Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[Robert W]

How are you at sarcam?

Sarcam? I do not fare well.

 

[Billiejeens]

Sarcam? I do not fare well.

Clearly

 

[Crepitus]

As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?

‘Criminal Conspiracy’ Alleged as Jury Starts Hearing Trump Trial

Court adjourned for the day after opening statements from both sides and the start of testimony from the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer. A lawyer for Donald Trump told jurors the former president did nothing illegal.

www.nytimes.com

A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”


I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.

Dude, your desperation is showing.

It's a good look for you though.

 

[Crepitus]

The grand jury decided to put trump on trial.

That is something the faithful prefer not to think about.

 

[Crepitus]

How are you at sarcam?

Dude, he's a tRumpling. He has no idea what that even means.

 

[AZrailwhale]

As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?

‘Criminal Conspiracy’ Alleged as Jury Starts Hearing Trump Trial

Court adjourned for the day after opening statements from both sides and the start of testimony from the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer. A lawyer for Donald Trump told jurors the former president did nothing illegal.

www.nytimes.com

A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”


I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.

The prosecution is trying to use something that Trump has not even been tried for, let alone convicted of, to make their entire case possible.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is something the faithful prefer not to think about.

The prosecutor totally controls the evidence and testimony a criminal grand jury sees. I have served on one, so I know. That's why lawyers say a prosecutor can have a grand jury convict a ham sandwich.

 

[Crepitus]

The prosecutor totally controls the evidence and testimony a criminal grand jury sees. I have served on one, so I know. That's why lawyers say a prosecutor can have a grand jury convict a ham sandwich.

Evidence you say? There's evidence tRump committed crimes?


Well we should put him on trial then!


Let's get to the bottom of this.

 

[Yarddog]

See how you roll. He was not guilty. But Several grand juries put him on trial.

So many Republicans always seem to be on Trial, for some B.S. .. Michael Flynn was a good example. Entrapped by FBI and accused of lying.... yet when FBI Lawyers fraudulently change an email for a FISA court judge, its a slap on the wrist. Same with Hillary and her private server, destroying subpeona evidence.. all just BAD JUDGEMENT... nothing to see there.
Democrats simply have more hyena DNA then the Republicans do. The RNC can never match the Dems when it comes to this dirty play. They own all the agencies.

 

[Votto]

I have asked enthusiastic Leftists on this and other forums if they could articulate exactly what this trial is about...what exactly is Trump accused of?

Invariably they say, "paying off a porn start to be quiet." when I point out that there is nothing illegal about that, it becomes "trying to deceive the voters," or some such nonsense. Also, not a crime.

Nobody said they were smart.

Are you kidding me, it's just a crime thinking about that kind of stuff.

Looks like you will be joining Orange man behind bars.


Book'em Danno!

 

[excalibur]

That's because you're too dumb to check out what the actual law says.

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more​

persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to​

a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by​

one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.​

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

​

Not charged, and it is a misdemeanor.

Also, it applies only to state officials.

 

[White 6]

You say a lot of stupid irrelevant shit.

excaliber's idea. I didn't bring up sleeping lawyers. I simply picked up on the quality of trump's republican lawyers after the 2020 elections and it has been proven since then, up to this year in the e jean carroll trials, the civil Fraud trial, as well as rulings on various trump motions. I'm telling you, if you get in trouble, trump republican lawyers are the worst. You are probably better off with a public defender, straight after the Bar Exam is all.

 

[cnm]

Not charged, and it is a misdemeanor.

Also, it applies only to state officials.

Rarely in the history of human message boarding has so much emptily asserted bullshit been piled so high.

 

[excalibur]

Rarely in the history of human message boarding has so much emptily asserted bullshit been piled so high.

It is a misdemeanor, it says so in the law. Duh.

And it only applies to state offices.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGA is triggered tonight.

 

[cnm]

Also, it applies only to state officials.

Ok. Where does it say that?

I can't be bothered with the rest of your bullshit.

 

[cnm]

It is a misdemeanor, it says so in the law. Duh.

I lied, your bullshit stank too much.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com › resources › new-york-misdemeanor-crimes-class-and-sentences.htm​

New York, like most states, divides crimes into misdemeanors and felonies. Misdemeanors are less serious offenses and carry the possibility of up to 364 days in jail, whereas a felony can mean prison time of a year or more.​

And it only applies to state offices.

You seem to think your assertions mean more than vacant pixels on a screen.

 

[progressive hunter]

The grand jury decided to put trump on trial.

grand juries dont put people on trial,,

 

[BULLDOG]

grand juries dont put people on trial,,

No, but they decide which ones are recommended for trial.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, but they decide which ones are recommended for trial.

they dont even do that,,

youre a stupid mother fucker for someone that can type,,,