Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[para bellum]

I know. Just wanted you to know you should post links sometimes.

Good grief, I cited the exact pages. That's more than you do.

I assumed you knew where to find the transcripts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?

‘Criminal Conspiracy’ Alleged as Jury Starts Hearing Trump Trial

Court adjourned for the day after opening statements from both sides and the start of testimony from the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer. A lawyer for Donald Trump told jurors the former president did nothing illegal.

www.nytimes.com

A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”


I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.

I think the whole thing about not having to list the underlying crime in the indictment is shady as fuck…because it leaves that part of it completely open ended. The supporting documents are not the indictment so it means that whatever they discovered along the way could be construed to the the underlying crime, in the event that the falsifying business records approach falls through..which it very well could.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Good grief, I cited the exact pages. That's more than you do.

I assumed you knew where to find the transcripts.

Nope. I have cited pages before and posted the words/text, which you've always ignored.

next

 

[para bellum]

It doesn't have to be.

What has been introduced as evidence so far (by the prosecution) is damaging to Trump's lawyers opening remarks. They will get their time to call witnesses and introduce evidence, but...

but you people keep wildly attacking the prosecution's introductions as favoring Trump. You all do truly live in an alternate universe with alternative truths. The jury will see/hear the evidence without the political MAGA spin.

Lol. The entire case is about proving an uncharged violation of a never-used election law. It's a complete sham.

You think you know what Trump's state of mind is, but it's all inference. "We all know" doesn't mean squat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.

All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)

Stop misrepresenting things. Your narratives rarely square up with the facts.

First, the story with the baby, illegitimate child. Then you conflate it with the tawdry sex shit, which I am sure his wife is not surprised by since she was Raunchy Nude Model

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lol. The entire case is about proving an uncharged violation of a never-used election law. It's a complete sham.

Wrong again.

 

[para bellum]

Stop misrepresenting things. Your narratives rarely square up with the facts.

First, the story with the baby, illegitimate child. Then you conflate it with the tawdry sex shit, which I am sure his wife is not surprised by since she was Raunchy Nude Model

Go back a couple more pages and read the whole line of questioning dipshit. Trump and Pecker were talking about McDougal and the Doorman in that meeting.

You were the one misrepresenting Pecker's testimony...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Go back a couple more pages and read the whole line of questioning dipshit. Trump and Pecker were talking about McDougal and the Doorman in that meeting.

You were the one misrepresenting Pecker's testimony...

And that is not what Cohen was reimbursed the $130,000 for. Conflating the Stormy Daniels shit with the Doorman shit about an illegitimate child is misrepresenting things. When McConney testifies about the Daniels thing, nothing about Trump having any concern for his family is spoken of. That in itself is not illegal. It's the how of the coverup.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Go back a couple more pages and read the whole line of questioning dipshit. Trump and Pecker were talking about McDougal and the Doorman in that meeting.

You were the one misrepresenting Pecker's testimony...

Stop misrepresenting things by lying through omission and conflating things.

 

[para bellum]

And that is not what Cohen was reimbursed the $130,000 for. Conflating the Stormy Daniels shit with the Doorman shit about an illegitimate child is misrepresenting things. When McConney testifies about the Daniels thing, nothing about Trump having any concern for his family is spoken of. That in itself is not illegal. It's the how of the coverup.

No. Stop your deflections.

You claimed that Pecker said Trump's concern was only for the election.

"Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election."

Pecker's testimony repeatedly said Trump's concern was about how Melania and Ivanka would react to the stories.

He only said that Trump and he didn't talk about the family after the prosecutor put the FBI's 302 in front of him. That is a "not so subtle reminder" of his deal with the DOJ...

Pecker was not involved in the Daniel's payment beyond directing Cohen to the porn lawyer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. Stop your deflections.

You claimed that Pecker said Trump's concern was only for the election. Pecker's testimony repeatedly said Trump's concern was about how Melania and Ivanka would react to the stories.

He only said that Trump and he didn't talk about the family after the prosecutor put the FBI transcript in front of him. That is a "not so subtle reminder" of his deal with the DOJ...

Pecker was not involved in the Daniel's payment beyond directing Cohen to the porn lawyer.

Conflating "the stories" with the Hush Money payment (and it's reimbursement) by Cohen to Daniels. The testimony presented showed that Trump was worried early on about illegitimate children claims that would affect his family on his decision to run. The testimony showed how once he decided to run, his concern with Daniels was all about the campaign. This ties it all to the coverup.

The indictment, the alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Doorman shit. That was brought in not as an attempt to show the coverup, but to show how Trump's worries later changed to -- all about the campaign.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. Stop your deflections.

You claimed that Pecker said Trump's concern was only for the election.

"Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election."

Pecker's testimony repeatedly said Trump's concern was about how Melania and Ivanka would react to the stories.

He only said that Trump and he didn't talk about the family after the prosecutor put the FBI's 302 in front of him. That is a "not so subtle reminder" of his deal with the DOJ...

Pecker was not involved in the Daniel's payment beyond directing Cohen to the porn lawyer.

Stop misrepresenting things by lying through omission and conflating things. Stop proving yourself to be one of Trump's beloved "poorly educated"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. Stop your deflections.

You claimed that Pecker said Trump's concern was only for the election.

"Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election."

Pecker's testimony repeatedly said Trump's concern was about how Melania and Ivanka would react to the stories.

He only said that Trump and he didn't talk about the family after the prosecutor put the FBI's 302 in front of him. That is a "not so subtle reminder" of his deal with the DOJ...

Pecker was not involved in the Daniel's payment beyond directing Cohen to the porn lawyer.

Trump told Hicks that Cohen paid $130K to Daniels 'out of the kindness of his own heart' to silence a false allegation​

But Hicks said that version of events would have been "out of character" for Cohen.

 

[para bellum]

Stop misrepresenting things by lying through omission and conflating things. Stop proving yourself to be one of Trump's beloved "poorly educated"

Bullshit. I quoted what I was responding to. Your false characterization of Pecker's testimony.

When I want to talk about someone else's testimony, that will be a different conversation, and I will quote the lies you tell about that person!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bullshit. I quoted what I was responding to. Your false characterization of Pecker's testimony.

When I want to talk about someone else's testimony, that will be a different conversation, and I will quote the lies you tell about that person!

You're delusional.

 

[Robert W]

Delay's case was similar to trump. People went to prison for unethical behavior done under the direction of Delay. That is a good analog to Cohen going to prison for his actions taken under orders of trump.

Delay had his conviction reversed. Cohen acted on his own. Trump did not know what he did until later.

 

[para bellum]

You're delusional.

I quoted what you posted. If anyone is delusional here, it's you.

Pecker was dealing with Cohen, not Trump. He was talking with Cohen every day when he was dealing with those stories, he only spoke with Trump once or twice a month and those were brief conversations.

If you think you can infer Trump's state of mind from Pecker's testimony, that is all in your head.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I quoted what you posted. If anyone is delusional here, it's you.

Pecker was dealing with Cohen, not Trump. He was talking with Cohen every day when he was dealing with those stories, he only spoke with Trump once or twice a month and those were brief conversations.

If you think you can infer Trump's state of mind from Pecker's testimony, that is all in your head.

Lying through omission again?

okay

 

[Delldude]

Let's start at the correct square one.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with paying for an NDA.

WW

You should follow the news media............they see that differently.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The entire case is about proving an uncharged violation of a never-used election law.

Which seems to be what they are doing, quite neatly. Your scoffing and dismissal may bring you comfort outside the courtroom, but the jury does not have the luxury of being dismissive. They have to vote yes or no whether or not Trump and his Co conspirators broke those laws, no matter what they think of the laws themselves and regardless of any other case or lack thereof in history.