How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[ThisIsMe]

We don’t have to wait for anything. The indictment is done.

The only question is which motions will the Trump team file. As the options are not infinite, that is even pretty clear.

I have no doubt that this judge will set a high standard for any motion filed.

That means the Trump team will not likely find relief in doing so.

Ok, I understand, again, I just find braggs refusal to actually come out and name the underlying crime, even when asked about it, as a bit odd.

 

[Marener]

No, that’s called debate. I don’t agree with your answer, it doesn’t mean I’m being dishonest

You can disagree with the answer but you can’t claim it wasn’t answered.

 

[Lesh]

No, that’s called debate. I don’t agree with your answer, it doesn’t mean I’m being dishonest

You don’t agree with the facts and the truth.

I’m not sure exactly what to call that…. But honest isn’t among the choices

 

[ThisIsMe]

You can disagree with the answer but you can’t claim it wasn’t answered.

I never claimed it wasn’t answered.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You don’t agree with the facts and the truth.

I’m not sure exactly what to call that…. But honest isn’t among the choices

Huh? Is it not a fact that Bragg isn’t specifically naming the underlying crime? I don’t understand what facts you think I’m denying. My whole argument has been, why doesn’t Bragg specifically name the underlying crime? I’ve even pointed out that media on both the left and the right have stated they are unsure what the underlying crime is.

I’m not sure what part of my response is being dishonest. Just because you say it’s the SOF and I question if that’s it exactly, just means that maybe I don’t trust Bragg. I just want him to come out and actually say it.

 

[Marener]

I never claimed it wasn’t answered.

I just find braggs refusal to actually come out and name the underlying crime

Seems like you did.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Seems like you did.

No, I know the question was answered, I just don’t agree with the answer, which is why I was debating it.

 

[Lesh]

No, I know the question was answered, I just don’t agree with the answer, which is why I was debating it.

But you don't "debate" anything.

You just keep asking the same question as if it had never been answered

 

[Lesh]

Huh? Is it not a fact that Bragg isn’t specifically naming the underlying crime? I don’t understand what facts you think I’m denying. My whole argument has been, why doesn’t Bragg specifically name the underlying crime? I’ve even pointed out that media on both the left and the right have stated they are unsure what the underlying crime is.

So do you not realize that Bragg is under no obligation to list the "underlying crime" in the indictment as per NY State Law?

Do you also not realize that he DID spell it out in the Statement of Fact that he filed (point #3)?

Those are FACTS

 

[ThisIsMe]

But you don't "debate" anything.

You just keep asking the same question as if it had never been answered

No, im giving my rebuttal to your answer. Just because you gave an answer doesn’t mean it’s the right answer, or that I agree with it, so im going to give my thoughts on why i disagree.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So do you not realize that Bragg is under no obligation to list the "underlying crime" in the indictment as per NY State Law?

Do you also not realize that he DID spell it out in the State of Fact that he filed (point #3)?

Those are FACTS

Ok, I recognize that you just gave an answer, and I disagree with that answer because Bragg, when asked, refused to be specific about the underlying crime, even media outlets are a bit fuzzy on the underlying crime. Bragg doesn’t actually say what is in the SOF is what he is going to use as his basis for upgrading the misdemeanor to a felony.

I agree that it’s likely what it is, but, since he doesn’t actually say it, and he is being evasive about answering this question, that it makes me wonder if he is not hiding some “surprise” for later on down then road, and I think the accused is entitled to the specifics of the charge and the basis for that charge.

So, while I recognize your answer, I don’t agree with your answer, so I gave you a rebuttal, that is not dishonest.

 

[Lesh]

Ok, I recognize that you just gave an answer, and I disagree with that answer because Bragg, when asked, refused to be specific about the underlying crime, even media outlets are a bit fuzzy on the underlying crime. Bragg doesn’t actually say what is in the SOF is what he is going to use as his basis for upgrading the misdemeanor to a felony.

I agree that it’s likely what it is, but, since he doesn’t actually say it, and he is being evasive about answering this question, that it makes me wonder if he is not hiding some “surprise” for later on down then road, and I think the accused is entitled to the specifics of the charge and the basis for that charge.

So, while I recognize your answer, I don’t agree with your answer, so I gave you a rebuttal, that is not dishonest.

Again. What I listed were facts. You DO recognize that correct?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again. What I listed were facts. You DO recognize that correct?

Here is what I recognize. Bragg produced an indictment but didn’t list the basis for the felony. He also, separately, released a statement of facts but doesn’t specify that those are the crimes he used to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, he even dodged the question when asked about it.

Several media outlets for both the left and the right are fuzzy in what the underlying crime is, as well as if Bragg has legal ability to use a federal jurisdiction crime to upgrade a state misdemeanor to a felony.

Bragg said that the law states he doesn’t have to list the underlying crime, but I’ve not seen anyone actually cite that law. What law is he using?

why won’t Bragg just come out and specify the underlying crime? That’s all I’m talking about.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again. What I listed were facts. You DO recognize that correct?

Here’s another story:

What legal experts say about Donald Trump's indictment

Legal experts say there were "no surprises" in the charges brought against former President Trump Tuesday -- but that the "catch-and-kill" allegations are notable.

abcnews.go.com

Fletcher also said that the 16-page indictment "discusses an intent to defraud, and an intent to commit another crime, but does not specify what that other crime is."

Scholl agreed that neither the indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts released by prosecutors cites which specific election laws were violated -- even though the statement of facts talks at length about how the alleged catch and kill scheme was used to influence the 2016 election.

[ab]The statement of facts document is an oddity," Scholl said, questioning why it was not part of the indictment as a conspiracy count. [/B]Scholl did, however, say that the district attorney doesn't have to prove anything that's in the statement of facts -- just what's in the indictment.

But Bragg highlighted several laws he said are potentially applicable to the case, including New York state election law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means; laws that prohibit false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities; and federal election contribution limits.

“Potentially”…hmmm…

This is the 3rd article I’ve linked that states they aren’t sure of the underlying crime, and I’m sure there are more.

So, if the underlying crime is so apparent….why are people so unsure m?

 

[Lesh]

Here’s another story:

What legal experts say about Donald Trump's indictment

Legal experts say there were "no surprises" in the charges brought against former President Trump Tuesday -- but that the "catch-and-kill" allegations are notable.

abcnews.go.com

“Potentially”…hmmm…

This is the 3rd article I’ve linked that states they aren’t sure of the underlying crime, and I’m sure there are more.

So, if the underlying crime is so apparent….why are people so unsure m?

Everything is "potential"...until proven in Court.


So?

 

[Lesh]

Here is what I recognize. Bragg produced an indictment but didn’t list the basis for the felony.

He also, separately, released a statement of facts but doesn’t specify that those are the crimes he used to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, he even dodged the question when asked about it.

Know why? Because he is not required to do so.

Bragg said that the law states he doesn’t have to list the underlying crime, but I’ve not seen anyone actually cite that law. What law is he using?

Have you seen anyone actually say that he is required to?

Why do you think that is?

why won’t Bragg just come out and specify the underlying crime?

Because he is not REQUIRED to

That’s all I’m talking about.

And repeating yourself endlessly

 

[ThisIsMe]

Everything is "potential"...until proven in Court.


So?

Sounds like he’s got several laws potentially applicable to the case….but apparently nothing specific. Again, he’s not being forthcoming about the actual basis for the indictment.

 

[otto105]

I mean why isn't t he media talking about this?

Because fuckup its a state change

 

[Lesh]

Sounds like he’s got several laws potentially applicable to the case….but apparently nothing specific. Again, he’s not being forthcoming about the actual basis for the indictment.

So? When the trial starts I’m sure he will be very forthcoming

 

[ThisIsMe]

Know why? Because he is not required to do so.

Have you seen anyone actually say that he is required to?

Why do you think that is?

Because he is not REQUIRED to

And repeating yourself endlessly

I’m not so sure:

Section 200.50 - Indictment; form and content, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.50 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 200.50 - Indictment; form and content, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.50, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

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;

According to this, he has to, along with the indictment, provide asserting facts supporting every element of the offenses charged, so the defendant knows exactly what he is being charged with.

I have a feeling Bragg is bending the law here. He says he doesn’t have to provide the underlying crime because the law doesn’t say so, but, he doesn’t cite which law he’s talking about, so, it may be a case of, not that the law doesn’t say so, but that the law just doesn’t address it, but, as I’ve posted above, if that is indeed what it is saying, it says he does.


I also think the reason why the law doesn’t address it is because it would be assumed that the indictment would generally be a defined felony, so, the crime would literally be defined by the indictment and no underlying crime would be required, because the indictment directly point to the underlying crime, and not to a misdemeanor that requires an underlying crime to be a felony.

Just my opinion, obviously.

However, even if the law doesn’t require Bragg to name the underlying crime, why wouldn’t he? Unless he has some sort of “gotcha” waiting in the background to reveal at the last minute.

Again, too many people are saying they don’t know what Bragg is alleging, the defendant has a right to know all the charges and the basis behind those charges, and, according to what I posted, NY law says that the asserting facts have to be presented.