Bragg has still not specified the underlying crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors.

[Marener]

Yes you are ignorant

I actually followed the trial. You choose not to. That’s fine. Just don’t lecture people who are actually informed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I actually followed the trial. You choose not to. That’s fine. Just don’t lecture people who are actually informed.

But you didn't follow the law that's where you failed

 

[Lisa558]

They don’t have to charge the object crime. They don’t even have to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

All they have to prove is that Trump intended to commit another crime.

Sorry this is too complicated for you to understand.

They have to identify the “other crime.” Otherwise, nasty leftists could take every conservative with a misdemeanor and say it was done for the purpose of another crime - and never name the other crime!

And this is why they are being so secretive about the other crime: They want to say the other crime was an election law violation but they can’t, and why? Because none was committed. That’s why federal prosecutors never took the case.

Also, the defense had an expert witness on election law who wanted to testify that Trump broke no law, but the judge would NOT allow the witness! Right there is grounds for disbarment: a defendant is entitled to defend himself.

There’s no crime here, and the judge prevented the defense from showing it.

 

[Lisa558]

I actually followed the trial. You choose not to. That’s fine. Just don’t lecture people who are actually informed.

You’re not informed. You’re a brainwashed leftist who is ready to convict Trump without a crime.

 

[Marener]

They have to identify the “other crime.” Otherwise, nasty leftists could take every conservative with a misdemeanor and say it was done for the purpose of another crime - and never name the other crime!

And this is why they are being so secretive about the other crime: They want to say the other crime was an election law violation but they can’t, and why? Because none was committed. That’s why federal prosecutors never took the case.

Also, the defense had an expert witness on election law who wanted to testify that Trump broke no law, but the judge would NOT allow the witness! Right there is grounds for disbarment: a defendant is entitled to defend himself.

There’s no crime here, and the judge prevented the defense from showing it.

The prosecution identified several "other crimes", as I've been saying repeatedly in this thread. It's not a secret. It's not mysterious. These other crimes have been discussed at length before trial and during trial.

Your point about the defense witness is totally misconstruing the issue. A witness cannot testify to the jury on issues of the law. That is the judge's job. The witness is not the judge. They can't tell the jury what the law states and doesn't state.

Your beliefs are borne out of right wing media narrative. Not law or fact.

 

[Lisa558]

The prosecution identified several "other crimes", as I've been saying repeatedly in this thread. It's not a secret. It's not mysterious. These other crimes have been discussed at length before trial and during trial.

Your point about the defense witness is totally misconstruing the issue. A witness cannot testify to the jury on issues of the law. That is the judge's job. The witness is not the judge. They can't tell the jury what the law states and doesn't state.

Your beliefs are borne out of right wing media narrative. Not law or fact.

None of what they identified is a crime, as the expert witness would have testified to if the judge hasn’t silenced him. That’s always what libs do: silence the opposition if it doesn’t support the leftist narrative. Only THIS is a courtroom, and in America, a defendant used to be allowed to present his best defense.

And an expert witness in election law IS allowed to testify to it. How could the judge instruct the jury on it? He’s an anti-Trumper who has already exhibited extreme bias.

Your beliefs are coming from extreme TDS.

 

[Marener]

None of what they identified is a crime, as the expert witness would have testified to if the judge hasn’t silenced him. Your beliefs are coming from extreme TDS.

The expert witness wasn't allowed to testify for legitimate reasons that I explained. The judge determines the law, not the witness, which is what the "expert" was supposed to testify to. The expert was allowed to testify based on specific topics, but he could not make statements about what the law is. Again, that's the job of the judge. Not the witnesses.

Falsifying business documents is a crime.
The object crime making this a felony could include:
1. Campaign finance violation (which Cohen had already been prosecuted and pled guilty to)
2. State campaign laws
3. State tax violations

The case is complicated, but not too complicated for intelligent and open minded people to understand.

 

[Lisa558]

The expert witness wasn't allowed to testify for legitimate reasons that I explained. The judge determines the law, not the witness, which is what the "expert" was supposed to testify to. The expert was allowed to testify based on specific topics, but he could not make statements about what the law is. Again, that's the job of the judge. Not the witnesses.

Falsifying business documents is a crime.
The object crime making this a felony could include:
1. Campaign finance violation (which Cohen had already been prosecuted and pled guilty to)
2. State campaign laws
3. State tax violations

The case is complicated, but not too complicated for intelligent and open minded people to understand.

The judge is biased and steering the jury to a conviction. He is not able to give them fair instructions as to the law.

1) There was no campaign finance violation, which is a federal offense, and that is why federal prosecutors did not take the case
2) What state campaign laws? This election was a federal matter.
3) Tax violations? Wow….some creative thinking in the “get Trump” crowd. A non-disclosure agreement is a deductible business expense.

And there has been no proof that Trump knew about any of this anyway. A defense witness testified that he didn’t.

Anyone who isn’t a delusion leftist and willing to believe any lies if it means it keeps Trump out of the White House would understand this.

 

[Marener]

The judge is biased and steering the jury to a conviction. He is not able to give them fair instructions as to the law.

1) There was no campaign finance violation, which is a federal offense, and that is why federal prosecutors did not take the case
2) What state campaign laws? This election was a federal matter.
3) Tax violations? Wow….some creative thinking in the “get Trump” crowd. A non-disclosure agreement is a deductible business expense.

And there has been no proof that Trump knew about any of this anyway. A defense witness testified that he didn’t.

Anyone who isn’t a delusion leftist and willing to believe any lies if it means it keeps Trump out of the White House would understand this.

If his instructions are improper, then it’ll be grounds for appeal. It’s not the place of a witness to tell the jury about the law. Never has been.

1. Cohen was already prosecuted for campaign finance violation for this very matter.
2. 17-152
3. By recording the NDA payment as legal fees, Cohen filed taxes which exaggerated his income. Those legal fees weren’t actually income.

It’s pretty delusional to think Trump didn’t know about this.

But your post amply demonstrates you don’t know much about this case, otherwise I wouldn’t have to be explaining it to you.

 

[para bellum]

If his instructions are improper, then it’ll be grounds for appeal. It’s not the place of a witness to tell the jury about the law. Never has been.

1. Cohen was already prosecuted for campaign finance violation for this very matter.
2. 17-152
3. By recording the NDA payment as legal fees, Cohen filed taxes which exaggerated his income. Those legal fees weren’t actually income.

It’s pretty delusional to think Trump didn’t know about this.

Actually it's pretty delusional to think Trump knew any of that, since it all happened long after the election.

17-152 has only been charged 3 times in 50 years, no convictions, and the "unlawful means" were actual crimes- 2x absentee ballot fraud and 1x blocking a polling place. Things that are actually illegal...

If Cohen overpaid his taxes, that might technically be a false tax return, but there is no penalty for overpaying taxes, and that was again- COHEN, not Trump...

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

That's because there is no crime.

 

[Dante]

There’s no crime here, and the judge prevented the defense from showing it.

cuckoo!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They have to identify the “other crime.” Otherwise, nasty leftists could take every conservative with a misdemeanor and say it was done for the purpose of another crime - and never name the other crime!

And this is why they are being so secretive about the other crime: They want to say the other crime was an election law violation but they can’t, and why? Because none was committed. That’s why federal prosecutors never took the case.

Also, the defense had an expert witness on election law who wanted to testify that Trump broke no law, but the judge would NOT allow the witness! Right there is grounds for disbarment: a defendant is entitled to defend himself.

There’s no crime here, and the judge prevented the defense from showing it.

He's an idiot that doesn't know the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

cuckoo!

Over turned in the appeals court.

 

[Dante]

Over turned in the appeals court.

Who cares

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If his instructions are improper, then it’ll be grounds for appeal. It’s not the place of a witness to tell the jury about the law. Never has been.

1. Cohen was already prosecuted for campaign finance violation for this very matter.
2. 17-152
3. By recording the NDA payment as legal fees, Cohen filed taxes which exaggerated his income. Those legal fees weren’t actually income.

It’s pretty delusional to think Trump didn’t know about this.

But your post amply demonstrates you don’t know much about this case, otherwise I wouldn’t have to be explaining it to you.

The instruction were improper if you didn't notice

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who cares

Why waste the tax payers money?

 

[Leo123]

I heard today that they said the jury has to decide Trump's INTENT. That's because they have no real EVIDENCE. So, now we are supposed to believe the jury are all mind readers? What a joke.

 

[Lisa558]

I heard today that they said the jury has to decide Trump's INTENT. That's because they have no real EVIDENCE. So, now we are supposed to believe the jury are all mind readers? What a joke.

They could get ANYONE on “intent”:

“Your honor, we know Lisa558 was at home at 3 pm, but we have decided she was INTENDING to drive to the bank at 4 pm and rob it. GUILTY!”

 

[Marener]

The instruction were improper if you didn't notice

The jury hasn’t received instructions yet dipshit.