What is the Crime???

[Slade3200]

“Arguments” which don’t bind them.

So what?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have been assuming all along that Trump would testify. But why should he, when the Prosecution has not given evidence for a single part of the case. Let's look at one of the charges - they're all the same, really.

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 20,
2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the
commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit,
an invoice from Michael Cohen dated November 20, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J.
Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

Let's see which elements the prosecution has provided evidence for:

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 20,
2017, with intent to defraud

Nope. The prosecution provided no evidence that Trump intended to defraud anyone.

and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the
commission thereof,

Nope. As has been said many times on this forum, the prosecution has shown no evidence of "another crime," nor evidence that Trump intended to commit one, and conceal it when he allegedly . . .

made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise,

Did they show that it was Trump himself - and not Cohen, for example - who made these allegedly false entries? I don't remember hearing about any evidence of that, but if there was such evidence, speak up. Without evidence that it happened, the idea of Trump filling out an invoice seems ludicrious.

to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated November 20, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J.
Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

Allegedly, the invoice was marked "legal expense." It certainly was that, since Michal Cohen was his lawyer.

So, what would Trump take the stand to refute? I'm sure he would like to refute the Porn Performers and the serial perjuror's stories, but it appears that they said nothing that would incriminate Trump.

Still he may take the stand out of desire to connect with his voters. Exactly why they decided not to allow a news feed for such an important case.

 

[Slade3200]

No. I’m just exposing your perpetual ignorance.

Suck it up buttercup.

You’ve lost.

Theres an actually trial going on, carefully reviewed and scrutinized by several judges... Yet I'm crazy for being able to define the crimes and you're sane for not understanding the legality of whats being charged... OK!!!!!

 

[Seymour Flops]

INTENT... They don't need to prosecute him for committing the other crimes. They had to make a case that his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit one of the three crimes they laid out. The actually presented 4 crimes but the judge threw one out.

What were the three crimes and what evidence was given that Trump committed them? Name the witnesses and what they said that Trump did.

 

[Slade3200]

Your brain is the enemy of intellect.

Don't be angry. I'm sure somebody somewhere loves you.

 

[Oddball]

INTENT... They don't need to prosecute him for committing the other crimes. They had to make a case that his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit one of the three crimes they laid out. The actually presented 4 crimes but the judge threw one out.

Yes they do need to prosecute him for the underlying acts, or you have no basis for a case....Especially so when you're citing federal law, over which you have no jurisdiction.

You're in so far over your head that you're going to get nitrogen narcosis.

 

[Slade3200]

Neither Merchan nor Bragg have legal jurisdiction to charge or try any alleged federal crimes.

Can you just admit that you're in way over your fucking head and be done with it?

They aren't trying to

 

[Oddball]

They aren't trying to

You really can't read at a 6th grade level.

 

[Rambunctious]

More denial..

The indictment clearly lays out the criminal charges against Trump and key evidence

MAGA…He dint do nuttin

Do you know why this isn't working?.... because Hillary was discovered using campaign money to buy the dossier she gave to the corrupt FBI to effect an election and her campaign received a fine... people aren't stupid.... that is why this has helped Trump....

 

[Slade3200]

You know? Oddly enough, even CNN’s Fareed Zakaria now agrees with you!

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria admits prosecutors would never have filed hush money charges against anyone ‘whose name was not Trump’​

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria admits prosecutors would never have filed hush money charges against anyone ‘whose name was not Trump’

One of Donald Trump’s fiercest critics is questioning the validity the charges the former president faces.

nypost.com

Fareed Zakaria on Trump's chances of retaking the White House​

May 13, 2024

​

They probably wouldn't... But when you openly taunt cops they tend to go after you.

 

[MisterBeale]

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

INTENT... They don't need to prosecute him for committing the other crimes. They had to make a case that his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit one of the three crimes they laid out. The actually presented 4 crimes but the judge threw one out.

Who sets up a "Non-disclosure Agreement?"

Who would you go to, to do that?

 

[Slade3200]

I have been assuming all along that Trump would testify.

Haha, no way! You really thought he would testify?

Under oath he would be toast...

Mr. Trump, now that you're under oath can you state whether or not you had sex with Stormy Daniels in a hotel room?

How do you think he answers?

 

[MisterBeale]

They probably wouldn't... But when you openly taunt cops they tend to go after you.

Ahhhhh. . . so now you admit that the establishment is corrupt, and you are siding with authoritarians?

At last. . some honesty from you?

 

[Slade3200]

What were the three crimes and what evidence was given that Trump committed them? Name the witnesses and what they said that Trump did.

Violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.

Evidence does not need to be given to show Trump committed them. They just need to show that his intent to defraud (main charge) furthers an intent for the following crimes to occur.

They made a case for 4 crimes, the judge dismissed one. 3 stood. #LawandOrder

 

[Slade3200]

Yes they do need to prosecute him for the underlying acts, or you have no basis for a case

Wrong... Show the legal code that says they need to be prosecuted. You can't

 

[Seymour Flops]

Haha, no way! You really thought he would testify?

Under oath he would be toast...

Mr. Trump, now that you're under oath can you state whether or not you had sex with Stormy Daniels in a hotel room?

How do you think he answers?

He'll say no I didn't and probably add some insulting remarks about "Stormy," Avanatti and Cohen.

Why not?

The beauty of such an allegation for the people making it, is that so long afterward, there is no way to prove it is true or false. It doesn't just work for the accusers, it also works for the accused.

What do you think would be the consequence of Trump denying it happened?

 

[Slade3200]

Who sets up a "Non-disclosure Agreement?"

Who would you go to, to do that?

A lawyer

 

[Seymour Flops]

Violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.

Evidence does not need to be given to show Trump committed them.

That's great! That part in red should be the motto of the Trump deranged lawfare warriors.

They just need to show that his intent to defraud (main charge) furthers an intent for the following crimes to occur.

They made a case for 4 crimes, the judge dismissed one. 3 stood. #LawandOrder

Ok, what evidence was given by what witness of Trump's intent?

 

[Slade3200]

Ahhhhh. . . so now you admit that the establishment is corrupt, and you are siding with authoritarians?

At last. . some honesty from you?

I'm always honest. Don't think what I said implied I thought the establishment was corrupt. Sure there corruption in the establishment. But in this case, as weak as it is, I'm not seeing corruption.

 

[Oddball]

Violation of federal campaign finance limits,

Not state jurisdiction.

Evidence does not need to be given to show Trump committed them. They just need to show that his intent to defraud (main charge) furthers an intent for the following crimes to occur.

They made a case for 4 crimes, the judge dismissed one. 3 stood. #LawandOrder

So you need no evidence, just the charge.