Zone1 NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?

[Supposn]

New York made up charges claiming Trump commited a crime to cover up a crime that was not commited and a crime that was outside New York's jurisdiction.

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself? You compulsively continue to not consider, but rather ignore or neglect facts?
He committed a crime to enable another crime, prohibited by federal law.
The fact that the underlying crimes not prohibited by a NY state statute does not invalidate NY State's indictment and conviction of Trump. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself? You compulsively continue to not consider, but rather ignore or neglect facts?
He committed a crime to enable another crime, prohibited by federal law.
The fact that the underlying crimes not prohibited by a NY state statute does not invalidate NY State's indictment and conviction of Trump. Respectfully, Supposn

Please, supposn, zone 1 rules, you are almost over the line. Control your emotions.

You just lied, there is no federal crime, at the very least that is your opinion unless you have link showing Trump was convicted

Link supposn, you arguing your opinion

 

[elektra]

He committed a crime to enable another crime, prohibited by federal law.

You sound like babblin joe now

What crime?

 

[Supposn]

You sound like babblin joe now
What crime?

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself? You compulsively continue to not consider, but rather ignore or neglect facts?
Refer to link: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/trump-indictment-ny.pdf . Respectfully, Supposn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excerpted from transcript of NY State's indictment of Donald Trump. Each of the indictment's 34 counts of crimes differed only to the extent of dates and descriptions of each of the 34 falsified business entries, and the description and date of what was falsely entered into the business records) :
. “SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEW YORK -against DONALDJ. TRUMP, Defendant. THE GRANDJURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEWYORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE ...
… DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about ...
… with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission SECONDCOUNT: thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, ...
… marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.” .

 

[Supposn]

Elektra regarding questions of law: Within a trial, the judge's decisions or opinions are not simply superior, they're absolute. Similar to captains' absolute command of their ships, judges' command the conduct of trials within their courts. With regard to the law, no other than the judge's opinions or assertions are to be considered within their courts. Upon appeals of their courts decisions verdicts, and almost anything if not most things in their courts may be considered and be subject to appeal by ”higher” or “superior” judges and their courts.

Unlike you, I cannot presume to know all of it. I had need to read the judge's instructions to the jury. If you're actually not certain that you know it all, you may refer to:
People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24 – DocumentCloud .

Excerpts from pages 29 to 34 of the judge's instructions to the NY State indictment of Donald Trump's jury discussed the specific topics of Intent to Defraud, Intent to Commit or Conceal Another Crime, NY Election Law 17-152 Predicate, the Federal Election Campaign Act, and Falsification of Other Business Records.
Pages 34 through 40 discuss Violation of Tax Laws, and Count Specific (Falsification of Business Records).
Pages 40 through 47 discuss Falsification of Business Records in the First degree - (NY State) Penal Law 175.10 , and Intent to Defraud, Intent to Commit or Conceal Another Crime.

Pages 48 through 55 discusses Motive When Not Element of Crime, and all other topics not discussed in previous pages that may be pertinent to the jury's deliberations. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra regarding questions of law: Within a trial, the judge's decisions or opinions are not simply superior, they're absolute. Similar to captains' absolute command of their ships, judges' command the conduct of trials within their courts. With regard to the law, no other than the judge's opinions or assertions are to be considered within their courts. Upon appeals of their courts decisions verdicts, and almost anything if not most things in their courts may be considered and be subject to appeal by ”higher” or “superior” judges and their courts.

Unlike you, I cannot presume to know all of it. I had need to read the judge's instructions to the jury. If you're actually not certain that you know it all, you may refer to:
People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24 – DocumentCloud .

Excerpts from pages 29 to 34 of the judge's instructions to the NY State indictment of Donald Trump's jury discussed the specific topics of Intent to Defraud, Intent to Commit or Conceal Another Crime, NY Election Law 17-152 Predicate, the Federal Election Campaign Act, and Falsification of Other Business Records.
Pages 34 through 40 discuss Violation of Tax Laws, and Count Specific (Falsification of Business Records).
Pages 40 through 47 discuss Falsification of Business Records in the First degree - (NY State) Penal Law 175.10 , and Intent to Defraud, Intent to Commit or Conceal Another Crime.

Pages 48 through 55 discusses Motive When Not Element of Crime, and all other topics not discussed in previous pages that may be pertinent to the jury's deliberations. Respectfully, Supposn

If something in particular is relevant to your OP, and you seem to believe it is, and you seem to know exactly where it is, you could have cut and paste, sharing the relevant information in your OP.

Obviously, whatever you referenced in your long comment, is not so important or you do not understand what you read, or what you read is written in such a way that it is very confusing.

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself?

supposn, why do you keep flaming my posts in the clean debate zone? I am replying to you, without attaching any sort of feeling or human trait or whatever to your comments

should I be sayin, something like;
Supposn, why are you breaking down emotionally, attempting to hide your rage and need to insult, by toning down your obvious desire to begin insults and comments that denigrate my character.

It is subtle, yet you continue to denigrate my character, repeatedly. This reflects that you have no rebuttal establishing that you have facts on your side.

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself? You compulsively continue to not consider, but rather ignore or neglect facts?

Supposn, I find your comments in the clean debate zone disturbing.

Supposn, you may not realize who you are, the type of person you are, and how you present yourself to others.

Supposn, you come across as condescending. You seem to think you are elite and above average in intelligence.

Supposn, condescending people lack emotional intelligence, to a condescending person their remarks will seem normal. Believe me, they are not. Remarks that you continuously use against me are a sign of a lack of emotional intelligence

Supposn, a lack of emotional intelligence will mean that you can never see another point of view, or fact, which while you continually demonstrate when you ignore the fact I present and circle back around in your argument.

Supposn, you begin your replies with abrasive comments, comments which do not belong in a clean debate

Supposn, condescending people are know-it-alls who believe they know more than others, are the smartest person in the room. Thus you keep assuming you know more than me, enlightening me, with information I do know. You do this while you continually refuse to acknowledge the fact I present.

Supposn, I doubt you will ever, I say this respectfully, without meaning to hurt you, I doubt you will ever have the intelligence to understand the type of person you are and that you are no smarter than anyone else

 

[elektra]

Elektra regarding questions of law: Within a trial, the judge's decisions or opinions are not simply superior, they're absolute.

Supposn, in questions regarding the law, questions of the law are not allowed. Period. The law is established, not by judges. Law is established by the Legislative branch of government. The State legislature and the Federal Legislature write the laws, the Judge never ever questions, law.

A judge's decision or opinion are not superior or absolute. We have three branches of government that are equal. If and when our system of government operates as designed, by honest people. A rotten judge's decision.

Yes, you speak, within a trial. Within a trial, the law is the law as written, not as the judge decides, not based on the Judge's opinion.

Supposn, when you must declare, from an elite, superior, condensing position that the Judge's decision and opinion is absolute than you have declared that the trial was a tyrannical corrupt, soviet communist trial.

Supposn, I presume you have no idea what I mean by a tyrannical, corrupt, soviet communist trial. Supposn, you do not come across as a well read, person, who knows how trials were or are conducted in communist, marxist, countries.

I do. In order for Trump to be guilty, Supposn, you disregard our system of government and what justice, is.

Supposn, my education, is wide and vast. Let me enlighten you with some pictures of my library. If you like you could show your education, with your library.

 

[candycorn]

NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.

In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, as it required to be in a criminal case), proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

They selected the right guy...34 up, 34 down. It helped that he was guilty.

 

[Supposn]

Supposn, in questions regarding the law, questions of the law are not allowed. Period. The law is established, not by judges. Law is established by the Legislative branch of government. The State legislature and the Federal Legislature write the laws, the Judge never ever questions, law.

A judge's decision or opinion are not superior or absolute. We have three branches of government that are equal. If and when our system of government operates as designed, by honest people. A rotten judge's decision.

Yes, you speak, within a trial. Within a trial, the law is the law as written, not as the judge decides, not based on the Judge's opinion. ...

Elektra, among a trial's presiding judges duties is to answer and resolve questions regarding all legal matters before the court.

As I previously posted: Regarding questions of law: Within a trial, the judge's decisions or opinions are not simply superior, they're absolute. Similar to captains' absolute command of their ships, judges' command the conduct of trials within their courts. With regard to the law, no other than the judge's opinions or assertions are to be considered within their courts. Upon appeals of their courts decisions verdicts, and almost anything if not most things in their courts may be considered and be subject to appeal by ”higher” or “superior” judges and their courts.

Elektra, why, on what basis do you contend otherwise? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[OklaSusie]

You sound like babblin joe now

What crime?

Ever hear Trump babble? I can give you dozens of examples.

 

[OklaSusie]

Supposn, in questions regarding the law, questions of the law are not allowed. Period. The law is established, not by judges. Law is established by the Legislative branch of government. The State legislature and the Federal Legislature write the laws, the Judge never ever questions, law.

A judge's decision or opinion are not superior or absolute. We have three branches of government that are equal. If and when our system of government operates as designed, by honest people. A rotten judge's decision.

Yes, you speak, within a trial. Within a trial, the law is the law as written, not as the judge decides, not based on the Judge's opinion.

Supposn, when you must declare, from an elite, superior, condensing position that the Judge's decision and opinion is absolute than you have declared that the trial was a tyrannical corrupt, soviet communist trial.

Supposn, I presume you have no idea what I mean by a tyrannical, corrupt, soviet communist trial. Supposn, you do not come across as a well read, person, who knows how trials were or are conducted in communist, marxist, countries.

I do. In order for Trump to be guilty, Supposn, you disregard our system of government and what justice, is.

Supposn, my education, is wide and vast. Let me enlighten you with some pictures of my library. If you like you could show your education, with your library.
View attachment 962890View attachment 962891View attachment 962892View attachment 962893

Anyone can have dozens of books in a library in their home, but that doesn't mean they read them or even understood them. I notice there is a substantial amount of liquor in the area (not that there is anything wrong with having liquor, mind you).

 

[elektra]

Anyone can have dozens of books in a library in their home, but that doesn't mean they read them or even understood them. I notice there is a substantial amount of liquor in the area (not that there is anything wrong with having liquor, mind you).

Yes, anybody can have dozens of books. Not everyone will mischaracterize 2000 books as dozens as you did.
Yes, you noticed liquor, to characterize two bottles of booze from Brazil as substantial reflects your character and desperation to substantiate your invalid claims.

 

[elektra]

Ever hear Trump babble? I can give you dozens of examples.

Okay, go ahead

 

[elektra]

Elektra, among a trial's presiding judges duties is to answer and resolve questions regarding all legal matters before the court.

Elektra, why, on what basis do you contend otherwise? Respectfully, Supposn

It is simple, you have proven your inability to present the truth when you characterized two bottles of alcohol in my library as a substantial amount of liquor as well as claiming the 2000 books in my pictures were just a few dozen.

 

[OklaSusie]

Yes, anybody can have dozens of books. Not everyone will mischaracterize 2000 books as dozens as you did.
Yes, you noticed liquor, to characterize two bottles of booze from Brazil as substantial reflects your character and desperation to substantiate your invalid claims.

The fact is you have issues.

 

[elektra]

The fact is you have issues.

True, I have many issues of magazines as well as thousands of books

 

[OklaSusie]

Okay, go ahead

Okay, go ahead

The fact is you'd attack the source, deny he said it, etc. Trump could literally assault 10 women on live TV and you would deny it. You are so far into the cult there is no hope for you. In fact, he could assault you and you'd still lsupport him.

 

[elektra]

Ever hear Trump babble? I can give you dozens of examples.

okay, give us dozens of examples, at the very least, 36 examples