The Democrats have done it again, they got President Trump to be a convicted Felon(until the USSC overrules the verdict) and they awakened the Giant.

[Catsnmeters]

Provide it

No problem.

Here is the orders and decisions provided to Trump's team in February.

Halfway down page 11 is "other crimes" which details to Trump's team the other crimes.

Keep in mind Trump undermined our justice system by lying to you about his case by claiming he didn't what the crimes were.

Did you donate?

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

 

[Crepitus]

The Democrats have done it again, they got President Trump to be a convicted Felon​

 

[Blisterfinger]

Thanks for your opinion.

I researched the case and found it is based on the law and precedent.



Not sure but evidently Trump broke them.

That was dumb.



Being convicted of violating the law is not ludicrous or unbelievable.

It's justice.

How does your link support your thots and feels regarding the jury's verdict?

Not sure but evidently Trump broke them.

That was dumb

Let's say there is a rule requiring you to label hush money as hush money and not illegal expense. Why on Earth would this be a felony. How ridiculous, just pay a fine like Obama did move on kangaroo court. Did we all just wake up and find ourselves in Nigeria or uganda? WTF

 

[Blisterfinger]

Thanks for your opinion.

I researched the case and found it is based on the law and precedent.



Not sure but evidently Trump broke them.

That was dumb.



Being convicted of violating the law is not ludicrous or unbelievable.

It's justice.

How does your link support your thots and feels regarding the jury's verdict?

I appreciate your feelings in this issue, I researched the case and found it to be biased and ridiculous. Trump should have been fined for one charge of this misdemeanor and that's it. I do appreciate you getting back to me so quickly with your opinion

 

[Catsnmeters]

Let's say there is a rule requiring you to label hush money as hush money and not illegal expense. Why on Earth would this be a felony.

Because it was an intent to hide a crime by falsifying business records.

Its listed in 175.10.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

How ridiculous, just pay a fine like Obama did move on kangaroo court. Did we all just wake up and find ourselves in Nigeria or uganda? WTF

Obama paid a fine for falsifying business records in the first degree in the state of New York?

When did this happen?

Can you link this case please?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Thanks for your opinion.

I researched the case and found it is based on the law and precedent.



Not sure but evidently Trump broke them.

That was dumb.



Being convicted of violating the law is not ludicrous or unbelievable.

It's justice.

How does your link support your thots and feels regarding the jury's verdict?

Did you read the link?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Because it was an intent to hide a crime by falsifying business records.

Its listed in 175.10.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.


Obama paid a fine for falsifying business records in the first degree in the state of New York?

When did this happen?

Can you link this case please?

researched the case and found it is based on the law and precedent.

Because it was an intent to hide a crime by falsifying business records.

What crime was that? Is it against the law to have an nda?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Because it was an intent to hide a crime by falsifying business records.

Its listed in 175.10.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.


Obama paid a fine for falsifying business records in the first degree in the state of New York?

When did this happen?

Can you link this case please?

Can you specify the rule that says you can't call hush money a business expense? And why? Do you not know about Obama's campaign Finance violations?

 

[Catsnmeters]

I appreciate your feelings in this issue,

They are not my feelings.

They are based on case documents and precedent.

I researched the case and found it to be biased and ridiculous.

Those are your feelings or do you have case documents that support it?

Trump should have been fined for one charge of this misdemeanor and that's it.

You should vote to change the law...if you live in New York state.

I do appreciate you getting back to me so quickly with your opinion

Thanks. I am drinking some beer so eventually I will fall off...

 

[Catsnmeters]

Did you read the link?

Post 178?

 

[jc456]

I researched the case and found it is based on the law and precedent

How could it be based on precedent when it was unprecedented? Fk you idiots can’t get out of your own way

 

[Catsnmeters]

Can you specify the rule that says you can't call hush money a business expense? And why?

Perhaps if I was was willing to conduct the research. But I'm not.

My contentions are based on the felony conviction based on the law and precedent.

It's not my job to disprove the juries decision.

Do you not know about Obama's campaign Finance violations?

Did Obama falsify his own business records in new York to commit them?

Can you link Obama's new york company and the business documents he falsified and the proof you have of this case?

Thanks.

 

[Catsnmeters]

How could it be based on precedent when it was unprecedented? Fk you idiots can’t get out of your own way

Several precedents have occurred for this case.

The intent to commit, as predicate crimes, is based on precedent.

You are woefully misinformed.

Maybe you should expand your media outlets?

 

[jc456]

Several precedents have occurred for this case.

The intent to commit, as predicate crimes, is based on precedent.

You are woefully misinformed.

Maybe you should expand your media outlets?

Nope, disinformation.

Unprecedented requires no precedent

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nope, disinformation

As you keep saying and are continuing to be proven wrong.

Seriously. Your news sources are failing you.

You really should take more time to do your own research before simply believing something because it's politically expidant.

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We also reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the "intent to conceal" prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement — "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" — not any additional actus reus element

 

[jc456]

No problem.

Here is the orders and decisions provided to Trump's team in February.

Halfway down page 11 is "other crimes" which details to Trump's team the other crimes.

Keep in mind Trump undermined our justice system by lying to you about his case by claiming he didn't what the crimes were.

Did you donate?

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

So no proof as there wasn’t

 

[jc456]

As you keep saying and are continuing to be proven wrong.

Seriously. Your news sources are failing you.

You really should take more time to do your own research before simply believing something because it's politically expidant.

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We also reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the "intent to conceal" prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement — "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" — not any additional actus reus element

I gave you congress saying it wasn’t there. Again internet guy! Suck it up disinformation genius

 

[Catsnmeters]

So no proof as there wasn’t

The proof was outlined in the motions document I linked earlier.

Remember, the predicate crimes are intent only and are not charges.

If you don't read the evidence, you will continue to be duped.

Post 181. Halfway down page 11. "Other crimes".

 

[Catsnmeters]

I gave you congress saying it wasn’t there. Again internet guy! Suck it up disinformation genius

Congress legislates, it doesn't interpret the laws.

Interpretation is up to the courts.

If you don't know this, I encourage you to read some books on how our govenrment works.

Otherwise you will be manipulated to believe that what Congress thinks of the courts interpretation of the law is somehow relevant.

Good grief. Conversely I challenge you to provide a high profile politically charged case that some in Congress didn't speak out against.

Is that the banana public you want?

Judicial decisions require congressional approval?

Come on man. Be better.

 

[jc456]

The proof was outlined in the motions document I linked earlier.

Remember, the predicate crimes are intent only and are not charges.

If you don't read the evidence, you will continue to be duped.

Post 181. Halfway down page 11. "Other crimes".

Nope! Again, congress said so and every lawyer