They are busting Trump rght now in court

[Slade3200]

Think so Comrade? You have me confused with the government and the MSM.

You and confused to do together… that’s for sure

 

[Slade3200]

See, therein lies a problem. How can Bragg argue that trump violated a federal law when Trump has not been indicted, tried and convicted of breaking a federal law? Bragg is trying to argue this case as if a crime HAS taken place…when there hasn’t been a formal federal allegation.

The indictment accuses Trump of falsifying business records to cover up another “crime”. No crime has been charged. Bragg can’t just assume a federal crime has taken place. This is why I said Trump would have needed to be charged, tried, and convicted of the crime before Bragg could bring this indictment.

That crime doesn’t need to be charged or even committed since the current charges have to do with intent

 

[Lastamender]

That crime doesn’t need to be charged or even committed since the current charges have to do with intent

In that case they could charge anyone and make it up as they go along just like they are doing now.

 

[Slade3200]

In that case they could charge anyone and make it up as they go along just like they are doing now.

No, no they can’t

 

[Lastamender]

No, no they can’t

The Hell they can't. Trump proves it. The J6 prisoners prove it. The lawyers getting disbarred prove it.

 

[Slade3200]

The Hell they can't. Trump proves it. The J6 prisoners prove it. The lawyers getting disbarred prove it.

Wrong. Trump lawyers got disbarred for breaking their oath and lying to the public. J6 prisoners are in jail for committing crimes and being prosecuted in court. Same is happening with Trump. Cry foul all you want but facts are facts

 

[Lastamender]

Wrong. Trump lawyers got disbarred for breaking their oath and lying to the public. J6 prisoners are in jail for committing crimes and being prosecuted in court. Same is happening with Trump. Cry foul all you want but facts are facts

 

[Slade3200]

Yup, when you can’t provide a counter argument you know you’ve lost the debate. Good game

 

[Lastamender]

Yup, when you can’t provide a counter argument you know you’ve lost the debate. Good game

When you repeat a network pundit almost word for word all i can do is laugh.

 

[Slade3200]

When you repeat a network pundit almost word for word all i can do is laugh.

Got no clue who you’re talking about

 

[para bellum]

That crime doesn’t need to be charged or even committed since the current charges have to do with intent

For that to work, the jury has to find that the NDA's were illegal.

 

[Slade3200]

For that to work, the jury has to find that the NDA's were illegal.

No they don’t. The NDAs aren’t even being challenged. The issue is how the funds were hidden

 

[para bellum]

No they don’t. The NDAs aren’t even being challenged. The issue is how the funds were hidden

No, the case rests on the underlying crime. The prosecutors already stated that.

Let me re-word my statement by paraphrasing the Statement of Facts.

The jury has to find that the "scheme to purchase negative stories about Trump to prevent their publication" was illegal.

 

[Slade3200]

No, the case rests on the underlying crime. The prosecutors already stated that.

Let me re-word my statement by paraphrasing the Statement of Facts.

The jury has to find that the "scheme to purchase negative stories about Trump to prevent their publication" was illegal.

Yes if by scheme you mean hiding the financial trail

 

[para bellum]

Yes if by scheme you mean hiding the financial trail

No, you are hung up on the charged offense. We will get to that later.

Purchasing negative stories (via the NDA's) to prevent their publication.

Is that illegal?

 

[Slade3200]

No, you are hung up on the charged offense. We will get to that later.

Purchasing negative stories (via the NDA's) to prevent their publication.

Is that illegal?

That is not illegal nor is it being challenged as illegal in this case

 

[para bellum]

That is not illegal nor is it being challenged as illegal in this case

Okay, you accept that the act itself is not illegal.

This is the statute of the underlying crime, NY Election law 17-152.

Conspiracy to promote or prevent election​

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
--------------------------------------------------------------

If the "means" i.e. the purchasing of negative stories to suppress their publication is not illegal, there is no underlying crime.

Now, even if the recording of the payments as "legal expenses" meets the definition of falsification of records, it is just a misdemeanor, and the case falls apart.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That crime doesn’t need to be charged or even committed since the current charges have to do with intent

No…I don’t think that’s how it works. The indictment Bragg brought can only come if it’s in furtherance of another crime. As of yet, there is no crime there

 

[Slade3200]

Okay, you accept that the act itself is not illegal.

This is the statute of the underlying crime, NY Election law 17-152.

Conspiracy to promote or prevent election​

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
--------------------------------------------------------------

If the "means" i.e. the purchasing of negative stories to suppress their publication is not illegal, there is no underlying crime.

Now, even if the recording of the payments as "legal expenses" meets the definition of falsification of records, it is just a misdemeanor, and the case falls apart.

You’re not looking at the right thing…

The crime was falsifying business records and the underlying crime that they accuse Trump of is intending to commit campaign finance fraud by hiding the payments and burying the story. Those payments are legally required to be disclosed.

He could have paid for the NDA and then disclosed the payment but he didn’t

 

[Slade3200]

No…I don’t think that’s how it works. The indictment Bragg brought can only come if it’s in furtherance of another crime. As of yet, there is no crime there

I don’t believe they need to prove that election crime but only his intent of trying to commit it.