Bragg's Case Against Trump - election interference - politically motivated? I have the answer.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Again another liberal can't answer the question... if Trump had Obama up on charges that are not crimes you would be losing your mind... Aren't you adult enough to admit that?...

Sure, but the dif is that Biden has Trump up on charges that are crimes. Watch how the trial turns out?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Crimes, not crime. Read the indictment.

To be prosecuted at all now that the statute of limitations has been run out, there has to be a felony. That felony has never been identified and Trump certainly hasn't been convicted of it. What they essentially are doing is charging Trump with 31 counts of felony jaywalking because he drove drunk, and they never charged him for DUI in the first place.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The election is ongoing. No interference.

Except the only Republican candidate is being forced to sit in a courtroom all day, every day, instead of being on the campaign trail.

 

[westwall]

Now we skip over to a predicate (underlying) crime? Revealed during trial. State law says no predicate crime has to be listed in any indictment.

fail

Yes, you are a failure.

 

[d0gbreath]

What is the crime?... help me out here...

34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

 

[Rambunctious]

34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Falsifying records??? that's a fine at best... the taxes on the money was paid and all that was left out was the reason for the gift... and what the hell is falsifying in the first degree???

 

[para bellum]

To be prosecuted at all now that the statute of limitations has been run out, there has to be a felony. That felony has never been identified and Trump certainly hasn't been convicted of it. What they essentially are doing is charging Trump with 31 counts of felony jaywalking because he drove drunk, and they never charged him for DUI in the first place.

It's probably a better analogy to say the jaywalking was done to enable more jaywalking, lol. The only "underlying crime" they are alleging is another misdemeanor...

 

[para bellum]

Now we skip over to a predicate (underlying) crime? Revealed during trial. State law says no predicate crime has to be listed in any indictment.

That is a lie and you know it. There is no law that says that.

The actual law says the opposite, as I have previously shown. It is CPL 200.50 (7)(a) which states:

An indictment must contain:

7. A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without
allegations of an evidentiary nature,

(a) asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant's or defendants' commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation

Since one of the elements of PEN 175.10 is "and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof", CPL 200.50 requires that specificity in the indictment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

To be prosecuted at all now that the statute of limitations has been run out, there has to be a felony. That felony has never been identified and Trump certainly hasn't been convicted of it. What they essentially are doing is charging Trump with 31 counts of felony jaywalking because he drove drunk, and they never charged him for DUI in the first place.

Send your thoughts to the prosecution.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That is a lie and you know it. There is no law that says that.

The actual law says the opposite, as I have previously shown. It is CPL 200.50 (7)(a) which states:

An indictment must contain:

7. A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without
allegations of an evidentiary nature,

(a) asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant's or defendants' commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation

Since one of the elements of PEN 175.10 is "and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof", CPL 200.50 requires that specificity in the indictment.

Send your thoughts to the prosecution.

 

[para bellum]

Send your thoughts to the prosecution.

I will tell them not to listen to USMB lefties on the law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I will tell them not to listen to USMB lefties on the law.

OK, do that, and quit wasting our time on your nonsense.

 

[para bellum]

OK, do that, and quit wasting our time on your nonsense.

Put me on ignore if you can't handle the facts.

You don't get to decide what I post.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Put me on ignore if you can't handle the facts.

You don't get to decide what I post.

I get to decide how I respond to your worthless comments. Quit dealing in MAGApropaganda, and we will stop making fun of you.

 

[westwall]

34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Got a link to a criminal statute?

 

[para bellum]

I get to decide how I respond to your worthless comments. Quit dealing in MAGApropaganda, and we will stop making fun of you.

LMAO. I don't care if you reply or not, or what your opinion happens to be. You are not a factor in my day.

FYI, it's pretty retarded to call New York's laws of criminal procedure "MAGApropaganda"

 

[d0gbreath]

Falsifying records??? that's a fine at best... the taxes on the money was paid and all that was left out was the reason for the gift... and what the hell is falsifying in the first degree???

I was just answering your "What was the crime?" post. I have no connections, nor incite into the DoJ's lawfair.
I'm also not versed, nor interested in the details. I hope DJ gets a hung jury. They'll try it again, and he'll sit in a cold courtroom for another 6 weeks.

Which is the only 'punishment' that he's going to get.

 

[d0gbreath]

Got a link to a criminal statute?

Should I have one? I'm thinking no.

 

[Meister]

. I hope DJ gets a hung jury. They'll try it again, and he'll sit in a cold courtroom for another 6 weeks.

Which is the only 'punishment' that he's going to get.

And the point of that is? If it ended in a hung jury, and was to be retried, that wouldn't start
until after the election, and with a different judge.

Call it what it actually is....election interference.

 

[Rambunctious]

I was just answering your "What was the crime?" post. I have no connections, nor incite into the DoJ's lawfair.
I'm also not versed, nor interested in the details. I hope DJ gets a hung jury. They'll try it again, and he'll sit in a cold courtroom for another 6 weeks.

Which is the only 'punishment' that he's going to get.

So you don't follow or adhere to the written words in our bill of rights?...
Okay got it....