Agree. The existence of a predicate crime is either a question of law or fact. If a question of law, it should not have gone to a jury until all elements of the predicate crime have been elements. But a NY judge has no competence to tell when a federal crime has been committed. And the judge refused to allow the expert witness that the defense offered. Then, is the predicate crime a question of fact? Only if some other tribunal has held that Trump committed the crime. And we all know that the FEC passed on that prosecution.
Oops. All elements have been established. Darn auto-correct.
This puzzles me. (Trying to read trial transcripts).
the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.”
There did not need to be a conviction of the predicate crime? Wasn’t Trump presumed innocent until proven guilty of the predicate crime? Or was “the intent to commit another crime” (mens rea?) enough to elevate this to a felony?