Bragg has still not specified the underlying crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors.

[bigrebnc1775]

Cohen filed false taxes as a result of the money laundering to him.

Cohen also committed campaign finance fraud by making a campaign donation in the form of the NDA payment.

The state laws forbid corrupt electioneering, which they argue was the purpose of hiding the payment.

These are the object crimes and they are all very much actual crimes.

But Bragg doesn’t have to prove any of this conduct actually occurred. All he has to do is prove that the purpose of falsifying the business records was to facilitate their intent to commit these crimes.

I dont know why they’d to to the trouble of trying to cover up an NDA otherwise.

Cohen did what he did on his own

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only that the records were falsified with the intent to cover up another crime. That's the law.

You do know falsifying records is a misdemeanor with a statute of limitation of 2 years
Now what other crime was trump trying to cover up that made it a felony.

 

[Marener]

And I told you that you were wrong. Do you know what specific crime means according to the law

Where does the law say that a specific crime has to be stated?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where does the law say that a specific crime has to be stated?

S 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.

 

[Marener]

S 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.

So you proved it doesn’t say that at all.

 

[GMCGeneral]

You had no point

Sure he did. It's just on the top of his head.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you proved it doesn’t say that at all.

There must be a secondary crime with the intent to conceal that crime. You've yet to prove a second crime

 

[Marener]

There must be a secondary crime with the intent to conceal that crime. You've yet to prove a second crime

You don't have to prove the secondary crime. The law states intent.

"when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't have to prove the secondary crime. The law states intent.

"when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"

Yes you must prove their was a secondary crime with the intent to cover it up for it to be a felony

 

[SweetSue92]

So you proved it doesn’t say that at all.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

Heard of it?

Sixth Amendment​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[JoeMoma]

I just read through this thread. Let's for the moment assume Marener is correct. There are probably a million more people in NY that could be prosecuted and convicted under this same scenario if put under a microscope like Trump has.

Step 1. Find an expense listed in their accounting books and allege it was not named correctly to cover up a crime. Perhaps something listed as a "legal expense" that a lawyer handled. Could be almost anything given a vague catch-all type of label in the accounting books.
Step 2. Prosecute the person for falsification of business records to cover up some other intended crime. The jury can pick from a list of possible crimes that the person has never been convicted of. The jurors simply need to determine that the person intended to commit a crime, no need for the jurors to agree on what specifically that crime is.

Show me the man and I will show you the crime!

 

[hadit]

Where does the law say that a specific crime has to be stated?

And that's where this whole thing can be legally correct and politically a disaster. They may well be within the law to not specify what "crime" is being covered up, but people understand fairness, and if they do not state a clear crime, they run the very real risk of making this whole thing more a political persecution than about justice.

 

[Samofvt]

You don't have to prove the secondary crime. The law states intent.

"when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"

you lost me. Exactly what is the secondary crime? Assuming there was a crime in declaring a payment to pay a legal document as a legal expense (what would you call such an expense?) spin spin spin

no deception or even misdemeanor in calling a payment to cover a leagally oblicaged expense a legal expense.

As for the secondary crime...I it was one of the three you listed, I need to know what crime I am being tried on before I can mount a defense.

This is written in the Adopted Amendments to the constitution of the united states of america:

Amendment VI: In all criminal procecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherin the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,

and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations;

...

But to heck with the bill of rights. we don't need no stinking rights.

Look, folks. The constitution has been violated in MANY places. There is no clause in the constitution of the usa (amended by the bill of rights) that says "all is well even if one of these provisions is violated". No. It means since one (or several, in this case) clause has been violated, it means that all federal jurisdiction ENDS IMMEDIATELY. All federal power dissolves, and it is up to the people. Every man, woman, and child for themselves.

God bless you all.