It does require proving a crime was committed. Where's the proof?
Three ways for the Jury to convict Trump
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
It does require proving a crime was committed. Where's the proof?
Wrong case. You're not very smart or educated. Probably why you support Democrats.
How was it an illegal campaign contribution? The FEC says you're lying.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you are confused about the lib'rul agenda........NY is still working on becoming Venezuela.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I hope the judge remembers that before he gives the jury instructions, since he is preparing to let the jury do just that.......
If there were no election law violations then why was there a conviction for an election law violation? When someone is convicted of a crime it is a legal ruling that the crime was convicted. Michael Cohen was convicted of 2 counts that were election law violations. Your refusal to accept the judicial rulings speaks volumes about you. Why do you hate the US?
You seem confused about how the law works. Have you had a cognitive test to see if you have dementia?
Why are you arguing that the judge should not follow the law but should instead make up things that aren't in the law like you are attempting to do?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no.....I am arguing he should NOT disregard the law like it appears he intends to......
When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg first brought charges against Donald Trump in March 2023, the legal theory behind the indictment remained remarkably unclear. Bragg had charged Trump under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree. The falsification of business records alone is a misdemeanor under § 175.05—but Bragg had boosted the charge to a felony by alleging that Trump fudged the records with the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But what other crime? The indictment didn’t say.
Now, a year later, with the trial finally underway, Bragg’s legal theory has come into focus—if you know where to look. The charges against Trump still have an oddly inchoate quality, thanks to Bragg’s decision to charge § 175.10 without also charging alongside it the offense that elevated the alleged business records violation to a felony.
What part of the law is the judge disregarding? Let's see if you can tell us that, cuntselor [sic].
The FEC doesn't charge anyone with crimes. The DOJ does. The DOJ charged and convicted Cohen with the crime of making an illegal campaign contribution for the payment to Stormy Daniels. The DOJ charged and convicted Michael Cohen for causing an illegal campaign contribution by a corporation for his use of an LLC to pay Stormy Daniels. Anyone that claims there was no illegal campaign contribution is an idiot since it is a fact that was adjudicated in a court of law and found to be true. The FEC doesn't say I am lying. You are lying about what the FEC does. But lying seems to be what you do, Poopiehead.
The indictment doesn't have to give all the details.
It is in the court of law where the all the facts matter. The prosecutor has listed 3 crimes that Trump could be covering up with the falsified records.
One little fact you seem to be missing is that the law allows for a felony even if the other crime was never committed.
It's funny how your quote from the law is not accurate. The law states -
"and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."
The intent to commit would mean the crime doesn't need to be completed. You replaced the word or with the word and which has a much different meaning in the English language and in the law.
We are left to wonder why you are misrepresenting the law. Is it because you know that under the actual law Trump is guilty.
If you are going to appear credible, Grok, maybe you shouldn't plagiarize the work of others.
Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump
The mechanics of the case as District Attorney Alvin Bragg is prosecuting it.
www.lawfaremedia.org
"In his filing, Bragg sets out four potential object offenses: violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; violations of federal, local, and state tax law; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. Merchan allowed Bragg to move forward with the first three theories but tossed out the last one. "
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hopefully, the judge's instructions to the jury will include that.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Yeah, but not all potential DJT voters are in the bag for him. Some will draw the line at the idea of voting for a felon.
What conviction?
Wrong. A" Crime was convicted"? How retarded are you?
One also has a right to appeal erroneous rulings.
It doesn't matter what Cohen was convicted of, there was no evidence Trump committed any election law violations and ALL election law violations are usually fines, not felonies.
In fact, the FEC stated there were no violations and did not take the case up. Hillary, on the other hand, got a slap on the wrist and $8K fine for the fraudulent and costly Steel Dossier scam you leftist fools all fell for.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
But shooting a puppy, no. That's where the line seems to be drawn.
You seem ignorant of how the law is supposed to work. MSNBC viewer no doubt.
Merchan isn't following the law and is making things up. I wish you had a brain.
What part of the law is he following?? First off, the case should have been dismissed based on a lack of merit and evidence. Secondly; allowing prejudicial testimony that had nothing to do with evidence. Thirdly, suborned perjury by allowing testimony from a witness the DA knew was based on a lie. Third; not allowing the defense to know what the actual crime being charged is. We still don't know. Fourth; not allowing thje defense to have a professional FEC witness testify. Fifth; Shutting down a professional witness with testimony that refuted the prosecution's star witness and emptying the courtroom in a childish fit of rage and anger. Sixth; allowing the jury to go home before reading the jury instructions and sequestering them until they came up with a verdict, rather than let them go home for five days with the risk of tainting their decision. Lastly; the judge should have recused based on the simple fact that his daughter is a DNC operative making millions in contributions from this case.
There are probably many more, but these are the most egregious. If the jury is biased enough to come up with some ridiculous guilty verdict, the appeals court will reverse it and shame the moron of a judge who presided over this clown show.