202d
Trump has been charged with the crime of creating fraudulent business records with the intent to violate other laws:
- FECA
- New York State Election Law Section 17-152 preventing "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means"
- NY State tax law
@spruce112358 saidNo, you are making up your own way of 'looking at it'. You do not name the crime.
Trump has been charged with the crime of creating fraudulent business records with the intent to violate other laws:
- FECA
- New York State Election Law Section 17-152 preventing "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means"
- NY State tax law
Try this. Looks cut and dried to me. They got nuthin'.
Trump is accused of violating New York State law by allegedly agreeing to obscure a series of reimbursements to his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who is the key witness against Trump in the case. Cohen made a $130,000 alleged "hush money" payment to adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, days before the 2016 election, in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. Trump denies the allegations and says there was no affair.
That is it.
Nuthin'
202d
@spruce112358 saidI see you hae worded your own charge here. Is it worded exactly like this in the indictment by Bragg? How is it worded>
Trump has been charged with the crime of creating fraudulent business records with the intent to violate other laws:
202d
@spruce112358 saidYou say 'other laws'. Do you think that Bragg used that phrase to the jurors?
Trump has been charged with the crime of creating fraudulent business records with the intent to violate other laws:
- FECA
- New York State Election Law Section 17-152 preventing "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means"
- NY State tax law
Spruce?
202d
@AverageJoe1 saidThe crime is fraud with intent to commit other crimes.
No, you are making up your own way of 'looking at it'. You do not name the crime.
202d
@AverageJoe1 saidI was not there.
You say 'other laws'. Do you think that Bragg used that phrase to the jurors?
Spruce?
202d
@AverageJoe1 saidI'm sure you can Google the exact words in the indictment.
I see you hae worded your own charge here. Is it worded exactly like this in the indictment by Bragg? How is it worded>
202d
@spruce112358 saidSo you wrote your post as fact but cannot show where Bragg did that.
I'm sure you can Google the exact words in the indictment.
Help me Rhonda......
202d
@AverageJoe1 saidOf course I can show it. Bragg's indictment of Trump is here:
So you wrote your post as fact but cannot show where Bragg did that.
Help me Rhonda......
https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
Bragg's specification of the "other crimes" is here:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf
202d
@spruce112358 saidI am a debate kind of guy...I cannot imagine lugging my computer to the debate stage, and i could never consider myself a winner if I used it.
Of course I can show it. Bragg's indictment of Trump is here:
https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
Bragg's specification of the "other crimes" is here:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf
So could you just recite or copy the part where he uses a phrase other than "Other Crimes"? It will help us all, and esp it will help Marauder.
201d
@AverageJoe1
Nutin. Yep, you are clearly in dream land again.
The prosecution showed EXACTLY what the illegal parts were, not the actual payment to a hooker, but HIDING it and it came out clearly in the testimony but don't fret, there is likely a Trumpite ringer who lied to get on the jury so it will most likely be a hung jury which is not exoneration, just a delay which all Trumpites dearly want just like you so if he wins ALL of it magically goes away along with our democracy.
201d
@AverageJoe1 saidI already summarized this, above, but if you want it verbatim from Bragg's own hand, here it is:
I am a debate kind of guy...I cannot imagine lugging my computer to the debate stage, and i could never consider myself a winner if I used it.
So could you just recite or copy the part where he uses a phrase other than "Other Crimes"? It will help us all, and esp it will help Marauder.
2. Defendant intended to commit or conceal election law crimes.
a. Defendant falsified business records to conceal violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act and Election Law § 17-152.
The Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA" ) regulates campaign contributions to candidates for federal office. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30116, 30118.
New York Election Law provides that "[a]ny two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Elec. Law § 17-152.
3. Defendant intended to commit or conceal tax crimes.
The grand jury evidence also establishes that defendant's intent to defraud included an intent to commit or conceal tax crimes. The evidence showed that defendant and others were aware of the tax consequences of the reimbursement to Cohen; that they sought to manipulate those consequences by altering the amount and manner in which he was paid and by falsely characterizing the nature of the payments; and that the business records at issue here perpetuated these falsifications and thus concealed the nature of the underlying scheme.
Falsely characterizing the nature of a payment to tax authorities has criminal consequences under state and local tax laws, as well as federal law. Under New York law, "willfully engaging in an act or acts or willfully causing another to engage in an act or acts pursuant to which a person . . . knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or proceeding" is criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree. Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3), 1802; see also N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 11-4002(a)(3), 11-4003 (City criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree).
201d
@sonhouse saidHow long can our democracy hold out with the 19% inflation that a democrat(-cy) has rained down upon us. Next the whiny libs will say that the climate has caused it, and that Trump caused the imaginary climate because he is rich and plays golf. I see where you think Trump is categorically and simply and without-question, guilty as hell.
@AverageJoe1
Nutin. Yep, you are clearly in dream land again.
The prosecution showed EXACTLY what the illegal parts were, not the actual payment to a hooker, but HIDING it and it came out clearly in the testimony but don't fret, there is likely a Trumpite ringer who lied to get on the jury so it will most likely be a hung jury which is not exoneration, just a delay which a ...[text shortened]... ites dearly want just like you so if he wins ALL of it magically goes away along with our democracy.
So, if the jury comes back with an acquittal, , it would follow that Judge Merchan , if he is a real good judge, would overrule the Jury and render a guilty verdict.
Have you ever told us what part of our democracy he will take away if he becomes president? Will no one be watching his nefarious goings-on?
201d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou really are obnoxiously retarded, aren’t you?
No, you are making up your own way of 'looking at it'. You do not name the crime.
Try this. Looks cut and dried to me. They got nuthin'.
Trump is accused of violating New York State law by allegedly agreeing to obscure a series of reimbursements to his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who is the key witness against Trump in the case. Cohen made a $130,000 ...[text shortened]... ffair with Trump. Trump denies the allegations and says there was no affair.
That is it.
Nuthin'
201d
@shavixmir saidC'mon, Shav. If I were the only pundit who thinks he is being 'witch hunted', and that there is no true cause of action to warrant this hell, yeah, you may have a point....I would be shunned!
You really are obnoxiously retarded, aren’t you?
But you might check on the news of many, many, many smart jurists, judges, lawyers, experts, eyes-wide-open people who daily thresh this all out and find absolutely nothing to lead to a guilty verdict. And they clearly explain the 'whys' of why they reach those conclusions.
SO.........are they obnoxiously retarded? You know that the only answer for you to respond with is.......they, too, are obnoxiously retarded, which will back you backward into the old rabbit hole. The McHill person is already down there to keep you company. Y'all can play darts.