The James scandal just keeps on giving

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The experts say you are full of shit.

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?

Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.

www.lawfaremedia.org

I am curious if you bothered to actually read that article. It would appear you didn't since the entire thrust of this article is that intent to commit the other crime is all that is required.

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.
[snip]
There’s no reference there to the other crime having actually been committed—just to the intent to carry it out or cover it up. “The way that I have always thought of this particular statute is that the element is intent to commit a crime,” Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, explained.
[snip]
In fact, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, considered this issue in People v. Taveras—and found that only intent is required.
[snip]
As in the Trump case, in Thompson, the Manhattan district attorney charged § 175.10 without charging the underlying object offense. Here, the appeals court found that the district attorney was not required to prove that the object offense had been committed.
[snip]
Pointing to McCumiskey and Crane, the appeals court held that “the jury's not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts.”
[snip]
Do all the jurors have to agree on which option among the three grouped in box B? An overview of the relevant law suggests that no, the jury does not need to be unanimous as to the object offense.
[snip]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blessed this interpretation of the statute in De Vonish v. Keane, writing, "A specific intent to commit a particular crime upon entry is not a material element of the offense under New York law. ... Rather, the State need prove only a general criminal intent”


The article you linked to shows your position is completely bogus and not supported by the law. It seems you are so deep in the cult you can't even see reality. Not only have NY courts upheld that the underlying crime doesn't have to have been committed, the Federal appeals court agreed that criminal intent is all that is required.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You may assume what you like. It’s not logical to assume someone who made errors in the past will always be erroneous.

IIRC, I've made 2 factual errors in good faith recently by relying on the results of a web search, which turned out to be incorrect.

If you believe that makes everything I post suspect, that's fair enough. It does not, however, follow that you can logically presume that I have the burden of proof if you accuse me of lying.

I didn't say I assumed they would always make errors. I said their burden is greater than someone that doesn't make errors. The burden is on you. You claimed you had provided links but the links clearly don't show what you claimed. At this point you have been asked for evidence to support your claim and been unable to provide any evidence. Instead you seem to think you can argue that you should be believed until someone shows you are wrong. That isn't the way it works in the real world. But then you are so deep in your cult you don't seem to understand how the real world works.

 

[Diogenes]

I didn't say I assumed they would always make errors. I said their burden is greater than someone that doesn't make errors. The burden is on you. You claimed you had provided links but the links clearly don't show what you claimed. At this point you have been asked for evidence to support your claim and been unable to provide any evidence. Instead you seem to think you can argue that you should be believed until someone shows you are wrong. That isn't the way it works in the real world. But then you are so deep in your cult you don't seem to understand how the real world works.

I posted this link 34 minutes ago. I suppose you didn't see it.

Here's the transcript:


VVerification of Criminal Record for Nakia Monique Thompson

Based on a thorough review of publicly available court records, correctional department data, and investigative reporting from multiple outlets, I can confirm that Nakia Monique Thompson (also referred to as Nikia Monique Thompson in some records, born February 1989, age 36) does have a felony criminal record in Virginia.

This includes at least one felony conviction for grand larceny, as well as an arrest and charge for possession of burglary tools (a Class 5 felony under Virginia Code §18.2-94). Below, I'll break down the key findings by state, focusing on verifiable proof from official or court-sourced documents referenced in reliable reports.

Note that while Virginia's statewide court database (Virginia Judiciary Online Case Information System) provides public access, full details often require in-person or paid requests from local clerks; the evidence here draws from aggregated court records cited in recent journalism tied to her relation to New York AG Letitia James.

Thompson does have a felony criminal record in Virginia

Key incidents stem from 2019–2020 in Portsmouth/Chesapeake area, escalating her overall record spanning 20+ years across states. While some sources describe a "lengthy rap sheet" with possible additional convictions (e.g., contributing to delinquency of a minor, abuse of a child, conspiracy to commit larceny), the verifiable felonies are:

• 2019–2020 Convictions:
  
  • Grand Larceny (Felony, Virginia Code §18.2-95): Arrested August 11, 2019; pleaded guilty; sentenced to 2 years probation and $2,020 in costs/fees. This involved a theft spree (value over $1,000 qualifies as grand larceny in VA).
  • Petit Larceny (Misdemeanor, but bundled in plea): Pleaded guilty alongside grand larceny.
  • Possession of Burglary Tools (Class 5 Felony, Virginia Code §18.2-94): Arrested August 11, 2019, in Chesapeake; charged but dropped as part of plea deal on larceny counts.

Key Virginia Felony Events	Date	Charge	Outcome	Source Type
Possession of Burglary Tools (Class 5 Felony)	Aug 11, 2019 (Arrest)	§18.2-94	Charged; Dropped in plea	Court Docket (UniCourt/Chesapeake)
Grand Larceny (Felony)	Aug 11, 2019 (Arrest)	§18.2-95	Guilty Plea; 2 yrs probation + $2,020 costs	State Court Records/Reporting

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I posted this link 34 minutes ago. I suppose you didn't see it.

Here's the transcript:


VVerification of Criminal Record for Nakia Monique Thompson

Based on a thorough review of publicly available court records, correctional department data, and investigative reporting from multiple outlets, I can confirm that Nakia Monique Thompson (also referred to as Nikia Monique Thompson in some records, born February 1989, age 36) does have a felony criminal record in Virginia.

This includes at least one felony conviction for grand larceny, as well as an arrest and charge for possession of burglary tools (a Class 5 felony under Virginia Code §18.2-94). Below, I'll break down the key findings by state, focusing on verifiable proof from official or court-sourced documents referenced in reliable reports.

Note that while Virginia's statewide court database (Virginia Judiciary Online Case Information System) provides public access, full details often require in-person or paid requests from local clerks; the evidence here draws from aggregated court records cited in recent journalism tied to her relation to New York AG Letitia James.

Thompson does have a felony criminal record in Virginia

Key incidents stem from 2019–2020 in Portsmouth/Chesapeake area, escalating her overall record spanning 20+ years across states. While some sources describe a "lengthy rap sheet" with possible additional convictions (e.g., contributing to delinquency of a minor, abuse of a child, conspiracy to commit larceny), the verifiable felonies are:

• 2019–2020 Convictions:
  
  • Grand Larceny (Felony, Virginia Code §18.2-95): Arrested August 11, 2019; pleaded guilty; sentenced to 2 years probation and $2,020 in costs/fees. This involved a theft spree (value over $1,000 qualifies as grand larceny in VA).
  • Petit Larceny (Misdemeanor, but bundled in plea): Pleaded guilty alongside grand larceny.
  • Possession of Burglary Tools (Class 5 Felony, Virginia Code §18.2-94): Arrested August 11, 2019, in Chesapeake; charged but dropped as part of plea deal on larceny counts.

Key Virginia Felony Events	Date	Charge	Outcome	Source Type
Possession of Burglary Tools (Class 5 Felony)	Aug 11, 2019 (Arrest)	§18.2-94	Charged; Dropped in plea	Court Docket (UniCourt/Chesapeake)
Grand Larceny (Felony)	Aug 11, 2019 (Arrest)	§18.2-95	Guilty Plea; 2 yrs probation + $2,020 costs	State Court Records/Reporting

The response of an AI isn't good enough at this point since you have posted several responses from AI that have proved false. You don't seem to get what evidence is. The links that Grok gives don't actually provide evidence. If you look at it Grok isn't relying on original sources. It uses Amgreatness as a source and they simply quote the Daily Mail and the AOL source is a story from the Daily Caller that includes no evidence.

 

[jimmymccready]

James will have the charges dismissed before trial.

 

[QP!]

We will see. My bet is James ends up taking a plea deal.

Why would she do that when you have been clear prior 'NO VICTIM, NO CRIME'!

There have been no missed payments and the bank is being repaid.

 

[QP!]

Yeah. Because they want to "get" Letitia, they plotted to get her to harbor a fugitive in a house that she owned but only pretended to live in. They also plotted to have her commit fraud, while she was prosecuting someone else for the same thing. Those sneaky bastiges, tricking her into committing crimes so that they could prosecute her for the crimes they tricked her into committing... You know, because she's above the law.... So... Stop it. Jerks.

At some point, as the crimes pile up, even you must realize that sometimes folks prosecute people for crimes because they committed the crimes.

And of course here is Damocles lying and spreading misinformation as always.

 

[Diogenes]

The response of an AI isn't good enough at this point since you have posted several responses from AI that have proved false. You don't seem to get what evidence is.

How else would I obtain information from the Virginia courts?

Search the database yourself.

https://eapps.courts.state.va.us/ocis/search

There are media reports on the Internet, as well. I expect you'll reject them out of hand, too.

If you can prove the information is inaccurate, why don't you?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How else would I obtain information from the Virginia courts?

Search the database yourself.

View attachment 62795

https://eapps.courts.state.va.us/ocis/search

There are media reports on the Internet, as well. I expect you'll reject them out of hand, too.

If you can prove the information is inaccurate, why don't you?

Congratulations for finally providing a source.
Now how many felonies on that list was she convicted of? This is a list of citations and arrests, not a list of convictions.

 

[Diogenes]

Now how many felonies on that list was she convicted of? This is a list of citations and arrests, not a list of convictions.

Look it up.

 

[AProudLefty]

Not an argument, lonely loser.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I am curious if you bothered to actually read that article. It would appear you didn't since the entire thrust of this article is that intent to commit the other crime is all that is required.

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.
[snip]
There’s no reference there to the other crime having actually been committed—just to the intent to carry it out or cover it up. “The way that I have always thought of this particular statute is that the element is intent to commit a crime,” Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, explained.
[snip]
In fact, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, considered this issue in People v. Taveras—and found that only intent is required.
[snip]
As in the Trump case, in Thompson, the Manhattan district attorney charged § 175.10 without charging the underlying object offense. Here, the appeals court found that the district attorney was not required to prove that the object offense had been committed.
[snip]
Pointing to McCumiskey and Crane, the appeals court held that “the jury's not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts.”
[snip]
Do all the jurors have to agree on which option among the three grouped in box B? An overview of the relevant law suggests that no, the jury does not need to be unanimous as to the object offense.
[snip]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blessed this interpretation of the statute in De Vonish v. Keane, writing, "A specific intent to commit a particular crime upon entry is not a material element of the offense under New York law. ... Rather, the State need prove only a general criminal intent”


The article you linked to shows your position is completely bogus and not supported by the law. It seems you are so deep in the cult you can't even see reality. Not only have NY courts upheld that the underlying crime doesn't have to have been committed, the Federal appeals court agreed that criminal intent is all that is required.

A thought crime. That's what your explanation boils down to.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why would she do that when you have been clear prior 'NO VICTIM, NO CRIME'!

There have been no missed payments and the bank is being repaid.

The odds are with me there. 98% of all federal criminal cases end in a plea bargain.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

What percentage of criminal cases are settled with a plea bargain?

Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.

legalknowledgebase.com

If James goes to trial and wins, she loses. She'll be damn near bankrupted doing so. If she recognizes that she's likely to lose a trial too, all the more reason to plea out.

 

[serendipity]

And of course here is Damocles lying and spreading misinformation as always.

You're a real slimey bastard just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A thought crime. That's what your explanation boils down to.

ROFLMAO. Deep in the cult is what your excuses boil down to.

By calling it a "thought crime" you are admitting that Trump intended to cover up another crime which makes the guilty verdict proper according to the law and all appeals court rulings.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The odds are with me there. 98% of all federal criminal cases end in a plea bargain.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

What percentage of criminal cases are settled with a plea bargain?

Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.

legalknowledgebase.com

If James goes to trial and wins, she loses. She'll be damn near bankrupted doing so. If she recognizes that she's likely to lose a trial too, all the more reason to plea out.

Why would she be bankrupt from going to trial? This is a pretty straight forward case. There isn't a ton of evidence to look through. The prosecution has to present documents and then has to prove intent.

Oh.... wait.... that's right. Intent is a thought crime according to you so you should be opposed to this prosecution if you weren't in a cult.

 

[Noking]

Seems Letitia James had her grandniece, Nakia Thompson, living with her three children, in James' house in Norfolk VA for the last five (5) years. All innocuous right? Well...

Seems Nakia Tompson is a wanted fugitive in Forsyth County N. Carolina for violating her probation and fleeing the state. Thompson has a litany of prior felonies and misdemeanors on her record.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/14/us-ne...ing-fugitive-grandniece-in-her-virginia-home/

Letitia James's grandniece 'willfully avoiding' probation living in Virginia home

Letitia James’s grandniece was declared an absconder from North Carolina probation while living in the AG’s Virginia home.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I guess with James, family are above the law too... Nothing like the attorney general of New York harboring a wanted felon...

This is a Trump vengeance prosecution that is going nowhere.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ROFLMAO. Deep in the cult is what your excuses boil down to.

By calling it a "thought crime" you are admitting that Trump intended to cover up another crime which makes the guilty verdict proper according to the law and all appeals court rulings.

No, I'm saying the judge allowed the jury to decide if in Trump's mind he had committed an underlying crime--that is, he intended to, had a plan to, etc. That is the essence of a thought crime. There was no underlying crime. There was no tangible proof offered that Trump was even planning such a crime. The judge allowed the jury to simply decide there might have been.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I'm saying the judge allowed the jury to decide if in Trump's mind he had committed an underlying crime--that is, he intended to, had a plan to, etc. That is the essence of a thought crime. There was no underlying crime. There was no tangible proof offered that Trump was even planning such a crime. The judge allowed the jury to simply decide there might have been.

ROFLMAO. You are so deep in your cult you just manufacture shit and then think the shit you manufactured is real.


Here are the jury instructions which show your statements are nothing but cult ranting that is completely disassociated with reality.

People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24

www.documentcloud.org

INTENT TO COMMIT OR CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME
For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

The judge then goes into the 3 possible predicates and tells the jury the procedure they should use to decide that the predicate standards are met. There is nothing in there about the jury needing to decide if in Trump's mind he committed an underlying crime.

This is the relevant part of intent.
2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

There were 3 possible underlying crimes and some were actually committed even though not charged.
We know for a fact that the payment to Stormy Daniels resulted in a crime because Cohen pleaded guilty to that crime.

 

[Nordberg]

Trump's vengeful and personal use of the courts to punish people on his long, long enemies list is repulsive and wrong. Why the Trumpys take glee in his atrocious misuse of the courts is a mystery. How deeply conned are they? What threat would Comey be if Trump did not do this? It is his punishing of people as a means of vengeance. This cannot be justified, and it very likely will fail quickly. Trump spends millions on selective and personal misuse of the courts.
If Trump does it, his followers will fall in line, every fucking time.