Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
So you assumed they were Democrats
Trump to get special treatment.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
So you assumed they were Democrats
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
Assumption
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
The grand jury indicted because of the evidence
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
Here is the indictment, in plain English;
Nonsense
Um, it’s his hometown.
Once you post the names of the 19 who voted to indict, I'll look them up.
Fact.
A white person in front of a jury in New York city in 2023 is no different than a Jew in front of a jury in Berlin in 1942.
The indictment is purely based on politics. You can't even say what the alleged "crime" was. In order for Soros to claim "falsifying business records" is a felony act - it has to be to conceal or commit a separate criminal act. What is that crime? You can't say - no one can.
Oh, but we all know, the crime is running against Joe Biden for president.
This is some third world shit the Nazi party is pulling.
The alleged crime was 175.10
WRONG.
I'm starting to doubt you are an attorney.
In order for 175.10 to be a felony - it must have;
{intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, }
WHAT other crime?
You can't answer - Soros can't answer - his little dog Bragg hasn't fabricated the alleged "other crime" yet. HENCE the dishonorable Judge Juan Merchan had a DUTY to throw the case out as unsupported - black letter law. But he didn't - because this is NOT a legitimate legal proceeding, it is a political witch hunt, as we ALL know it.
The crime Trump is charged with is 175.10, an element of that crime is that he tried to conceal a different crime. That different crime does not have to be one specific crime… there are several possibilities and More might develop as the case progresses. Bragg would be a fool to pick one specific crime at this time.
Bragg has said there are at least four. Federal election law, state election law, federal tax law and state tax law. There is another one having to do with recording of documents in a public company. Bragg will likely prove all f them and tell the jury just that.
Let me give you an example, in Florida. It is a crime to commit a felony, while in the possession of a firearm. When someone is charged with committing a crime, while in the possession of a firearm, the indictment never specifies a specific firearm. The reason the indictment does not specify a specific firearm is because the defendant may come to court and say I never owned a 357 magnum. I did own a Ruger, but you charge me with having a 357 and therefore because you did not prove what you alleged in the indictment, the judge must throw the case out. If you were indictment gives specifics, you are limited to those specifics, even if different facts come out before the trial.
Last edited:
Sorry that you have so little grasp of how the law works.
175.10 cannot stand on it's own.
Oh? What crime was that?
ROFL
Nazi thinking there - the accused will learn what his is guilty of AFTER sentencing.
In order to bring charges that one possessed a firearm while committing a felony - the prosecutor must point to what felony was committed - they can't pull a Bragg and ask that a person be convicted and imprisoned for having a gun while committing a felony, but when asked "what felony" say "nah nah, I'm not gunna tell you.."
You're no attorney.
I'm a Logistician, and I have far greater grasp of the judicial system than you. I've had a lot of business law classes, but never have I taken a criminal law class. And I still have far greater knowledge of the subject than you...