But they know Trump is innocent!They do not seem to even have an elementary understanding of the criminal justice system.
But they know Trump is innocent!They do not seem to even have an elementary understanding of the criminal justice system.
You triggered me to laugh my ass off!Wow, I really hit a nerve, look at all those I triggered.
(Cue unrelated personal attacks)
I don't KNOW if he's "innocent", I KNOW that I don't care either way.But they know Trump is innocent!
Wow, fascinating.I don't KNOW if he's "innocent", I KNOW that I don't care either way.
For you idiots,So you Trumppers can stop asking!
In NY a GJ charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records. All felonies.
Stop pretending that he was not charged with a crime, you are making fools of yourselves.
175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175
§ 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.
“Previous, connected?” Where did you get that wording?For you idiots,
For it to be a felony there has to have been a previous, connected, crime that can be pointed to making it a felony. Without that other crime, it is a misdemeanor and that makes Bragg's case moot since the statute of limitations on that version has long passed.
From NY's statute:“Previous, connected?” Where did you get that wording?
The statute says… “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Exactly. That’s what Trump did. He faked a business record to avoid having to file the truth with the FEC, as would have been required if the records were accurate.From NY's statute:
...a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,...
correctExactly. That’s what Trump did. He faked a business record to avoid having to file the truth with the FEC, as would have been required if the records were accurate.
Trump called the payments to stormy “attorney fees” instead of “payment to Stormy” to get away with the crime not disclosing the payment. - thus it was a felony.
Then why was an FEC expert on federal election law that was going to testify that Trump broke no federal election laws barred from testimony by the judge?Exactly. That’s what Trump did. He faked a business record to avoid having to file the truth with the FEC, as would have been required if the records were accurate.
Trump called the payments to stormy “attorney fees” instead of “payment to Stormy” to get away with the crime not disclosing the payment. - thus it was a felony.
That’s for the jury to decide, not some paid expert. You’re being silly, and do not understand the rules of evidence.Then why was an FEC expert on federal election law that was going to testify that Trump broke no federal election laws barred from testimony by the judge?
The jury cannot convict on "suggested possible crimes".That’s for the jury to decide, not some paid expert. You’re being silly, and do not understand the rules of evidence.
Trump did not have to break a federal law for this case to be a felony. He only had to intend to break or conceal a law.Then why was an FEC expert on federal election law that was going to testify that Trump broke no federal election laws barred from testimony by the judge?
You cannot seem to comprehend the difference between the law he is charged with, and the fact that attempting to break a different law in the process or attempting to conceal a different law in the process, makes the original charge a felony. He does not have to be convicted of secondary crime.The jury cannot convict on "suggested possible crimes".
Which law did he break or conceal? Why wasn't he charged for doing that?Trump did not have to break a federal law for this case to be a felony. He only had to intend to break or conceal a law.
He failed at breaking and concealing the FEC laws, but he clearly attempted to break them.Which law did he break or conceal? Why wasn't he charged for doing that?
If you break into someone’s home with the intent to hide evidence that you committed bank fraud, but were unable to find the documents…. You still committed burglary, not breaking and entering.The jury cannot convict on "suggested possible crimes".
Then why was an FEC expert going to testify that Trump broke no campaign finance laws until the judge ruled the defense couldn't use him for that?He failed at breaking and concealing the FEC laws, but he clearly attempted to break them.
Burglary requires you take things not leave them. Breaking and entering is the act of getting inside through a barrier.If you break into someone’s home with the intent to hide evidence that you committed bank fraud, but were unable to find the documents…. You still committed burglary, not breaking and entering.
The other crime does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in fact does not even have to have been committed.intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.