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

[Leo123]

No, it’s not almost impossible and is necessary to prosecute many crimes. If it were almost impossible, tons of criminals would go free.

Your conflation is noted.

 

[Marener]

Reasonable doubt is the standard.

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for civil infractions - like the wrong entry on books. But that’s a misdemeanor, and Trump is not being charged with that. The statute of limitations has run out.

You missed the point. They don’t have to prove the object crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to prove intent to commit an object crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Marener]

Lotta leftists on this site willing to believe in North Korea tactics if it means it will hurt Trump, and keep him off the campaign trail.

Don’t be such a drama queen.

Your lack of understanding about the issues is your own fault. Resorting to absurd rhetoric is a sign of weakness.

 

[Lisa558]

You missed the point. They don’t have to prove the object crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to prove intent to commit an object crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow. So if I have a knife and am thinking of stabbing someone, but I didn’t, I can be charged because I INTENDED to? People are punished for INTENT for a crime they didn’t commit?

And even more than that, in this case the object crime isn’t a crime at all: violation of election law did not occur. The judge lied when he told the jury it did.

 

[para bellum]

You missed the point. They don’t have to prove the object crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to prove intent to commit an object crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well they have to prove the object crime is really a crime, and giving the jury a smorgasbord of crimes to choose from is not really making the case.

It's asking the jury to come up with the object crime- that's the prosecutor's job...

 

[Marener]

Well they have to prove the object crime is really a crime, and giving the jury a smorgasbord of crimes to choose from is not really making the case.

It's asking the jury to come up with the object crime- that's the prosecutor's job...

They’re not prosecuting the object crime. All they have to prove is that Trump intended to commit another crime.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only regarding a comment made by someone in the courtroom. That happens every day in the trial.

The comment by Blanche was probably uncalled for, but the prosecution has gotten away with a lot worse, so oh well, haha.

It was uncalled for if you're thinned skinned or a leftists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They’re not prosecuting the object crime. All they have to prove is that Trump intended to commit another crime.

Bragg must prove a crime was committed to cover up another crime. Thats the law

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it’s not almost impossible and is necessary to prosecute many crimes. If it were almost impossible, tons of criminals would go free.

Numbnuts we've had the intent discussion before. You argued Hillary didn't intend to hide anything.

 

[Lisa558]

They’re not prosecuting the object crime. All they have to prove is that Trump intended to commit another crime.

What they call the other crime isn’t a crime. He violated no election laws.

And this judge knows there is no evidence of the non-crime, so now he’s allowing the anti-Trump jury to convict based on if they decide he intended to do something that wasn’t a crime in the first place.

Everyone but the deluded Left sees this for what it is.

 

[Marener]

What they call the other crime isn’t a crime. He violated no election laws.

And this judge knows there is no evidence of the non-crime, so now he’s allowing the anti-Trump jury to convict based on if they decide he intended to do something that wasn’t a crime in the first place.

Everyone but the deluded Left sees this for what it is.

You are very welcome to your opinion about election laws, but as stated, Michael Cohen was already prosecuted for this very election law violation.

 

[Marener]

Bragg must prove a crime was committed to cover up another crime. Thats the law

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

You're misinformed. What was the other crime?

 

[Marener]

You're misinformed. What was the other crime?

I've explained this to you already. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've explained this to you already. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?

Whats the other crime?

 

[hadit]

Three possibilities.

Federal campaign finance violation
State campaign laws
State tax violation

The fact that you have to go with "possibilities" make it evident that they have not been specified. While that may be legal, most people will view it as egregious political overreach in prosecution, which benefits TRUMP!.

 

[hadit]

They don’t have to charge the object crime. They don’t even have to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

All they have to prove is that Trump intended to commit another crime.

Sorry this is too complicated for you to understand.

And while that may be legal and the way things work, if there is no clear crime specified, it will be seen as political persecution, not justice.

 

[Marener]

Whats the other crime?

Asked and answered.

 

[Marener]

The fact that you have to go with "possibilities" make it evident that they have not been specified. While that may be legal, most people will view it as egregious political overreach in prosecution, which benefits TRUMP!.

Those possibilities were specified. Sorry that's not good enough for you, but that's the law.

 

[hadit]

Those possibilities were specified. Sorry that's not good enough for you, but that's the law.

That's what I mean, possibilities, not certainty. I know they don't have to specifically identify a crime. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that, if they don't, this will be perceived as a political persecution instead of justice.