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,
Follow the trial. It will all be revealed. D'Oh!
