Bragg simply has not proven his case, whatever it is

@AverageJoe1 said
So if I buy a gun with intent to kill my granny, wouldn't the prosecution tell the jury that I intended to kill my granny (the 'other' crime, by your definition)?

“I do not entertain hypotheticals, the world as it is is vexing enough.” - True Grit

@spruce112358 said
“I do not entertain hypotheticals, the world as it is is vexing enough.” - True Grit

If you did entertain this one, you would fold your tent!!!! That Marauder fellow has confused you all. I couldn't even follow him myself.

@AverageJoe1 said
So if I buy a gun with intent to kill my granny, wouldn't the prosecution tell the jury that I intended to kill my granny (the 'other' crime, by your definition)?

And take this to logical conclusion, to make my point........ Granny will have never been shot, so, no murder (crime) committed. My lawyers would be saying 'WHERE is the crime??"
So, We have acquitted the Donald?

@AverageJoe1 said
And take this to logical conclusion, to make my point........ Granny will have never been shot, so, no murder (crime) committed. My lawyers would be saying 'WHERE is the crime??"
So, We have acquitted the Donald?

You really are remarkably stupid.

You're wrong about the hypothetical; buying a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it IS a crime in and of itself even if you never actually commit the crime intended.

You're wrong about this case as well; the object crimes were committed - an illegal campaign contribution was made violating both Federal and State law and the way the reimbursement was structured falsified its nature in violation of State tax law.

Of course, it is up to the jury to make the ultimate determination of the facts, but the prosecution has presented ample evidence that if believed supports all elements of the crimes charged in the indictment.

@no1marauder said
You really are remarkably stupid.

You're wrong about the hypothetical; buying a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it IS a crime in and of itself even if you never actually commit the crime intended.

You're wrong about this case as well; the object crimes were committed - an illegal campaign contribution was made violating both Federal and State law and the ...[text shortened]... ented ample evidence that if believed supports all elements of the crimes charged in the indictment.

But NOT guilty of murder. Murder here is tantamount to my analogy. Unfortunately, we cannot have a studied discussion on that matter, since we do not know what the 'future crime', (or whatever you are calling it) is.

Then we rest our cases. Your prediction?
If the law and the sages of the law agree with you, Trump is guilty. I say they won't, and he isn't.

@AverageJoe1 said
But NOT guilty of murder. Murder here is tantamount to my analogy. Unfortunately, we cannot have a studied discussion on that matter, since we do not know what the 'future crime', (or whatever you are calling it) is.

Then we rest our cases. Your prediction?
If the law and the sages of the law agree with you, Trump is guilty. I say they won't, and he isn't.

You've been repeatedly told what the charged crime and the object crimes which raise it to a felony are.

The jury decides the facts, not the law.

As I said before, it's hard to tell what a jury is going to do even if you're in the same room with them. So I have no prediction at all; the jury, not me ot you, has heard all the evidence.

IF there is a conviction, I have heard no valid legal arguments indicating it should be overturned by an appellate court.

@no1marauder said
You really are remarkably stupid.

You're wrong about the hypothetical; buying a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it IS a crime in and of itself even if you never actually commit the crime intended.

You're wrong about this case as well; the object crimes were committed - an illegal campaign contribution was made violating both Federal and State law and the ...[text shortened]... ented ample evidence that if believed supports all elements of the crimes charged in the indictment.

“an illegal campaign contribution was made violating both Federal and State law ”

not true

and are you dumb enough to think a state can uphold fed election laws?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
“an illegal campaign contribution was made violating both Federal and State law ”

not true

and are you dumb enough to think a state can uphold fed election laws?

Are you dumb enough to think that a violation of Federal criminal law isn't a crime?

@no1marauder said
Are you dumb enough to think that a violation of Federal criminal law isn't a crime?

no one has violated a fed criminal law…why would you add that when it’s not true?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
no one has violated a fed criminal law…why would you add that when it’s not true?

Funny, Cohen pled guilty to the exact Federal crime that is cited as one of the object crimes in this case.

The allegation is that he committed said crime as part of a scheme for this defendant's benefit and was reimbursed for committing said crime by defendant.

It is up to this jury to decide whether the facts support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the 34 counts of felony Falsifying a Business Record that Trump is charged with.

@no1marauder said
Funny, Cohen pled guilty to the exact Federal crime that is cited as one of the object crimes in this case.

The allegation is that he committed said crime as part of a scheme for this defendant's benefit and was reimbursed for committing said crime by defendant.

It is up to this jury to decide whether the facts support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the 34 counts of felony Falsifying a Business Record that Trump is charged with.

what’s funny…cohen isn’t on trial here 😂

@no1marauder said
You've been repeatedly told what the charged crime and the object crimes which raise it to a felony are.

The jury decides the facts, not the law.

As I said before, it's hard to tell what a jury is going to do even if you're in the same room with them. So I have no prediction at all; the jury, not me ot you, has heard all the evidence.

IF there is a conviction, I have heard no valid legal arguments indicating it should be overturned by an appellate court.

Because you only listen to people who think like you do. And you are not the only one here with a LNexis. But they are not fun. You do not like fun, or you would put yourself on the line and tell us what you think the outcome. But you won't. Have a little fun.
You and Sonhouse both need some sun. And then come back in and listen to people like Mark Levin, a lawyer, and a constitutional expert. You don't have to tell us, do it at midnight. He alone will get you thinking. Victor David Hanson? There is no better commentator, and he is an american classicist and a military historian. What a mind..
Man, what opposite worlds when I hear his podcast and then see what McHill writes. Good thing I like humor.

@no1marauder said
Funny, Cohen pled guilty to the exact Federal crime that is cited as one of the object crimes in this case.

The allegation is that he committed said crime as part of a scheme for this defendant's benefit and was reimbursed for committing said crime by defendant.

It is up to this jury to decide whether the facts support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the 34 counts of felony Falsifying a Business Record that Trump is charged with.

I think that Marauder just told us what he thinks the crime is. That is the best guess that I have seen, but to say only that leaves a few loose ends. Falsifying business records. He goes to jail, but the gangbangers that we see going about their daily terror and theft and sucker-punching and pushing people in to danger and...and, well, if you would watch FOX you would see what they do. But they are not punished.
Hey, if we prosecute them for falsifying paperwork, do you think we can get them sent to jail???????????????? Why not?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
what’s funny…cohen isn’t on trial here 😂

Don't get him started, he will pull out his LexisN.
Do you ever click on that stuff, be it germane or not?