I am really confused with the left media’s explanation of the crime committed. I understand the burglary concept they use, if you enter a business with the intent to shoplift, you commit the crime of burglary, even if you don’t shoplift. But in this case, Trump did complete the act, which was determined to not be a crime. So are they saying Trump tried to commit a crime even though the crime didn’t exist?
Even the prosecution hasn’t been able to identify exactly what crime was committed, since the alleged business records “falsification” charges involve only expired misdemeanors. To try to get around that, the prosecution claims the misdemeanors were committed in furtherance of another crime. What that other crime is, they haven’t said. The whole case is complete Crap.
“I understand the burglary concept they use, if you enter a business with the intent to shoplift, you commit the crime of burglary, even if you don’t shoplift.”
It’s hard for me to believe that that’s true but maybe it is.
“experts” have said that the prosecution has not even identified an actual crime that has been committed. That also is hard for me to believe.
I think you left out an important part of this concept.
It's not just "entering a business," it is entering a business after it has closed for the day. If you enter a business during normal business hours with the intent to shoplift, but then don't shoplift, you didn't commit burglary as you were lawfully inside the business "window shopping," perhaps just comparing prices against competitors.
Relating this back to your analogy, Trump "completing the act" was conducting normal business using normal business practices.
-PJ