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

[bigrebnc1775]

All they have to prove is he intended to commit a “secondary crime”.

Bragg must state which crime that was

 

[Marener]

You suggested
Three possibilities.

Federal campaign finance violation

Yes.

Those possibilities are not being charged and do not need to be charged.

Or even proven.

 

[Marener]

Bragg must state which crime that was

And he gave three possible underlying crimes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes.

Those possibilities are not being charged and do not need to be charged.

Or even proven.

No jurisdiction

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And he gave three possible underlying crimes.

No jurisdiction

 

[Marener]

No jurisdiction

That would be relevant if it were being charged and prosecuted.

But its not.

This doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That would be relevant if it were being charged and prosecuted.

But its not.

This doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

No secondary charges was identified
How is the jury going to get it's instructions?
You're right it's not sinking in for you. You fucking incompetent leftist

 

[Marener]

No secondary charges was identified
How is the jury going to get it's instructions?
You're right it's not sinking in for you. You fucking incompetent leftist

The object crime does not need to be charged.

There is binding precedent on this issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The object crime does not need to be charged.

There is binding precedent on this issue.

Yes it does. The jury have to be given instructions

 

[Marener]

Yes it does. The jury have to be given instructions

The instructions merely state what the law is.

If they think Trump intended to violate another law, it’s a felony.

The jury decides the facts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The instructions merely state what the law is.

If they think Trump intended to violate another law, it’s a felony.

The jury decides the facts.

Wrong

 

[Marener]

Wrong

Nope. Read the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. Read the law.

Again no underlying crime has been shown
That would make it a felony
Or have you forgotten that part of the law?

 

[two_iron]

That would be relevant if it were being charged and prosecuted.

But its not.

This doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

Do you ever wonder why your dog shits on the floor while making full eye contact with you?

It's because it's smarter than you. Don't ever mistreat that dog.

 

[IM2]

Despite the claims of many here, there has been no specified crime, a lot of convoluted theories, but nothing specific. And the judge doesn’t see a problem with this.

No way this isn’t overturned once it gets in front of real judges on appeal.

Prosecutors are still hedging on exactly what 'crime' Trump tried to 'aid' or 'conceal'

The judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.

reason.com

Wrong. Bragg stated the crimes in his press conference announcing the indictments. Go look for it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong. Bragg stated the crimes in his press conference announcing the indictments. Go look for it.

No he never did. He never stated the crime committed that made a misdemeanor that has its statute of limitation that have run out into a felony.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They have to state one, and prove it. Hypotheticals don’t fly in real courtrooms.

When will Bragg point out the law that gave life to a misdemeanor with expired statute of limitation and, made it into a felony?

 

[Marener]

Again no underlying crime has been shown
That would make it a felony
Or have you forgotten that part of the law?

They only need to prove Trump intended to commit an underlying crime.

Read the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They only need to prove Trump intended to commit an underlying crime.

Read the law.

Yes they do to make the crime a felony. What happen to the statute of limitation?

 

[Marener]

Yes they do to make the crime a felony. What happen to the statute of limitation?

Nope. Not according to binding precedent and the plain language of the law.