This Trial is helping Trump immensely, if he gets acquitted
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
That he did it to commit election fraud. Prosecution has met all the conditions to return a conviction so far. Absent a hardcore Trump supporter throwing the trial Trump should be convicted
Totally agree, but it only takes one MAGAt to acquit, unfortunately.
But regardless of the verdict, he's not gaining any moderates or indees from a voting POV.
Dude looks like a complete scumbag after this. Hopefully the Dems run ads about it.
Are you really pinning your hopes on the prosecution somehow forgetting which crimes they were charging Trump on?
Here's an idea...you don't want to be charged, don't commit a crime and try to cover that crime up?
Novel idea, I know.
Not really. For all I know the guy tweeting it made it all up.
The payments are not felonies by themselves. They have to be escalated to felonies by “the other reason” that these legal folks talk about.
And he was lying to protect CORRUPT Filthy Don, the only reason.
This is the part. What was the 2nd crime that Trump Committed? The prosecutors didn’t mention the 2nd crime. Trying to hide for election is not a crime
The charge, a staple of his office’s white-collar work, can only be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony if the defendant falsified the records in an attempt to commit or conceal a second crime.
Although the district attorney’s office is not required to identify the second crime at the outset of the case, Mr. Bragg prosecuted both the lawyer and the insurance broker for additional crimes — including grand larceny — telegraphing why their false records charges were bumped up to felonies. Only the former president, Donald J. Trump, was indicted for falsifying business records, and no other crimes.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,692
- 192,552
- 113
They really botched your lobotomy.
I suggest seeing if @Jimmy McGill can help you with a malpractice suit.
They are trying to prove Trump made falsified records. Right? What is it Stormy Daniels was called up there for in regards to that? Perjuring herself too, BTW. I’m sure that helps.
I'm out of private practice. I can help him in other ways. I've seen Old Yeller.
The falsified records are not felonies. They have to tie them to a second crime to elevate them to felonies.
A crime in which they won’t say what it is. Zero people not named Trump would have had this case brought against them. Proof being the Feds turning it down.
Does this make Fareed Zakaria a MAGA? I think it does. Sad that his true colors are showing.
The second crime is Section 17-152. And there are actually three separate crimes the prosecution is tying to it. And all they need to do is prove one of them.
Um what? The prosecution has made it clear what crimes they're attaching to Section 17-152. You're just parroting nonsense that ihhawk was mislead on.
You claimed there was no second law. But now that you know there is you're now trying to shift the argument to it not having being used before. Have you thought that maybe you're misinformed about what this trial is actually about?
But he wasn’t actually Charged under that law. Isn’t that odd
And the folks at CNN and MSNBC also have no idea.
The charges seem like a stretch, at best they get him on some misdemeanor that results in a fine.
This case will mean zero to the election. The Ds and Rs have made up their mind, those that hate or love Trump have made up their mind. The results of this case will have no bearing on voter turnout of those who are undecided.
This case only proves once again Trump is a man without character who is only concerned about himself.
This case will mean zero to the election. The Ds and Rs have made up their mind, those that hate or love Trump have made up their mind. The results of this case will have no bearing on voter turnout of those who are undecided.
This case only proves once again Trump is a man without character who is only concerned about himself.
What would you call in-kind campaign expenditures that were not reported? Just wondering? How about lying on business records?
Spitball me your answer
Yeah. They’re trying to prove he tried to cover up an alleged crime they can’t prove he committed. Or else they’d be charging him with that one. Totally legit.
So legit in fact he’s the only person to ever be tried for this because it wasn’t a felony until they let the statute of limitations run out of it on purpose so they could do it.
Here’s a good point made by someone…
But why were those payments “unlawful” or “fraudulent?” Who even knew about and could have been misled by the false business records at the time of the election? How would Trump even know about the obscure New York Election Law § 17.152 provision that he is being accused of intentionally concealing? These are fundamental problems with the legal theory underlying the case.
But if it would have been legal for Trump to have paid Stormy Daniels directly, then disguising the payments through Michael Cohen did not show an “intent to . . . conceal another crime,” nor a conspiracy to “unlawfully” influence an election. The District Attorney’s case is now based on three criminal statutes all of which depend on separate frauds or crimes that have not been clearly alleged or proven.
Law Professor: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Convoluted Legal Case Against Donald Trump Gets More Convoluted
To request an interview with Professor Germain, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu. By Gregory Germ ...
news.syr.edu
Yeah. They’re trying to prove he tried to cover up an alleged crime they can’t prove he committed. Or else they’d be charging him with that one. Totally legit.
So legit in fact he’s the only person to ever be tried for this because it wasn’t a felony until they let the statute of limitations run out of it on purpose so they could do it.
Here’s a good point made by someone…
But why were those payments “unlawful” or “fraudulent?” Who even knew about and could have been misled by the false business records at the time of the election? How would Trump even know about the obscure New York Election Law § 17.152 provision that he is being accused of intentionally concealing? These are fundamental problems with the legal theory underlying the case.
But if it would have been legal for Trump to have paid Stormy Daniels directly, then disguising the payments through Michael Cohen did not show an “intent to . . . conceal another crime,” nor a conspiracy to “unlawfully” influence an election. The District Attorney’s case is now based on three criminal statutes all of which depend on separate frauds or crimes that have not been clearly alleged or proven.
Law Professor: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Convoluted Legal Case Against Donald Trump Gets More Convoluted
To request an interview with Professor Germain, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu. By Gregory Germ ...
Enough time has passed that "Durham's Coming" guy thinks it's safe to come back with the bullshit cannon at full power and his Byron York army.
MSNBC says they don't know what laws Trump broke!
The rabbit holes these morons run around in.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,692
- 192,552
- 113
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,692
- 192,552
- 113
