felony aspect of this law will stand as interpreted by the trial court upon appellate examination.

My understanding is the elevation to a federal felony from the state charges happens from time to time and it's not unique to this case. 
Somewhat akin to this is the fact that according to state laws, those convicted of a federal felony can vote in some states but not in others. Trump, for example, would be barred from voting in Florida but since he also has a residence in New York, Florida will defer to New York law which allows a federally convicted individual to vote.

But, as I've indicated, I think Trump will win on appeal for some variation of what you and I have stated as a likely rationale, and if he doesn't prevail at the federal appeals level, the cons on SCOTUS have his back.

Originally Posted by James Brown

We might just be miscommunicating, but Trump was not convicted of a federal felony.   He was convicted of a state felony that probably was predicated on business records fraud to hide a federal campaign finance crime.  We don't know.  what object crime the jury relied on.  Apparently, it could have been any one of three possibilities, and the jurors could pick and choose.

The federal DOJ chose not to indict or prosecute Trump for the Stormy Daniels payment as a campaign finance violation.  That is why I am uneasy using this otherwise unprosecuted and unproven crime as the object crime that increases Trump's charge and conviction to a state felony under NY law.

Well, here's what I'm reading:

From Bragg's perspective:

"What about the “object crime”—that is, the crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit or conceal in such a way as to transform the underlying misdemeanor offense into a felony?"

"If you’re looking for the clearest statement of Bragg’s legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan’s ruling on that motion. Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

"In his filing, Bragg sets out four potential object offenses: violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; violations of federal, local, and state tax law; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. Merchan allowed Bragg to move forward with the first three theories but tossed out the last one."

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump