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

[para bellum]

It's also pretty rare that people get charged with humping an elephant in the town square. Because it rarely happens.

Pretty feeble false analogy, even for you...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pretty feeble false analogy, even for you...

No it's a spot on. You're whining does not refute it.

What would refute it is several examples of people illegally filing Illegal campaign contributions as legal Expenses in their business filings. And not being charged.

Do you have that? No?

Then I guess whining is all you have.

 

[para bellum]

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were talking about - you know - what the actual charges are in the indictment and evidence being presented in court and upon which the jury will make their verdict.

Not what you think the media is saying.

WW

Yes, and apparently the judge thinks the details of a one-night stand is something the jury needs to hear to reach a verdict in a falsification of records case...

 

[para bellum]

No it's a spot on. You're whining does not refute it.

What would refute it is several examples of people illegally filing Illegal campaign contributions as legal Expenses in their business filings. And not being charged.

Do you have that? No?

Then I guess whining is all you have.

Right... Hillary Clinton's campaign funneled $5 Million to Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie and called that legal expenses.

No problem there, that wasn't any kind of conspiracy to influence and election at all, no siree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, and apparently the judge thinks the details of a one-night stand is something the jury needs to hear to reach a verdict in a falsification of records case...

That's exactly right, when the defendant is denying its existence, and this affair was the reason that the defendant committed the crimes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right... Hillary Clinton's campaign funneled $5 Million to Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie and called that legal expenses.

In SEC filings. Different laws. I guess it's just another example of Hillary being smarter than Trump.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So the orange pile of shit is denying he ever had an affair with stormy daniels.

So of course the prosecutors are gonna put her on the stand as a credible witness to refute the lies of the criminal defendant.

 

[para bellum]

It's also pretty rare that people get charged with humping an elephant in the town square. Because it rarely happens.

You know before you get all triggered, that was the Wapo that did that research. I was answering a question from another poster who is not you.

"A version of election law 17-152, previously under a different code number, has been on the books since at least the mid-1970s. The New York State Board of Elections counsel has not issued any advisory opinions on the statute, a spokeswoman said.

A search of the New York State Law Reporting Bureau for relevant case law dating to 2000 found two entries in which a judge issued legal opinions on the statute. Both were from Merchan last year in rejecting Trump’s motions to have the case dismissed.
...
A handful of examples found by The Washington Post in a search of public news accounts demonstrate the parochial nature of the rare cases in which statute 17-152 has been prosecuted: a state assembly campaign, a school board election, a mayoral race.
In 1979, a four-term state assemblyman, Nicholas Calogero, was charged on five counts related to the improper use of absentee ballots, as well as a misdemeanor charge for conspiring with two others to promote his candidacy. Calogero, who died in 2004, was exonerated in that case, according to news accounts, but lost his seat in the statehouse a year later.

In May 2011, Aron Wieder, then the vice president of the school board in East Ramapo, N.Y., was charged under statute 17-152 after being accused of blocking the entrance to a polling site at an elementary school and intimidating voters.

Albert D’Agostino, then the school board’s attorney, said in a recent interview that Wieder was assisting voters in long lines who had been told they could not bring infants in strollers into the polling site.
The local district attorney dropped the case two months later, calling the charges unwarranted. Wieder now serves as a Rockland County legislator.

D’Agostino was not impressed by how statute 17-152 is being used in Trump’s case.
“I’m having difficulty understanding the convoluted path the prosecution is taking with that,” he said. “How I say it is, they are making legal connections with sky hooks. Using that [statute] to step up the case to a felony — to me, it’s incredulous.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-election-law/

Top New York Election Lawyers Cannot Recall Anyone Ever Prosecuted for the NY Election Law Being Used to Try to Turn Trump's Hush Money Payments into a Felony #ELB

Business Insider confirms what I suspected: Now, Manhattan prosecutors now say an old, rarely used section of the state election law is their favorite on the menu of potential underlying crimes. “As the court is aware, falsifying business records in … Continue reading Top New York Election...

electionlawblog.org

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, and apparently the judge thinks the details of a one-night stand is something the jury needs to hear to reach a verdict in a falsification of records case...

The Judge had provided comment to the prosecution before. The defense didn't object for quite awhile and let the details come out.

Should have been an order that to note that sex happened was allowed but not allow any discussion of the sexual details. The meeting and corresponding facts that provide the jury the ability to evaluate credibility sure? But Stormy laying their counting seconds staring at the ceiling in the missionary position while a man old enough to be her father sticks his penis in her vagina?

Nope the jury didn't need that.

WW

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know before you get all triggered, that was the Wapo that did that research. I

I wasn't triggered. I was just giving the explanation a normal and rational person would give for the lack of times that law has been used.

Because it is rarely broken the way trump broke it.

You were trying to imply this is because it was being used incorrectly or unfairly against the orange pile of shit.


I refuted that implication quite neatly, using an analogy.

 

[para bellum]

I wasn't triggered. I was just giving the explanation a normal and rational person would give for the lack of times that law has been used.

Because it is rarely broken the way trump broke it.

You were trying to imply this is because it was being used incorrectly or unfairly against the orange pile of shit.


Refuted that implication quite neatly.

This law is as generic in language as conceivably possible. Which makes it a lot easier to charge someone, not more difficult.

And even so, we have only two cases involving apparently fraudulent absentee ballots, and one interfering in a polling place.

Not even remotely comparable to how Bragg is using it.

But you wouldn't grasp that because your TDS consumes you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This law is as generic in language as conceivably possible. Which makes it a lot easier to charge someone, not more difficult.

And even so, we have only two cases involving apparently fraudulent absentee ballots, and one interfering in a polling place.

Not even remotely comparable to how Bragg is using it.

But you wouldn't grasp that because your TDS consumes you.

Sorry, I saw a lot of whiny blather, but I didn't see several examples of people doing what Trump did and not getting charged.

Do you not understand the assignment?

 

[para bellum]

Sorry, I saw a lot of whiny blather, but I didn't see several examples of people doing what Trump did and not getting charged.

Do you not understand the assignment?

Bad news. I don't get my assignments from TDS afflicted trolls.

I was answering a question from a normal person before you jumped in uninvited to derail the topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bad news. I don't get my assignments from TDS afflicted trolls.

I was answering a question from a normal person before you jumped in uninvited to derail the topic.

Directly responding to your post is not a derail. This crybabying won't help you.

You have made the same, garbage implication about the law in this thread multiple times. If you don't want to spend time in a failed effort to defend it, then stop saying it.

Very simple.

 

[para bellum]

The Judge had provided comment to the prosecution before. The defense didn't object for quite awhile and let the details come out.

How long is "quite awhile"?

Who is in charge of the courtroom?

Should have been an order that to note that sex happened was allowed but not allow any discussion of the sexual details. The meeting and corresponding facts that provide the jury the ability to evaluate credibility sure? But Stormy laying their counting seconds staring at the ceiling in the missionary position while a man old enough to be her father sticks his penis in her vagina?

Nope the jury didn't need that.

Have you read the March decisions on motions in limine?

The fact that she was in the room at all is prejudicial. The defense does not dispute that an NDA was entered into, and that it was arranged by Cohen. The details of her one-night stand are irrelevant to whether the NDA was part of some greater conspiracy, or if the payments were properly recorded in the books.

 

[para bellum]

Directly responding to your post is not a derail. This crybabying won't help you.

You have made the same, garbage implication about the law in this thread multiple times. If you don't want to spend time in a failed effort to defend it, then stop saying it.

Very simple.

Hey dipshit, I was answering a question about the topic. You spouted off with the stupid humping elephants nonsense.

Get a grip.

 

[Lastamender]

Trump's affair with a porn star has been proven in court. All the accusations about Biden have not. Like rudy said, you have lots of theories, but no proof.

How has it been proven?

 

[Lastamender]

Hey dipshit, I was answering a question about the topic. You spouted off with the stupid humping elephants nonsense.

Get a grip.

He has nothing to hold on to.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Judge had provided comment to the prosecution before. The defense didn't object for quite awhile and let the details come out.

Should have been an order that to note that sex happened was allowed but not allow any discussion of the sexual details. The meeting and corresponding facts that provide the jury the ability to evaluate credibility sure? But Stormy laying their counting seconds staring at the ceiling in the missionary position while a man old enough to be her father sticks his penis in her vagina?

Nope the jury didn't need that.

WW

I have to think the defense was giving the judge the rope to hang himself. Now the world knows that he cannot control his own courtroom if a porn skank wants to deliver a verbal sex theater performance to the jury from the witness stand, instead providing relevant testimony.

Or maybe the defense had another reason to let her ramble on giving details. They may have a way to impeach that testimony later on.

That last is a longshot. What evidence could there be long after the fact of an alleged encounter? None, which is the beauty of it for the prosecution.

The prosecutor, and the judge, should have "read the indictment." There is no count of "having sex with a gold-digger." That's not a crime. The crime has to do with a false business record. Nothing "Stormy Daniels" said provided evidence for that. This was a pure character assasinataion witness, not a fact witness to a crime.

 

[Delldude]

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were talking about - you know - what the actual charges are in the indictment and evidence being presented in court and upon which the jury will make their verdict.

Not what you think the media is saying.

WW

Court of public opinion has precedent.