Trump prosecution rests, defense rests. WHAT defesnse?

@AverageJoe1 said
This will be the problem jurors have. At least you DO know that a particular crime was never alleged.
Even a layman knows that there are numerous factors which will have the appeal reverse everything.

A "particular crime" was alleged 34 times in the indictment.

The jury will be instructed by the judge as to the elements of that crime next week.

@no1marauder said
A "particular crime" was alleged 34 times in the indictment.

The jury will be instructed by the judge as to the elements of that crime next week.

Where is the crime?

@AverageJoe1 said
Where is the crime?

Why don't you read the indictment and find out?

@no1marauder said
Why don't you read the indictment and find out?

why don’t you tell us shytweasel?

because you cant queer boy

@Mott-The-Hoople said
why don’t you tell us shytweasel?

because you cant queer boy

I did a month ago, idiot:

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

OP of the "Trump Trial Issues-FYI" thread.

Sorry, you and Joe are too stupid to retain any information not fed you by Fox News.

@sonhouse said
@shavixmir
This trial could have been finished years ago but Bill Barr, Trump's pet AG squashed it from being considered for years which is why it is happening now and not 5 or 6 years ago.
The problem was not he gave hush money to a porn star, it was the coverup behind it, trying to disguise it as a legal fee given to Cohen, the dude who went to jail for lying to the FB ...[text shortened]... eek and it looks like there was a Trump buddy on the jury so only one innocent vote and Trump walks.

the federal election commission decided Trump did not violate any laws dumbass!

@no1marauder said
I did a month ago, idiot:

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. Falsi ...[text shortened]... FYI" thread.

Sorry, you and Joe are too stupid to retain any information not fed you by Fox News.

that does not list a crime dumbass!

1…which witness testified to your assertions?

2…WTH is FECA?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that does not list a crime dumbass!

1…which witness testified to your assertions?

2…WTH is FECA?

The purpose of law is to denote crimes. You may disagree whether trump violated but No1 quotes directly. What are you on?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
the federal election commission decided Trump did not violate any laws dumbass!

No, they didn't.

And even if they had (which they didn't), any finding by them is not binding on prosecutors or juries.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that does not list a crime dumbass!

1…which witness testified to your assertions?

2…WTH is FECA?

It not only "lists" a crime; it directly quotes the statutory language of one.

What about that can't you understand?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that does not list a crime dumbass!

1…which witness testified to your assertions?

2…WTH is FECA?

Since no one at Fox News apparently told you how to do a search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act

@Mott-The-Hoople said
there is no crime, no evidence of a crime has been shown.

its just democrat lawfare abusing the justice system

it is however backfiring on them

too many people have been mistreated by the law and can relate to what is going on…yo

So, according to you, it would have been fine for Bill Clinton to have used funds, raised by the democratic party for political uses, to have used 130.000 dollars to pay off, say an intern, after a blow job, to keep her quiet?