The Notorious “catch and kill" campaign: Turning the National Enquirer into an arm of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign

[para bellum]

For anyone who is truly interested in sharing info and arguing civilly, The trial is unfolding. The indictment lists crimes.

The indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it. It comes out during trial, as is happening now.

You are wrong. You cannot wait until trial to specify the underlying crime. That would be a major due process violation and grounds for dismissal (which is exactly what happened in Georgia, to 6 charges in Fani's RICO case).

If it is not in the indictment, it must be provided in a bill of particulars.

And it was. There were 4 possibles. In February the judge threw out one and left 3.

That was part of a decision and ruling on an omnibus motion from Trump's attorneys.

The one they are using is one of the three choices- the election law, 17-152.

They cannot charge Trump with that crime because it's a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations is expired.

 

[Nostra]

So? You don't need one. You were shown the crimes.

I accept your concession.

Sux to be you.

 

[Yarddog]

Biden has ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, most of Hollywood, the NYT and WAPO and we are talking about someone named Lachlan Cartwright's unverified account of working for a freaking supermarket tabloid? WTF?

Democrats make the rules.

 

[Nostra]

I accept your concession.

Sux to be you.

Btw Faun did Hutchinson lie or not?

 

[Leo123]

Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche used his opening argument to try to discredit Cohen and Daniels, two probable key witnesses in the case. He conceded that Trump had paid hush money to kill embarrassing stories – but pointed out that was not illegal. He insisted that Trump did so to spare his family and his reputation. And he argued that Trump wasn’t actually familiar with the bookkeeping decisions on how Cohen was paid.

“President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney should never have brought this case,” Blanche said, later arguing that Trump fought to keep Daniels’s allegations from the headlines in the closing days of the election “to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand”.

Blanche said Trump “had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated, or with the entry on the ledger” for the post-election payments to Cohen. He insisted “Trump had nothing to do with the 34 checks [to Cohen] other than to sign them.”

He called Daniels “sinister” and claimed she’d “made a life” off of her claims about her relationship with Trump, while describing Cohen as a “convicted perjurer” with an axe to grind against Trump, his former boss, because Trump didn’t give him a White House job.

And he claimed that trying to influence the election wasn’t illegal.

“I have a spoiler alert: there’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election – it’s called democracy,” he said.

Trump on Trial: Prosecutors call hush money ‘a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election’

Former president Donald Trump’s first criminal trial got going in earnest today with opening statements from prosecutors and defense

www.theguardian.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lol!

"Stand Back and Let It Fall": Jonathan Turley Says Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Is "Collapsing" After Witness Testimony - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. (DCNF)—George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on Friday said the prosecution’s case against former President Donald Trump is failing as a key witness is benefiting the defense. Trump is on trial facing 34 felony...

thelibertydaily.com

Haha, Turley, what a shill

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Democrats make the rules.

The laws were on the books long before the orange puddle of slime poured down the escalator.

 

[Nostra]

The laws were on the books long before the orange puddle of slime poured down the escalator.

The law that says it is illegal to promote someone to get them elected!

 

[Billiejeens]

Haha, Turley, what a shill

Someone who defends The Constitution is a shill.

Dang your cult is strong.

 

[Dante]

You are wrong. You cannot wait until trial to specify the underlying crime. That would be a major due process violation and grounds for dismissal (which is exactly what happened in Georgia, to 6 charges in Fani's RICO case).

If it is not in the indictment, it must be provided in a bill of particulars.

And it was. There were 4 possibles. In February the judge threw out one and left 3.

That was part of a decision and ruling on an omnibus motion from Trump's attorneys.

The one they are using is one of the three choices- the election law, 17-152.

They cannot charge Trump with that crime because it's a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations is expired.

The law disagrees with you. Not even Trump's defense team argues your crazed shit. They'd be laughed out of court if they did.

Now, let the class come to order:

"“There are an awful lot of dots here which it takes a bit of imagination to connect,” said Richard Klein, a Touro Law Center criminal law professor. Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it. But given the likelihood of Trump’s lawyers challenging it, “you’d think they’d want to be on much firmer ground than some of this stuff,” said Klein, a former New York City public defender."

and Trump's team did not dispute the fact.

 

[para bellum]

The law disagrees with you. Not even Trump's defense team argues your crazed shit. They'd be laughed out of court if they did.

Now, let the class come to order:

"“There are an awful lot of dots here which it takes a bit of imagination to connect,” said Richard Klein, a Touro Law Center criminal law professor. Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it. But given the likelihood of Trump’s lawyers challenging it, “you’d think they’d want to be on much firmer ground than some of this stuff,” said Klein, a former New York City public defender."

and Trump's team did not dispute the fact.

Wrong again which is the norm for you. You are way out of your depth.

Of course they disputed it- in a motion back in September 2023.

And the judge ruled on it, and disallowed one possibility and left three standing.

Read carefully pages 11-18. starting with

2. "Other Crime"

 

[Dante]

Wrong again which is the norm for you. You are way out of your depth.

Of course they disputed it- in a motion back in September 2023.

And the judge ruled on it, and disallowed one possibility and left three standing.

Read carefully pages 11-18. starting with

2. "Other Crime"

They have not disputed it during trial. We are speaking of the trial.

Or are you still stuck on stupid in 2023?

 

[Dante]

Wrong again which is the norm for you. You are way out of your depth.

Of course they disputed it- in a motion back in September 2023.

And the judge ruled on it, and disallowed one possibility and left three standing.

Read carefully pages 11-18. starting with

2. "Other Crime"

Ha, ha, ha...

I just caught it. You are so stupid. A Singer hearing ('protracted' preindictment delay”)?

Defendant's motions are decided as follows
On September 29, 2023, Defendant Donald J. Trump hereinafter ',Defendant,) filed
omnibus motions seeking various forms of relief including dismissal of the indictment on the
grounds that the charges are legally defective and because of preindictment delay. Defendant also
demands a more robust bill of particulars. The People responded on November g,2023.
Defendant's reply was filed on November 21,2023 and the People,s sur-reply on November 27,
2023t.

There was no argument that prosecutors had to include the predicate crime in any indictment. Your link has nothing to do with that issue.

When considering pre lndictment delay, a court must analyze five factors: (1) the extent of
the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charges; (4) the length of any
pre-trial incarceration; and (5) whether there is anv indication that the defense has been impaired

Trump's team was not arguing about the nature of the underlying charges not being included in the indictment, because NY state laws does not demand that be so.

para bellum reread what has been posted here

 

[Nostra]

You ignore everything. Why Faun bothers with you so much is beyond me.

I ignore nothing, especially Dimtard dumbassery.

But the irony of you yipping at my heals constantly while wondering why Fawnboi responds is hilarious.

 

[para bellum]

They have not disputed it during trial. We are speaking of the trial.

Or are you still stuck on stupid in 2023?

Dipshit, you don't wait to trial to challenge the indictment.

I am talking about the case, and your claim that identifying the underlying charge is not required by law.

You are flat-out wrong, as the court doc I just posted proves.

 

[para bellum]

There was no argument that prosecutors had to include the predicate crime in any indictment. Your link has nothing to do with that issue.

You are utterly retarded.

It is clearly addressed in the pages I told you to read, and the motion to dismiss based on legally defective charges.

And the judge addressed those questions, as well as the statute of limitations and the selective prosecution motions because that's what an "omnibus motion" means- there were multiple motions made, that were all addressed in the decision and ruling of February 15, 2024.

 

[Dante]

Dipshit, you don't wait to trial to challenge the indictment.

I am talking about the case, and your claim that identifying the underlying charge is not required by law.

You are flat-out wrong, as the court doc I just posted proves.

People are going on about the predicate crime not being spelled out. During trial it is. NY state law says it does not need to be spelled out in any indictment.

 

[Dante]

Dipshit, you don't wait to trial to challenge the indictment.

I am talking about the case, and your claim that identifying the underlying charge is not required by law.

You are flat-out wrong, as the court doc I just posted proves.

Trump's team was not arguing about the nature of the underlying charges not being included in the indictment, because NY state laws does not demand that be so.

They did not challenge that law.

 

[Yarddog]

So in NY it is illegal to promote anyone for election?

Yeah, and only Democrats are allowed to kill stories about themselves you know. If a Republican does it, its influencing an election! BUt Unlike Trump who used the national enquieror as an "ARM", Biden and the Democrats can use the FBI as their political "arm" to bury things like the Hunter Laptop. Nothing to see there !!

 

[Dante]

Trump's team was not arguing about the nature of the underlying charges not being included in the indictment, because NY state laws does not demand that be so.

They did not challenge that law.

A good link to the Trump whine

People v. Trump - Defense Motion to Dismiss

A motion filed by Donald Trump's lawyers in September 2023 seeking to dismiss the former president's New York hush-money criminal case. Judge Juan Manuel Merchan is expected to rule on the request at a hearing on Feb. 15, 2024.

www.documentcloud.org

Nowhere are they challenging the predicate crime need be listed.