because no one else has.....the indictment...

QP! said:
Watch the video dude as Bragg explains the two areas of law (statutes) that were broken.

Why would you want me to paraphrase what the D.A says for himself? IS it because you need help with the big words?
Click to expand...

He never names what crime or states it mental case. Without a crime, those charges are pointless. Much like the posts you make here. :palm:
 
Here is some unfortunate evidence from Braggs star witnesses that destroys Braggs case and his moronic narrative:

NYPICHPDPICT000008634031.jpg


https://dam.tmz.com/document/4c/o/2018/12/25/4c9959d4e1725062a54030b72a10a3f0.pdf


Case dismissed.
 
Jarod said:
No requirement that they be listed in the indictment.
Click to expand...

Again, halfwit misses the point; you don't make a historic indictment of a former President and then refuse to name the crimes associated with your lunatic claims.

You really are the definition of a halfwit.

Jarod said:
We will see testimony about what type of an owner Trump was.
Click to expand...

Why is that even relevant. What we will hear is Cohen stating that he was acting on his own without Trumps authority in the payment and execution of the NDA. We will also see the official statement signed by Daniels stating they never had an affair.

It's going to be real hard for Bragg and his star witnesses, known liars, to walk that one back halfwit.

Jarod said:
You believe it was a “billion dollar empire”? You really fell for him hard didn’t you.
Click to expand...

You have evidence he isn't worth a billion? Are you really that uninformed and clueless? That was rhetorical.

Yep, Trump is so poor he flew in his Boeing 757 to New York and back. I mean, everyone has a Boeing 757 as a private jet, right halfwit?

You tards on the left are not merely the most gullible, but the most stupid people on the planet. :palm:
 
Jarod said:
I’m sure he hopes they don’t take him seriously, it will make the trial easier.
Click to expand...

It's not just Trump. It's everyone else with a brain. Here's some legal scholar's statements on this sham indictment:

Jonathan Turley:

The first indictment of a former American president was a historical moment and Bragg failed to rise to that moment.

Bragg released an indictment that was so vague on key elements that it is unclear what the grand jury thought it was voting on. He vaguely referenced state and federal election laws and later refused to add any details on how they relate to the prosecution.

The result is an indictment with the substance of a legal Slurpee: it was immediately satisfying for many with virtually no legal substance.

Bragg solved the problem over his uncertain authority by avoiding any specificity on that authority. He could have put “details to follow” in the caption of the indictment.

Alan Dershowitz:

“In 60 years of practice, this is the worst case of prosecutorial abuse I have ever seen,”

“In order to turn the state statute into a felony, you have to borrow a federal statute,”

“Nobody should ever be arrested based on made-up laws or combining a federal and state statute,”

“In Bragg’s case, what they’re trying to do is add one and one, and come up with 11. No rational person would look at these two statutes and say that Trump violated them,”

“Thomas Jefferson once put it very nicely: For a criminal statute to be constitutional, the average person has to be able to understand it if he reads it while running.”
 
Truth Detector said:
It's not just Trump. It's everyone else with a brain. Here's some legal scholar's statements on this sham indictment:

Jonathan Turley:

The first indictment of a former American president was a historical moment and Bragg failed to rise to that moment.

Bragg released an indictment that was so vague on key elements that it is unclear what the grand jury thought it was voting on. He vaguely referenced state and federal election laws and later refused to add any details on how they relate to the prosecution.

The result is an indictment with the substance of a legal Slurpee: it was immediately satisfying for many with virtually no legal substance.

Bragg solved the problem over his uncertain authority by avoiding any specificity on that authority. He could have put “details to follow” in the caption of the indictment.

Alan Dershowitz:

“In 60 years of practice, this is the worst case of prosecutorial abuse I have ever seen,”

“In order to turn the state statute into a felony, you have to borrow a federal statute,”

“Nobody should ever be arrested based on made-up laws or combining a federal and state statute,”

“In Bragg’s case, what they’re trying to do is add one and one, and come up with 11. No rational person would look at these two statutes and say that Trump violated them,”

“Thomas Jefferson once put it very nicely: For a criminal statute to be constitutional, the average person has to be able to understand it if he reads it while running.”
Click to expand...

Opinions are like assholes.

The goal is a conviction and the best way to get one is to be as vague in the Complaint as legally possible. He’s not trying to win public opinion, he’s trying to get a conviction.

Have you read the criminal statute Trump is accused of violating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top