Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[Nostra]

Has any NY DA ever elevated a dead misdemeanor to a felony based on a federal crime committed by someone other than the accused?

Lets see your links.

: crickets: from the board Dimwingers.

 

[Lesh]

He isn’t charged with the underlying crime, Simp.

Why is that?

Because he's not guilty of committing it...only aiding and hiding it

 

[Faun]

He isn’t charged with the underlying crime, Simp.

Why is that?

Because that's not a required element of the law, Dumbfuck. All that has to be proven to a jury to secure a conviction is intent.

 

[Leviticus]

There is no original crime.

Falsifying business records is the crime That trump was indicted for. It becomes a felony if there is any other crime at all committed in concert with it. That crime can be either a state crime or a federal crime. And it doesn't matter if the statute of limitations has passed on the Second crime, Nor does trump need to be convicted of the second crime. They only need to show that Trump was in on the second crime, which they have evidence of, since they have emails, phone records, etc where Trump is discussing the illegal payments that Cohen plead guilty to.

So because they can prove that Trump was aware that the payments broke the law, and they can prove that the falsification of business records were connected to those original payments, the falsification of business records goes from misdemeanor to felony.

 

[Nostra]

Anyone here in possession of a functioning brain actually think Trump does his own bookkeeping entries for his corporations?

 

[Faun]

Anyone here in possession of a functioning brain actually think Trump does his own bookkeeping entries for his corporations?

And that matters ... because ... ?

 

[Nostra]

And that matters ... because ... ?

That question wasn’t directed to you, Simp.

But nice dodge.

 

[Lesh]

That question wasn’t directed to you, Simp.

But nice dodge.

Who gives a shit who it was directed at.

How does that change anything?

 

[scruffy]

, since they have emails, phone records, etc where Trump is discussing the illegal payments that Cohen plead guilty to.

No, they don't have that. Not at all.

If they had that, they would have indicted Trump in the first place.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they don't have that. Not at all.

If they had that, they would have indicted Trump in the first place.

The Grand Jury did indict Trump. It was all over the news.

WW

 

[Lesh]

The Grand Jury did indict Trump. It was all over the news.

WW

I think he means along with Cohen. He talks vaguely in circles so it’s hard to tell what the fuck he is talking about.

I guess he is not aware that you don’t indict a sitting President

 

[Faun]

That question wasn’t directed to you, Simp.

But nice dodge.

LOL

Raging dumbfuck, you didn't direct it to anyone in particular. Yet you then idiotically claim I dodged a question you moronically state wasn't directed to me.

Meanwhile, I directly asked you a question but you didn't answer.

Why does that matter since your question reveals you don't understand that Trump is responsible for what he reports to the government, regardless of who fills it out. Case in point, Hillary Clinton. She was fined $8000 by the FEC for an erroneous entry in her FEC report. Like Trump, there's no doubt she didn't fill out FEC reports. I believe taxes are the same. Each individual is responsible for their own return, and will be held accountable for mistakes made on their tax return, even if someone else prepared them.

 

[Nostra]

Who gives a shit who it was directed at.

How does that change anything?

It was directed at those with a functioning brain.

That leaves you and Fawnboi out.

 

[Faun]

It was directed at those with a functioning brain.

That leaves you and Fawnboi out.

Your question was moronic as demonstrated in post #632. That renders you utterly incapable of determining whose brains are functional.

 

[Nostra]

Your question was moronic as demonstrated in post #632. That renders you utterly incapable of determining whose brains are functional.

Only in your imagination, Simp.

 

[Faun]

Only in your imagination, Simp.

 

[excalibur]

What do you think his upcoming trial is for?

You really are dense.

I posted that you can only be convicted of 175.10 if you are also first [convicted] of violating 175.05 and Bragg has not charged 175.05 violations.

 

[Faun]

You really are dense.

I posted that you can only be convicted of 175.10 if you are also first [convicted] of violating 175.05 and Bragg has not charged 175.05 violations.

And I educated you that one need not be "convicted" of 175.05 to be tried on 175.10 as the law doesn't say, "convicted," in terms of the underlying crime. Sadly, it appears the education was lost on you.

 

[excalibur]

And I educated you that one need not be "convicted" of 175.05 to be tried on 175.10 as the law doesn't say, "convicted," in terms of the underlying crime. Sadly, it appears the education was lost on you.

Your derp is strong today.

Section 175.10 clearly shows that one must be convicted of 175.05 violations to then be convicted of 175.10.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree​

when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second​

degree​

Now how do you suppose someone is proven to 'commits the crime' without being charged with and convicted of violating 170.05? A DA cannot say to a judge and/or jury that, I, the DA, have decided the plaintiff violated 175.05 so convict the plaintiff of 175.10.

 

[Flopper]

So you can’t cite the statute.

Got it.

175.10 of the New York State Penal code which makes it a crime to falsify business records. Based on statement of facts, it appears that the underlining crime that makes falsifying business records a felony is an election law violation however there are probably other possibilities in the New York state penal code.