Bragg's Case Against Trump - election interference - politically motivated? I have the answer.

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. Underlying crimes must be specified in the indictment, and if they are not specified, the indictment is defective and has to be remedied.

Fact checked as nonsense. In NY state, not so.

 

[Rambunctious]

Fact checked as nonsense. In NY state, not so.

Its helping Trump win reelection... every new poll has him winning... people who don't care for Trump dislike a weaponized DOJ even more...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Its helping Trump win reelection... every new poll has him winning... people who don't care for Trump dislike a weaponized DOJ even more...

Really? No one is winning an election right now.

You're hung up on the political horse race polls, which no one in their rights minds would bet anything on this far out.

Next time, do some research before you put fingers to keyboard and embarrass yourself so publicly.

start back here:

Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory

A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No dipshit, you are in denial. Trump's team first demanded the Bill of Particulars back in April. Bragg tried to deny it with that response in May, and lost. He was forced to itemize the underlying crimes he was alleging, he provided a list of four possibilities in a Bill of Particulars.

That should also put to rest your claim that the underlying crime need not be specified in the indictment. The indictment was defective, and Bragg was forced to provide the particulars.

Trump's team challenged the four theories in November. They won on one, and lost on three with the ruling in February. That ruling was the end of a chain of motions that had been going on for months.

false

misunderstanding facts and misrepresenting facts

your usual game

 

[Rambunctious]

Really? No one is winning an election right now.

You're hung up on the political horse race polls, which no one in their rights minds would bet anything on this far out.

Next time, do some research before you put fingers to keyboard and embarrass yourself so publicly.

start back here:

Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory

A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...

www.pewresearch.org

Trump has it sewed up... aren't you paying attention?...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No dipshit, you are in denial. Trump's team first demanded the Bill of Particulars back in April.

On April 27, 2023 Trump's team demanded a "bill of particulars."

They ignored the "statement of facts" filed by Bragg's office on April 4, 2023.

see page 26 (26 out of 30)

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

"In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."

please cut the shit games and stop pretending to know wtf you are talking about.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Trump has it sewed up... aren't you paying attention?...

yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah deja vu -- been there in 2020

 

[Rambunctious]

yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah deja vu -- been there in 2020

The election was stolen in 2020... 84 million vote my ass... for that old POS?....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The election was stolen in 2020... 84 million vote my ass... for that old POS?....

The election was stolen in 2020.

 

[Rambunctious]

Procrustes Stretched Biden will need more votes this year than he supposedly got in 2020 because we know Trump will get more this year than he got in 2020... and Trump got more votes than any sitting president in history...
The writing is on the wall....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Procrustes Stretched Biden will need more votes this year than he supposedly got in 2020 because we know Trump will get more this year than he got in 2020... and Trump got more votes than any sitting president in history...
The writing is on the wall....

Well, more people should be voting this year than voted in 2020. So...

Trump got more votes than any sitting president as do most new president. More people vote each election, but look at the percentages:







Look up other years:

2012 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[para bellum]

On April 27, 2023 Trump's team demanded a "bill of particulars."

They ignored the "statement of facts" filed by Bragg's office on April 4, 2023.

You are a total idiot. Even when you are proved wrong you cling to your denials. There's a saying- ignorance can be cured but stupidity is a permanent condition. You are just stupid, and not educable.

The Statement of Facts does not identify the 4 underlying crimes that Merchan ruled on in the Feb. 15 decision. That information was in the bill of particulars that Trump demanded in late April, and that Bragg tried to deny in May, but failed.

Your own quote shows that- you are just not intelligent enough to understand:

""In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."

The "(back on April 4th) is NOT in the judge's decision. You are adding text that is not there.

CPL 200.95 details the requirements for a Bill of Particulars.

"Bill of particulars” is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual information which are not recited in the indictment and which pertain to the offense charged and including the substance of each defendant’s conduct encompassed by the charge which the people intend to prove at trial on their direct case, and whether the people intend to prove that the defendant acted as principal or accomplice or both"

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 – Indictment

1. Definitions. (a) "Bill of particulars" is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual…

newyork.public.law

If the indictment was not defective in the first place, Merchan would have said it met the requirements of CPL 200.50, which specifies the requirements for an indictment.

The only way the defense could have known about the 4 theories that Merchan ruled on in February, is if BRAGG had already told them, dipshit!

They are NOT in the indictment.
They are NOT in the accompanying Statement of Facts.

You omit:

"Regarding Defendant's first request, seeking "final and conclusive notification of the 'object crimes,"' Mackey provides, and this Court agrees, that a Defendant is entitled to information that will enable him to prepare an adequate defense. In a complex matter such as this. it would be unfair to require the defendant to conform mid trial to a new, novel or previously undisclosed legal theory. 'Therefore, the people will be limited to only those theories which they have already identified and are hereby precluded from introducing any new or different "other crime" theories at trial.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are a total idiot. Even when you are proved wrong you cling to your denials. There's a saying- ignorance can be cured but stupidity is a permanent condition. You are just stupid, and not educable.

The Statement of Facts does not identify the 4 underlying crimes that Merchan ruled on in the Feb. 15 decision. That information was in the bill of particulars that Trump demanded in late April, and that Bragg tried to deny in May, but failed.

Your own quote shows that- you are just not intelligent enough to understand:

""In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."

The "(back on April 4th) is NOT in the judge's decision. You are adding text that is not there.

CPL 200.95 details the requirements for a Bill of Particulars.

"Bill of particulars” is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual information which are not recited in the indictment and which pertain to the offense charged and including the substance of each defendant’s conduct encompassed by the charge which the people intend to prove at trial on their direct case, and whether the people intend to prove that the defendant acted as principal or accomplice or both"

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 – Indictment

1. Definitions. (a) "Bill of particulars" is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual…

newyork.public.law

If the indictment was not defective in the first place, Merchan would have said it met the requirements of CPL 200.50, which specifies the requirements for an indictment.

The only way the defense could have known about the 4 theories that Merchan ruled on in February, is if BRAGG had already told them, dipshit!

They are NOT in the indictment.
They are NOT in the accompanying Statement of Facts.

You omit:

"Regarding Defendant's first request, seeking "final and conclusive notification of the 'object crimes,"' Mackey provides, and this Court agrees, that a Defendant is entitled to information that will enable him to prepare an adequate defense. In a complex matter such as this. it would be unfair to require the defendant to conform mid trial to a new, novel or previously undisclosed legal theory. 'Therefore, the people will be limited to only those theories which they have already identified and are hereby precluded from introducing any new or different "other crime" theories at trial.

"In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."


Back on April 4th, the People informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are a total idiot. Even when you are proved wrong you cling to your denials. There's a saying- ignorance can be cured but stupidity is a permanent condition. You are just stupid, and not educable.

The Statement of Facts does not identify the 4 underlying crimes that Merchan ruled on in the Feb. 15 decision. That information was in the bill of particulars that Trump demanded in late April, and that Bragg tried to deny in May, but failed.

Your own quote shows that- you are just not intelligent enough to understand:

""In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."

The "(back on April 4th) is NOT in the judge's decision. You are adding text that is not there.

CPL 200.95 details the requirements for a Bill of Particulars.

"Bill of particulars” is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual information which are not recited in the indictment and which pertain to the offense charged and including the substance of each defendant’s conduct encompassed by the charge which the people intend to prove at trial on their direct case, and whether the people intend to prove that the defendant acted as principal or accomplice or both"

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 – Indictment

1. Definitions. (a) "Bill of particulars" is a written statement by the prosecutor specifying, as required by this section, items of factual…

newyork.public.law

If the indictment was not defective in the first place, Merchan would have said it met the requirements of CPL 200.50, which specifies the requirements for an indictment.

The only way the defense could have known about the 4 theories that Merchan ruled on in February, is if BRAGG had already told them, dipshit!

They are NOT in the indictment.
They are NOT in the accompanying Statement of Facts.

You omit:

"Regarding Defendant's first request, seeking "final and conclusive notification of the 'object crimes,"' Mackey provides, and this Court agrees, that a Defendant is entitled to information that will enable him to prepare an adequate defense. In a complex matter such as this. it would be unfair to require the defendant to conform mid trial to a new, novel or previously undisclosed legal theory. 'Therefore, the people will be limited to only those theories which they have already identified and are hereby precluded from introducing any new or different "other crime" theories at trial.

Trump's team of lawyers should be fired and you put in their place. You know so much more than any of them.

 

[para bellum]

"In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories (this back on April 4th), but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."


Back on April 4th, the People informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories

Because YOU inserted those words into the judge's February decision?

You lie like a cheap rug.

 

[para bellum]

Trump's team of lawyers should be fired and you put in their place. You know so much more than any of them.

You always resort to that stupid remark when you are beaten.

Trump's lawyers know all of that stuff, they are the ones who forced Bragg to specify the "other crime".

Maybe you should replace Bragg as the Manhattan DA? After all, you know so much more about the law than he does...

 

[para bellum]

Back on April 4th, the People informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories

Liar. You are lying to this board. You have falsified a ruling by the court by inserting the April 4 date into the judge's decision.

The April 4 Statement of facts does not specify any "other crime" theories. Vague statements that can be considered to be in support of any theory are not sufficient, and the judge said as much in that paragraph I quoted, citing Mackey.

The "other crimes" were specified in a Bill of Particulars, which the Trump attorneys demanded and received sometime around the end of 2023. The judge referred to that supplemental, and called it adequate to satisfy CPL 200.95 in February.

Those "other crimes" that were specified were recited by the judge, and one of them was dismissed. The judge also enjoined the DA from introducing any new theories at the trial.

You have been outed. And stop lying to this board.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because YOU inserted those words into the judge's February decision?

You lie like a cheap rug.

They are not meant to be the judge's words. Wake up. Or better yet, go back to sleep.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because YOU inserted those words into the judge's February decision?

You lie like a cheap rug.

You are a moronic dolt.

In fact, the People have not only informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories but as previously stated, they have supplemented that with a detailed Statement of Facts and voluminous discovery in support of those theories. This Court finds that the People have far exceeded the requirements of CPL \ 200.95."


Back on April 4th, the People informed Defendant of several "other crime" theories

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You always resort to that stupid remark when you are beaten.

Trump's lawyers know all of that stuff, they are the ones who forced Bragg to specify the "other crime".

Maybe you should replace Bragg as the Manhattan DA? After all, you know so much more about the law than he does...

filed by the prosecution back on April 4th

Which exposes your arguments as the bullshit they are. You're probably just regurgitating some nonsense you stumbled upon on rightwing MAGA media.