For you idiots, the alleged crimes!

T. A. Gardner said:
The way the NY law works is you have to have committed an underlying crime to be charged with a felony for cooking the books.
Click to expand...
It absolutely does not. It says you have to have intent to commit or cover up a crime. Intent is different than actually doing it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Back to claiming a thought crime is sufficient, are you? What crime got covered up?
Click to expand...
Yakuda said:
How does one attempt to conceal something they didn't do?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is not hard to follow if you are not a stupid person but i understand that leaves you two in a bind.

Here is the example again to help you understand.

- Trespassing is a misdeamenor
- trespassing with tools for Break and Enter, with Handcuffs and a gun can and will be prosecuted at a felony even though you never completed any subsequent crime.


You read that and your head spins. You wonder how that is possible and deny the truth of it. That is because you are stupid.

The law allows the Prosecutor to increase the charge to a felony based on an argument they were there to do any of 'Rob the home', 'kidnap or rape or murder the home owners', or 'other'. and the prosecutor DOES NOT have to say or PROVE which one they were to do.

The Jury is allowed to consider them ALL or any one of them and each juror DOES NOT have to believe the same one is the underlying crime.

Again, because you are stupid, you will deny the above is HOW THE LAW WORKS, but it is EXACTLY how the law works. A high bar to get the jury to assume, with no proof, but if they do believe beyond a reasonable doubt, he was there to do more than trespass they can convict on the felony.

(now show us your comprehension level and that you again fail to comprehend the above)
 
Walt said:
Notice that you are not even trying to deny that trump falsified business records.
Click to expand...
I personally don't think Trump is guilty of any of that bullshit and that this is a show trial, just like the one James held. If I were some rich business type and had anything going in NY state, I'd be working damn hard to end it and get the hell out cutting all ties worried I might be next for a show trial.
 
QP! said:
This is not hard to follow if you are not a stupid person but i understand that leaves you two in a bind.

Here is the example again to help you understand.

- Trespassing is a misdeamenor
- trespassing with tools for Break and Enter, with Handcuffs and a gun can and will be prosecuted at a felony even though you never completed any subsequent crime.


You read that and your head spins. You wonder how that is possible and deny the truth of it. That is because you are stupid.

The law allows the Prosecutor to increase the charge to a felony based on an argument they were there to do any of 'Rob the home', 'kidnap or rape or murder the home owners', or 'other'. and the prosecutor DOES NOT have to say or PROVE which one they were to do.

The Jury is allowed to consider them ALL or any one of them and each juror DOES NOT have to believe the same one is the underlying crime.

Again, because you are stupid, you will deny the above is HOW THE LAW WORKS, but it is EXACTLY how the law works. A high bar to get the jury to assume, with no proof, but if they do believe beyond a reasonable doubt, he was there to do more than trespass they can convict on the felony.

(now show us your comprehension level and that you again fail to comprehend the above)
Click to expand...
Shitty example.

To fix your example, would be more like... A person breaks into your home and robs the place. They then try to cover up their crime in various ways.

In Bragg's case what he's claiming is Trump committed some unspecified crime (the breaking and robbing above) and is being charged for covering it up without ever specifying what crime Trump committed to be covered up.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Shitty example.

To fix your example, would be more like... A person breaks into your home and robs the place. They then try to cover up their crime in various ways.

In Bragg's case what he's claiming is Trump committed some unspecified crime (the breaking and robbing above) and is being charged for covering it up without ever specifying what crime Trump committed to be covered up.
Click to expand...
No. the example is perfect. You are just too stupid to understand it, as expected.

Bragg is claiming Trump did a misdemeanor (trespassing or filing false documents) that was tied to a secondary crime he does not have to isolate or disclose (robbery, rape, murder, election interference, etc)

In BOTH instances we have an underlying misdemeanor that can be elevated to a felony based on the secondary crime not being completed and the jury not even having to agree what it is.

Was he there to murder, rape, rob? The jury will not know and the Prosecutor will not argue that. The jury just has to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt he was going to do one of them.
 
QP! said:
No. the example is perfect. You are just too stupid to understand it, as expected.

Bragg is claiming Trump did a misdemeanor (trespassing or filing false documents) that was tied to a secondary crime he does not have to isolate or disclose (robbery, rape, murder, election interference, etc)

In BOTH instances we have an underlying misdemeanor that can be elevated to a felony based on the secondary crime not being completed and the jury not even having to agree what it is.

Was he there to murder, rape, rob? The jury will not know and the Prosecutor will not argue that. The jury just has to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt he was going to do one of them.
Click to expand...
You really are stupid.

Bragg has to show what underlying crime is committed. He can't simply claim one was without specifying what it was. To do so is nothing short of the worst sort of "secret" charge brought by the likes of Stalinist dictatorships against political opponents. You are arguing in essence, like Bragg, Oh! Trump committed some other crimes and then tried to cover them up with phony bookkeeping entries! That's a felony!

What other crime was committed? Or are you going to continue with the claim it's fine if that crime remains a secret line of reasoning?
 
Walt said:
That is not what the law says. It says that there needs to be an "intent", not that intent needs to be successful.
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY what the law says. It's been posted a dozen times, even foolishly by your fellow Stalinists who don't grasp the English language.
 
QP! said:
No. the example is perfect. You are just too stupid to understand it, as expected.

Bragg is claiming Trump did a misdemeanor (trespassing or filing false documents) that was tied to a secondary crime he does not have to isolate or disclose (robbery, rape, murder, election interference, etc)

In BOTH instances we have an underlying misdemeanor that can be elevated to a felony based on the secondary crime not being completed and the jury not even having to agree what it is.

Was he there to murder, rape, rob? The jury will not know and the Prosecutor will not argue that. The jury just has to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt he was going to do one of them.
Click to expand...

You are utterly insane.

You actually want a world where the party can convict enemies without so much as stating the alleged crime they supposedly committed?

In your world, anyone can be nabbed off the street, convicted - sent to prison or executed - and the party prosecutor need not prove the person committed a crime, or even state what crime.

Comrade @Jarod - what say you?

Do you agree with your fellow Third World Stalinist that { he does not have to isolate or disclose (robbery, rape, murder, election interference, etc)}? An accusation, however vague from a party member is all that is needed to imprison or execute enemies of the party?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You really are stupid.

Bragg has to show what underlying crime is committed. He can't simply claim one was without specifying what it was. To do so is nothing short of the worst sort of "secret" charge brought by the likes of Stalinist dictatorships against political opponents. You are arguing in essence, like Bragg, Oh! Trump committed some other crimes and then tried to cover them up with phony bookkeeping entries! That's a felony!

What other crime was committed? Or are you going to continue with the claim it's fine if that crime remains a secret line of reasoning?
Click to expand...
You are just factually wrong.

Oh and i did i tell you... stupid.

The Judge has addressed the second crime in the same way i explain above with the Trespass example...

...
To convict Trump, Merchan told the jury they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing another crime.

What’s being distorted by some online is the judge’s instruction about how to reach a verdict about that second element.

Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means”: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously which it was....
.
cite
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You really are stupid.

Bragg has to show what underlying crime is committed. He can't simply claim one was without specifying what it was. To do so is nothing short of the worst sort of "secret" charge brought by the likes of Stalinist dictatorships against political opponents. You are arguing in essence, like Bragg, Oh! Trump committed some other crimes and then tried to cover them up with phony bookkeeping entries! That's a felony!

What other crime was committed? Or are you going to continue with the claim it's fine if that crime remains a secret line of reasoning?
Click to expand...

If you wonder how the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge or the Cultural Revolution came about, these hate filled Stalinists like KEWPEE are the answer.

Absolutely chilling to think any person in America, no matter how insane, could advocate the arrest and conviction of people without so much as charging a crime.
 
Walt said:
It absolutely does not. It says you have to have intent to commit or cover up a crime. Intent is different than actually doing it.
Click to expand...

Prove it, Comrade?

Under American Jurisprudence - which is no longer practiced in the third world dictatorship that is the banana republic of New York, but under LEGITIMATE law, allegations must be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
 
QP! said:
This is not hard to follow if you are not a stupid person but i understand that leaves you two in a bind.

Here is the example again to help you understand.

- Trespassing is a misdeamenor
- trespassing with tools for Break and Enter, with Handcuffs and a gun can and will be prosecuted at a felony even though you never completed any subsequent crime.
Click to expand...
False equivalence fallacy.
It is not a crime to carry tools.
It is not a crime to carry handcuffs.
It is not a crime to carry a gun.

Trump never trespassed.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You really are stupid.

Bragg has to show what underlying crime is committed.
Click to expand...

Only if this were a court of law. It isn't, it's a lynching. Trump is an enemy of the party - no other facts or evidence are needed..

T. A. Gardner said:
He can't simply claim one was without specifying what it was. To do so is nothing short of the worst sort of "secret" charge brought by the likes of Stalinist dictatorships against political opponents. You are arguing in essence, like Bragg, Oh! Trump committed some other crimes and then tried to cover them up with phony bookkeeping entries! That's a felony!

What other crime was committed? Or are you going to continue with the claim it's fine if that crime remains a secret line of reasoning?
Click to expand...

Merchan will instruct the jury that the reelection of Joe Biden depends on convicting his opponent, Donald Trump; therefore they MUST convict.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Prove it, Comrade?

Under American Jurisprudence - which is no longer practiced in the third world dictatorship that is the banana republic of New York, but under LEGITIMATE law, allegations must be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Click to expand...
New York is no longer a State of the Union. It no longer recognizes the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of New York.

It's current form of government is oligarchy. I call it the SOTNY now (The Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of New York). It is not a republic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top