Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
14,569
11,748
2,138
Texas
As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?






A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”



I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of
a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.
 
This is how dumb this case is, and how corrupt the judge is. No conspiracy charges have been filed yet Bragg's team alleges a conspiracy and the judge says, all good.

And I'm wondering if Trump's attorneys are awake. The use of 'conspiracy' by the prosecution,, a crime not charged, is prohibited by precedent to not be permissible, you cannot reference a crime not charged. This is a mistrial to me.
 
I have asked enthusiastic Leftists on this and other forums if they could articulate exactly what this trial is about...what exactly is Trump accused of?

Invariably they say, "paying off a porn start to be quiet." when I point out that there is nothing illegal about that, it becomes "trying to deceive the voters," or some such nonsense. Also, not a crime.

Nobody said they were smart.
 
As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?






A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”



I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of
a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.
How is a person on trial for something that has not been charged. I guess it worked for EJC so they figure they'll see if it flies in criminal court. The burden of proof is much different.
 
This is how dumb this case is, and how corrupt the judge is. No conspiracy charges have been filed yet Bragg's team alleges a conspiracy and the judge says, all good.

And I'm wondering if Trump's attorneys are awake. The use of 'conspiracy' by the prosecution,, a crime not charged, is prohibited by precedent to not be permissible, you cannot reference a crime not charged. This is a mistrial to me.
If you declare a mistrial, then you need to let the courts know of your ruling. When can we expect to see you on fox explaining your decision?
 
This is how dumb this case is, and how corrupt the judge is. No conspiracy charges have been filed yet Bragg's team alleges a conspiracy and the judge says, all good.

And I'm wondering if Trump's attorneys are awake. The use of 'conspiracy' by the prosecution,, a crime not charged, is prohibited by precedent to not be permissible, you cannot reference a crime not charged. This is a mistrial to me.
Who knows if awake or not. I have told you about Republican lawyers before.:dunno:
 
I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law.
That's because you're too dumb to check out what the actual law says.

§ 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.
 
This is how dumb this case is, and how corrupt the judge is. No conspiracy charges have been filed yet Bragg's team alleges a conspiracy and the judge says, all good.

And I'm wondering if Trump's attorneys are awake. The use of 'conspiracy' by the prosecution,, a crime not charged, is prohibited by precedent to not be permissible, you cannot reference a crime not charged. This is a mistrial to me.

All accurate points.

It's another infomercial, no one thinks that it survives an appeal.
 
That's because you're too dumb to check out what the actual law says.

§ 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.

Well that never happened.
 
This is how dumb this case is, and how corrupt the judge is. No conspiracy charges have been filed yet Bragg's team alleges a conspiracy and the judge says, all good.

And I'm wondering if Trump's attorneys are awake. The use of 'conspiracy' by the prosecution,, a crime not charged, is prohibited by precedent to not be permissible, you cannot reference a crime not charged. This is a mistrial to me.

The attorneys have made all these arguments the judge has ignored all actual law and precedent.
 
That's because you're too dumb to check out what the actual law says.

§ 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.
That does not put Trump on trial nor convict him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top