BidenPresident
Verified User
You are correct.
Bragg Fails to Cite UNDERLYING FELONY that is the Entire Basis of His Case
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
You are correct.
ExpressLane
Verified User
You are lying again Barfly
ExpressLane
Verified User
If the was no felony there was no crime. So there was no intent to cover up a non crime.
Does anyone know who Confart is ranting about
He is probably pissed the last Uber Eats client stiffed him for the tip. Maybe the customer was pissed a meth head showed up on his door after eating half his order.
Last edited:
Wrong stupidfuck, as usual.
There HAS TO BE A CRIME, TO HAVE INTENT TO COVER IT UP, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.
serendipity
Verified User
In New York, are fucking serious?
serendipity
Verified User
Barbender Effete and Joe Crapitalist, JPP's very own Laurel and Hardy.
ExpressLane
Verified User
BarbenderElite once told me he had never lied on this forum.
He is always good for a laugh. Yep, that’s the jurisdiction all right.
Put one in the win column for a correct guess.
serendipity
Verified User
Are you Bragging again?
Indeed!
floridafan
Verified User
I would bet any amount of cash that you have read nothing, as usual!
Desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you cannot find the underlying crime, anywhere in the ridiculous, "pseudo- indictment":, duly noted.
Read it ALL, as usual. No underlying crime named, just implications. UTTER NONSENSE.
floridafan
Verified User
If believing that crap makes you sleep better at night, go for it. But cant you be original, I read the exact same thing on 2 right wing web sites. But you can copy and paste.
What Are the Specifics?
Another weakness is that the indictments are overly broad and general. One of Trump’s attorneys, Joe Tacopina, told Fox News “What really wasn't expected is that they were going to hand down an indictment without specifying what these alleged underlying crimes were. It's shocking to me that a state prosecutor would try and prosecute something as thin as this.”
Are These Charges Felonies?
Plus, the indictment is not clear on one of the most important aspects of whether the charges should be felonies instead of misdemeanors. The law Trump allegedly broke, is a misdemeanor based on falsifying business records, but it can be considered a felony if it is associated with another crime. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial skeptical of whether the second crime was committed.
“Where is the second crime?” The Journal asked. The district attorney Alvin Bragg “owes the public a better explanation of his theory of the case. His unclear and evasive reply Tuesday isn't helping his cause.”
Trump could also make the legal defense that he was trying to keep the extramarital affairs private so his wife would not find out and that he had no criminal intent to defraud or break any laws. Bragg, alternatively, wants to show that the misdemeanors were made to cover up a more serious crime.
Bragg is trying to say that Trump falsified records and this led to him violating New York election law “which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.” The problem with that accusation is that it is not in the indictment. This was a quote from Bragg after he made a statement after the arraignment. That means that Trump could potentially only be prosecuted for misdemeanors.
Vox writer Ian Millhiser pointed out that “there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct.”
Thus, since the indictment is unclear on the second crime, and if convicted based on this statute, Trump could appeal it to the Supreme Court.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...1&cvid=886762ef4946413487c2ff3ff17c43f3&ei=19
Another weakness is that the indictments are overly broad and general. One of Trump’s attorneys, Joe Tacopina, told Fox News “What really wasn't expected is that they were going to hand down an indictment without specifying what these alleged underlying crimes were. It's shocking to me that a state prosecutor would try and prosecute something as thin as this.”
Are These Charges Felonies?
Plus, the indictment is not clear on one of the most important aspects of whether the charges should be felonies instead of misdemeanors. The law Trump allegedly broke, is a misdemeanor based on falsifying business records, but it can be considered a felony if it is associated with another crime. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial skeptical of whether the second crime was committed.
“Where is the second crime?” The Journal asked. The district attorney Alvin Bragg “owes the public a better explanation of his theory of the case. His unclear and evasive reply Tuesday isn't helping his cause.”
Trump could also make the legal defense that he was trying to keep the extramarital affairs private so his wife would not find out and that he had no criminal intent to defraud or break any laws. Bragg, alternatively, wants to show that the misdemeanors were made to cover up a more serious crime.
Bragg is trying to say that Trump falsified records and this led to him violating New York election law “which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.” The problem with that accusation is that it is not in the indictment. This was a quote from Bragg after he made a statement after the arraignment. That means that Trump could potentially only be prosecuted for misdemeanors.
Vox writer Ian Millhiser pointed out that “there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct.”
Thus, since the indictment is unclear on the second crime, and if convicted based on this statute, Trump could appeal it to the Supreme Court.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...1&cvid=886762ef4946413487c2ff3ff17c43f3&ei=19
Then link us to the "right wing" web sites that you claim I took this from.
People everywhere are waking up to it.
Now you're just lying again, desperately hoping no one will notice that you have utterly failed to prove that Bragg has an underlying crime to tie the indictments to.
When?
So fucking what u stupid commie POS
The grand jury will indict about anything and everything has for 100 plus years u stupid fuck....means nothing
Grand Juries Often Return an Indictment
In part because there's no one on the "other side" to contest the prosecutor's evidence, grand juries almost always return an indictment as requested by the prosecutor.
According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, "Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps' for the prosecutor
Last edited:
ExpressLane
Verified User
I wonder if the former Chaiman of the FEC nominated by Bill Clinton ,Bradley Smith , will testify for the defense. He said the payment to Stormy the Ho Daniels was not a campaign finance law violation.
He’s not on the jury!