Transcript of DA Bragg's indictment press conference

[Care4all]

None of this has been proven in a court of law, only in your mind.

Yes, trump is innocent until proven

None of this has been proven in a court of law, only in your mind.

Yes, trump is innocent until proven guilty o

One line from Bragg's Rant stands out:



What a line of bullshit. Trump is accused of one transaction being somehow 34 "criminal" events while Bragg ignores actual violent and property crime with actual victims.

What a fucking lying piece of shit, and that applies to anyone backing this bullshit.

Oh, this involves 3 transactions Marty..

One payoff to the National Enquirer for playboy bunny Karen McDougal tell all, that they did a catch and kill on
For $150,000, that Trump reimbursed the National Enquirer for.....


A second one to the National Enquirer for a Bellman at Trump Tower who said Trump got a maid pregnant and she had his baby, another catch and kill story....by the N/E, of which Trump reimbursed them for the $30,000 N/E paid him.

Then lastly, the $130,000 for Stormy Daniel's Hush Money payoff.

On all three he falsified business record. That's serial....

Trump's lawyers didn't set the date, the Judge did.

he did not do it alone silly willy...

The judge with the defense lawyers and prosecutor AGREE on a date that is best for all involved....is what I just read the process is....so Trump lawyers need this time to prepare...plus I am pretty certain they will be busy with discovery, of which both the prose union and the defence team share what info/EVIDENCE they got, plus a motion or two filed before trial likely...

But the prosecutor and judge have to AGREE with defense, and Visa versa.

 

[Delldude]

Yes, trump is innocent until proven


Yes, trump is innocent until proven guilty o

Oh, this involves 3 transactions Marty..

One payoff to the National Enquirer for playboy bunny Karen McDougal tell all, that they did a catch and kill on
For $150,000, that Trump reimbursed the National Enquirer for.....


A second one to the National Enquirer for a Bellman at Trump Tower who said Trump got a maid pregnant and she had his baby, another catch and kill story....by the N/E, of which Trump reimbursed them for the $30,000 N/E paid him.

Then lastly, the $130,000 for Stormy Daniel's Hush Money payoff.

On all three he falsified business record. That's serial....

he did not do it alone silly willy...

The judge with the defense lawyers and prosecutor AGREE on a date that is best for all involved....is what I just read the process is....so Trump lawyers need this time to prepare...plus I am pretty certain they will be busy with discovery, of which both the prose union and the defence team share what info/EVIDENCE they got, plus a motion or two filed before trial likely...

But the prosecutor and judge have to AGREE with defense, and Visa versa.

But what criminal code did Trump violate to trigger 34 charges?

 

[Thunk]

it was a false statement that the defendant made month after month in April 2017, May, June and so on, through the rest of the year,

The election was over by then.

How could it be "election interference"?

 

[Delldude]

Dear Death-Ninja,

Before you shoot, you should look. Had you done that, you'd know that in NY criminal law, they have what is called, in case of misdemeanors, an 'enhancement rule', which means that if the misdemeanors were committed to conceal a felony, given that there might be more than one felony that the misdemeanors could be aligned with, there is NO requirement to enumerate the enhancing felony in the initial indictment. That is why there is a charging document ('the indictment) which lists each occurance of the initial charge, which, in this case, are 34 occurrences of Falsifying business records in the first degree (a felony if proven to be committed to conceal a felony) violation of Penal Law §175.10, AND a Statement Of Facts (SOF) document, which explains, in detail, the theory of the case, the events that led to the charges, the underlying potential enhancement felonies. In this case, Bragg, had you been paying closer attention, or read the transcript in the OP, you would have noted that he mentioned a couple of enhancement possibilities, the election fraud angle, the tax fraud angle. As the trial unfolds, the prosecutors will resolve the enhancement issue in due time.

You may now remove your foot from our mouth, I know it probably isn't comfortable there . If you need some mouthwash or foot powder, I'm all out, my apologies.

Cheers,
Rumpole

You really believe this, eh, Death-Ninja?

Well I have question about it. Such as asking your for evidence of such an astonish claim!

Oh Death-Ninja, such words out of proportion to the evidence. The written communication was a handwritten note by Peter Strzok, whom the right have attacted as not credible, in which he suggests that Biden may have raised the issue. THAT is your 'evidence': a fleeting comment reported on in a note by one whom you've (those of you on the right) previously established as not credible, who Trump spent months lambasting, over and over and over again, this is your source. If that were your evidence against Trump, you'd be poo pooing it from here to la la land.

You're having a conniption over scant evidence? My my, death-ninja! This equals 'psychopath? My word, I should fear you would ever meet a real psychopath, and what words would you have left to describe such a burdened, tormented soul? You've blown your vocabulary wad on so little evidence that you'd have a heart attack if the real thing came along.


Hysterics on parade.

Wonderful!

This is exactly what has taken place.

I'm so elated you've arrived at this conclusion, (okay, that's sarcasm) but you really should rethink your position. Indeed, to adjust it in proportion to the facts.

Cheers,

Rumpole.

Funny you suddenly show up March 20th, 2023, spewing legalese BS.

 

[SweetSue92]

Dear SweetSue92,

It appears you are engaging in a logical fallacy. .

That could be:

1. A strawman argument
2 An inappropriate conflation/false comparison--the two are not of comparable magnitudes.
3. An unjustly trivializing the argument (which is essentially #1)
4. You are insinuating the Stalin-esque "find me the man, and I'll show you the crime' logical fallacy
5. Any combination or all of the above.

#5 is correct.

Nice try, though

Cheers,
Rumpole

Internet "Philosophers" always fail. But it made me laugh at any rate

 

[SweetSue92]

it shows repetition of the crime...

Doing it in one transaction, maybe it was a mistake??

doing it a dozen times is hard to talk your way out of imo...it shows a group of people conspiring together...over and over again to accomplish the illegal act....?

It is how N.Y. LAW is written...

No honey, it's called "stacking". Bragg has beclowned himself and if there's any justice left in this wreckage of a nation, he'll get disbarred.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No honey, it's called "stacking". Bragg has beclowned himself and if there's any justice left in this wreckage of a nation, he'll get disbarred.

No, it is called the legal system.

Send 1000 fraudulent letters via the US mail and you get hit with 1000 charges of mail fraud.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Funny you suddenly show up March 20th, 2023, spewing legalese BS.

With the massive number of legal scholars on this forum it is to be expected.

 

[SweetSue92]

No, it is called the legal system.

Send 1000 fraudulent letters via the US mail and you get hit with 1000 charges of mail fraud.

Is the legal system always just?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is the legal system always just?

Of course not, what does that have to do with you pretending the way Trump was charged is unusual?

 

[SweetSue92]

Of course not, what does that have to do with you pretending the way Trump was charged is unusual?

It won't at all be unusual NOW, after the Republican DAs in deep red states get going.

I. Can't. Wait.

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It won't at all be unusual NOW, after the Republican DAs in deep red states get going.

I. Can't. Wait.

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

Like I told you last time you posted these same words....

Good. I hope they do.

See, unlike you I do not think the political class is above the law.

I will dance a jig if Biden is convicted in a court of law.

 

[SweetSue92]

Like I told you last time you posted these same words....

Good. I hope they do.

See, unlike you I do not think the political class is above the law.

I will dance a jig if Biden is convicted in a court of law.

As a libertarian (hahahaha) you should know that we are ALL "above the law". We have to be or none of us would be able to live. We are inundated by laws. Every HONEST American knows this; even the most dunderheaded libertarians understand it.

You're just a liar.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As a libertarian (hahahaha) you should know that we are ALL "above the law".

As you often do, you are conflating libertarians with anarchists.

We have to be or none of us would be able to live. We are inundated by laws. Every HONEST American knows this; even the most dunderheaded libertarians understand it.

So you are above stopping at stop signs and red lights?

You are above slowing down in a school zone?

You are above the law that states murder is a crime?

Are you truly this stupid or do you just put on an act for this forum?

 

[SweetSue92]

As you often do, you are conflating libertarians with anarchists.




So you are above stopping at stop signs and red lights?

You are above slowing down in a school zone?

You are above the law that states murder is a crime?

Are you truly this stupid or do you just put on an act for this forum?

Thanks, you just made my point for me.

Laws that prevent serious bodily injury and harm are justifiable.

Laws that have people indicted because they entered into a LAWFUL contract with another free citizen but then falsified that record to the harm of absolutely NO ONE are ridiculous.

You either know this and are gaslighting....

Or you are totally idiotic beyond the point of comprehension.

Choose one.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Laws that prevent serious bodily injury and harm are justifiable.

Yet you think you are above them, why is that?

Laws that have people indicted because they entered into a LAWFUL contract with another free citizen but then falsified that record to the harm of absolutely NO ONE are ridiculous.

There is a good reason to have laws against falsifying business records, especially when it comes to taxes. That you cannot grasp that is not really my problem.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yet you think you are above them, why is that?



There is a good reason to have laws against falsifying business records, especially when it comes to taxes. That you cannot grasp that is not really my problem.

What harm was committed here?

PS Other than your butthurt, which is always implied

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What harm was committed here?

What harm is committed if you choose to never pay your taxes again?

What harm is committed if I drive 125 MPH on an empty road?

 

[SweetSue92]

What harm is committed if you choose to never pay your taxes again?

What harm is committed if I drive 125 MPH on an empty road?

Answer the question. If the answer is, "Donald Trump caused me endless butthurt", just say so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Answer the question.

You first.