@averagejoe1 said
I dearest that the conservatives on this forum are not parenting any talking heads about the state of the world today, it is right before our eyes, and we are certainly forming our own opinions. I do not have to be told by any one what hell is being rained down upon us by the Biden administration. Every day it is something new. All of which encroach on our freedom, our de ...[text shortened]... even something that we can discuss. So here again, why parrot anybody. It is right before our eyes.

Again, these demented ravings have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the issues regarding Trump's criminal trial in NYC, please refrain from posting here.

@mott-the-hoople said
corrupt democrats abusing the justice system to interfere in the upcoming election…

do you think you are fooling anyone?

No matter how many times you parrot the right wing propaganda you have been spoon fed, I see you don't want to discuss the actual facts and law of the case.

It's not hard to figure out why.

If the name of the CEO who did these acts was Gates or Zuckerberg, you'd be singing a different tune.

@averagejoe1 said
Sorry. But a simple question, for you. Do you think the chargfes against Trump are politically motivated, or, NOT politically motivated?

I think any CEO of a corporation who falsely filed paperwork claiming reimbursement for a hush money payment was a legitimate business cost i.e."legal expenses" and was caught doing so would be prosecuted in NY.

If anything, politics delayed the charges.

@moonbus said
The 'victims' are all the corporations which did not falsify their records and were thereby unfairly disadvantaged by the cheater.

That is why a chess player who cheats with an engine is barred from an entire tournament, instead of having merely his one cheated-game result annulled.

The 'victim' is the integrity of the system.

"Please stay on topic".

RHP Posting Guidelines.

Rude and ignorant is SOP for right wingers here.

@moonbus said
It's less the case that's "notorious" (falsifying business records isn't all that uncommon), it's more the defendant. It's hard for Trump to accept that, as far as the court is concerned, he's not a former president and not the presumptive front runner for the presidency either -- he's John Doe, just plain John Doe.

Am I correct that this being a criminal case and not a ci ...[text shortened]... es of evidence are tighter (i.e., tougher to get a conviction)?

May cool and level heads prevail.

The rules of evidence are basically the same with some exceptions, most notably in what a defendant can be questioned about if he takes the stand (no matter what he says, Trump won't).

The standard for a conviction is, of course, higher than that for a finding of civil liability being "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than a "preponderance of evidence".

@averagejoe1 said
With my every post, I have this underlying '"How can these people stand behind Joe Biden for 4 more years, where they fully know that the WH is run 90% by people in their 20s, with big plans to socialize the United States of America."" That would be all of our left posters; They fallow the mantra of Kamala Harris. ".....just as long as, at the end of the day, we all end up in the same place'.

Should not one strive to have their own place?

Why don't you make your "own place" in a thread where such drivel is actually on-topic?

@moonbus said
@no1marauder

Thanks. I await with baited breath further updates in the case.

Opening statements Monday. Jury selection went pretty smoothly considering the notoriety of the case.

@averagejoe1 said
I, AvJoe, deleted something I mistyped. Let me now file my own Issues of the NY Trial. Then all of us are free to choose. You libs have not yet taken our freedom yet, I hope. Read this, and then read Maruder's Link-style post again.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-hush-money-trial-frankenstein-case-zapped-life-turley

From your link:

"And to this day, there's some confusion as to Bragg's actual theory as to what was the exact crime that Trump was hiding from all of this."

Only if you have failed to read Judge Merchan's decision of February 15, 2015 that I have already cited. One would think that even a Fox News, Trump mouthpiece like Jonathan Turley would have at least done that.

@averagejoe1 removed their quoted post

I'm going to ignore posts from people who can't grasp what I just wrote and the excerpts from the Court's ruling.

Nothing remotely in my post says Trump isn't charged with a felony in NY. In fact, he is charged with 34 counts of one: NY Penal Law § 175.10.

Right wingers here are repeating the same nonsense they did a year ago that I debunked in this thread: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/bonus-question%E2%80%A6.196665

I also made some predictions, like a motion to dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds, would be denied by the trial judge. It was here: https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20

But as a reminder:

Despite what Average Joe keeps repeating, DA Bragg did not charge Donald Trump with a Federal crime. He charged him with 34 counts of this one:

NY Penal Law "§ 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."

As to the object crimes, Bragg is basing the "intent to commit another crime" which elevates the charge from a misdemeanor 2nd Degree to a felony First Degree Falsifying business records, Bragg uses three theories any one of which the Judge found adequate to sustain the charges at this point (a fourth was rejected):

"(1) The People allege that Defendant "violated federal election laws because the payoffs to both McDougal and Daniels violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and individual contributions." People's (Apposition pg. 24 The People presented evidence to the Grand Jury that Cohen pled guilty in the Southern District of New York to violating FECA for engaging in the very acts which are at issue here, i.e. making unlawful campaign contributions and that he did so at the direction of, and in coordination with, "a candidate for federal office," later identified as Donald J. Trump - the Defendant herein.
(2) Under the second theory, the People allege that Defendant intended to violate N.Y. Election Law § 17 152 by conspiring to "promote the election of any person to a public office...by entering a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that they did so by 'unlawfull means,' including by violating FECA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen. Pecker, and AMI; and...by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the. nature of the repayment for tax purposes." People's Opposition at pg. 25.
(3) Under die third theory, the People allege that the Defendant intended to violate New York fax Law §§ 1801(a)(3) and 1802. this theory is premised on evidence introduced to the Grand Jury that when Cohen was reimbursed for the $1.30,000 payment he made to Daniels, the amount he received was "grossed up" to compensate him for taxes he would have to pay on the reimbursement."

"The Court has considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury for the first three theories was legally sufficient to support the intent to commit the "other crime" element of falsifying Business Records in the first Degree."

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 pp. 13-14

Finally, the Statute of Limitations defense was rejected as I predicted though on grounds I hadn't thought of:

"Although conduct described in the Indictment occurred more than five years prior to the filing of the Indictment, the Governor's Orders tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement" of any felony through May 6, 2021. Thus, the deadline for the prosecution of the alleged conduct was extended by one year and 47 days. In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within 6 years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed. The earliest conduct described in the Indictment allegedly occurred on February 14, 2017. The tolled period or extension for commencing the action thus brought the conduct described in the Indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit.

Since the Court finds the Indictment was timely brought as a result of the tolling occasioned by the Governor's Executive Orders, it declines to address the People's other theory pursuant to CPI- § 30.10(4)(a)(1), that the filing deadline was also extended because Defendant was continuously out of New York."

p. 24

Hope that helps.