Just a reminder to everyone so no one ever forgets or pretends that it didn’t happen: Barack Obama broke the exact same law that Martha Stewart went t

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't have to be felonies. Any crime.



No state officials charged Trump with federal crimes.


The jury did know the crimes.

You didn't answer the question.

The candidate you support lied to you about not knowing the crimes to rile you up (evidently it worked) by denigrating America's institutions.

How does that make you feel? You don't care? Angry? Disappointed?

They don't have to be felonies. Any crime.

Pretzel!

No state officials charged Trump with federal crimes.

Pretzel!

The jury did know the crimes.

Their instructions said they didn't have to agree on the other crime.

You didn't answer the question.

If the prosecutor and judge didn't spell out the crime, why would Trump know?

The candidate you support lied to you about not knowing the crimes

What were they?

How does that make you feel?

I'm laughing. What were they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

175.10 has no statute of limitations for any of these secondary crimes . Nor does it require that the secondary crime be State or Federal.

If you believe it does, show me. You'll find it doesn't exist.

175.10 has no statute of limitations for any of these secondary crimes .

But 175.10 does have a statute of limitations on its own, right?
What secondary crimes again?

Nor does it require that the secondary crime be State or Federal.

What if it was a foreign crime?

 

[Skylar]

Pretzel!

Nope. That's just 175.10. The felony enhancement requires the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

That's it.

Nor is the enhancement particularly rare. Bragg has already applied it more than 200 times since taking office.

No state officials charged Trump with federal crimes.

Pretzel!

The jury did know the crimes.

Their instructions said they didn't have to agree on the other crime.

The jury instructions said that they had to agree that the business records were falsified with the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

They unanimously agreed that it was.

You didn't answer the question.

If the prosecutor and judge didn't spell out the crime, why would Trump know?

The crimes were laid out in november filings AND again in hearings where the scope of the crimes that could be applied was limited.

The idea that Trump 'never knew' what the secondary crimes were is pure, blithering jibberish. His legal team not only knew what the secondary crimes were, they had hearings debating them.

 

[Skylar]

175.10 has no statute of limitations for any of these secondary crimes .

But 175.10 does have a statute of limitations on its own, right?

Yup. Which the filings were within.

There were entire pretrial hearings about this exact issue, with rulings from Merchan on the applicability of 175.10 per the statute of limitations.

There's NO statute of limitations cited for the intent to commit, aid or conceal the second secondary crimes. Nor is there any requirement that these crimes be either State or Federal.

If you believe otherwise, show me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Yea, but Obama is above the law. He can murder American citizens without due process.

 

[Skylar]

Yea, but Obama is above the law. He can murder American citizens without due process.

Above what law? No one has define which law Obama supposedly violated that Martha Stewart was sent to prison for.

Not the OP. Not any poster here.

The echo chamber is not serving you.

 

[Catsnmeters]

They don't have to be felonies. Any crime.

Pretzel!

No state officials charged Trump with federal crimes.

Pretzel!

Law.

The jury did know the crimes.

Their instructions said they didn't have to agree on the other crime.

Yep. That is correct.

You didn't answer the question.

If the prosecutor and judge didn't spell out the crime, why would Trump know?

It was spelled out in the document I gave you dated February.

Remember? Trump lied to you.

The candidate you support lied to you about not knowing the crimes

What were they?

I already linked them to you.

Are you ok?

How does that make you feel?

I'm laughing. What were they?

I already linked them.

We have already discussed them.

Did you forget?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. That's just 175.10. The felony enhancement requires the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

That's it.

Nor is the enhancement particularly rare. Bragg has already applied it more than 200 times since taking office.





The jury instructions said that they had to agree that the business records were falsified with the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

They unanimously agreed that it was.


The crimes were laid out in november filings AND again in hearings where the scope of the crimes that could be applied was limited.

The idea that Trump 'never knew' what the secondary crimes were is pure, blithering jibberish. His legal team not only knew what the secondary crimes were, they had hearings debating them.

Nor is the enhancement particularly rare. Bragg has already applied it more than 200 times since taking office.

How many for a non-charged Federal crime?

They unanimously agreed that it was.

They unanimously agreed it was what crime, specifically?

The crimes were laid out in november filings AND again in hearings where the scope of the crimes that could be applied was limited.

What were they? Did you forget?

 

[Skylar]

Nor is the enhancement particularly rare. Bragg has already applied it more than 200 times since taking office.

How many for a non-charged Federal crime?

Show me where in 175.10 the felony enhancement draws any distinction between federal or state crimes. Otherwise, what's your point?

Its not a rare enhancement, no matter how hard you play pretend otherwise.

They unanimously agreed that it was.

They unanimously agreed it was what crime, specifically?

They unanimously agreed that the felony enhancement requirements had been met, and that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the business records has been falsified with the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime. They were given 3 to choose from. There's no requirement that they agree on WHICH crime, only that they agree that A crime occurred.

Remember, being charging for the secondary crime is not a requirement of the felony enhancement. You already know this. The State needs to prove the INTENT to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

Which they did. Unanimously.

The crimes were laid out in november filings AND again in hearings where the scope of the crimes that could be applied was limited.

What were they? Did you forget?

You seriously refuse to do the slightest bit of your own research and simply look up the secondary crimes from any of the available court documents, including the jury instructions?

Don't worry, baby bird. I'll spoon feed you the research you clearly won't do for yourself. Open wide:

Specifically, NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152. and FECA, or 'unlawful means' that included Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree.

Read the jury instructions. Its all there. Even if you refuse to read it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me where in 175.10 the felony enhancement draws any distinction between federal or state crimes. Otherwise, what's your point?

Its not a rare enhancement, no matter how hard you play pretend otherwise.




They unanimously agreed that the felony enhancement requirements had been met, and that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the business records has been falsified with the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime. They were given 3 to choose from. There's no requirement that they agree on WHICH crime, only that they agree that A crime occurred.

Remember, being charging for the secondary crime is not a requirement of the felony enhancement. You already know this. The State needs to prove the INTENT to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

Which they did. Unanimously.

You seriously refuse to do the slightest bit of your own research and simply look up the secondary crimes from any of the available court documents, including the jury instructions?

Don't worry, baby bird. I'll spoon feed you the research you clearly won't do for yourself. Open wide:

Specifically, NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152. and FECA, or 'unlawful means' that included Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree.

Read the jury instructions. Its all there. Even if you refuse to read it.

Show me where in 175.10 the felony enhancement draws any distinction between federal or state crimes. Otherwise, what's your point?

Why does Bragg get to touch anything involving a federal "crime"?

Its not a rare enhancement,

Right, when both are actual violations of state law.

They were given 3 to choose from. There's no requirement that they agree on WHICH crime, only that they agree that A crime occurred.

Pretzels!

Specifically, NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152. and FECA, or 'unlawful means' that included Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree.

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

NDAs aren't unlawful.

 

[Skylar]

Show me where in 175.10 the felony enhancement draws any distinction between federal or state crimes. Otherwise, what's your point?

Why does Bragg get to touch anything involving a federal "crime"?

Where in 175.10 draw any distinction between state and federal crimes?

It doesn't. So what is your point? You're drawing a distinction the law doesn't.....and then pretending this make a 'pretzel'.

Nope. Your imaginary distinctions create no legal conflict or 'pretezel'. You're confounding yourself. Not the law.

They were given 3 to choose from. There's no requirement that they agree on WHICH crime, only that they agree that A crime occurred.

Pretzels!

Says you. NY Law makes no such distinction. No requirement exists that the secondary law was violated. Only that it intent was.

And there's no requirement of agreement on WHICH secondary crime, only that a second crime was the intent.

So who am I to believe? A NY State judge on NY Law. Or some rando on the internet screaming 'pretezel!"?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Show me where in 175.10 the felony enhancement draws any distinction between federal or state crimes. Otherwise, what's your point?

Its not a rare enhancement, no matter how hard you play pretend otherwise.




They unanimously agreed that the felony enhancement requirements had been met, and that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the business records has been falsified with the intent to commit, aid or conceal a crime. They were given 3 to choose from. There's no requirement that they agree on WHICH crime, only that they agree that A crime occurred.

Remember, being charging for the secondary crime is not a requirement of the felony enhancement. You already know this. The State needs to prove the INTENT to commit, aid or conceal a crime.

Which they did. Unanimously.

You seriously refuse to do the slightest bit of your own research and simply look up the secondary crimes from any of the available court documents, including the jury instructions?

Don't worry, baby bird. I'll spoon feed you the research you clearly won't do for yourself. Open wide:

Specifically, NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152. and FECA, or 'unlawful means' that included Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree.

Read the jury instructions. Its all there. Even if you refuse to read it.

I've explained this to Toddsterpatriot over and over.

He is just trolling at this point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where in 175.10 draw any distinction between state and federal crimes?

It doesn't. So what is your point? You're drawing a distinction the law doesn't.....and then pretending this make a 'pretzel'.

Nope. Your imaginary distinctions create no legal conflict or 'pretezel'. You're confounding yourself. Not the law.



Says you. NY Law makes no such distinction. No requirement exists that the secondary law was violated. Only that it intent was.

View attachment 962420

And there's no requirement of agreement on WHICH secondary crime, only that a second crime was the intent.

View attachment 962422

So who am I to believe? A NY State judge on NY Law. Or some rando on the internet screaming 'pretezel!"?

Where in 175.10 draw any distinction between state and federal crimes?

Where does a state official get to charge federal crimes? Or federal not crimes?

Says you. NY Law makes no such distinction.

NY Law says you can charge for intent to break a federal Law?

And there's no requirement of agreement on WHICH secondary crime, only that a second crime was the intent.

Excellent! At this rate, by next year, you won't even need to do that.

So who am I to believe? A NY State judge on NY Law.

No kidding. We can get rid of federal prosecutors soon, just trot the case thru NY.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Where in 175.10 draw any distinction between state and federal crimes?

Where does a state official get to charge federal crimes? Or federal not crimes?

Says you. NY Law makes no such distinction.

NY Law says you can charge for intent to break a federal Law?

And there's no requirement of agreement on WHICH secondary crime, only that a second crime was the intent.

Excellent! At this rate, by next year, you won't even need to do that.

So who am I to believe? A NY State judge on NY Law.

No kidding. We can get rid of federal prosecutors soon, just trot the case thru NY.

Thanks for proving my point. I have answered most of those questions for you already in this very thread.

You make a good Trump supporter.

 

[Skylar]

Where in 175.10 draw any distinction between state and federal crimes?

Where does a state official get to charge federal crimes? Or federal not crimes?

There's no distinction in 175.10. You're making up a pseudo-legal distinction that doesn't exist in the law. And then demanding I find it for you.

Laughing...nope. There is no distinction between federal or state crimes in 175.10's felony enhancement. You've imagined it.

Says you. NY Law makes no such distinction.

NY Law says you can charge for intent to break a federal Law?

NY law says that you can upgrade to a class 1 felony of falsifying business records if you can prove intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

So your argument is that a federal crime ISN'T a crime?

You were saying about pretzels?

Is that it? Just you pouting and insisting that federal crimes aren't crimes? If so, that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

Thanks for proving my point. I have answered most of those questions for you already in this very thread.

You make a good Trump supporter.

He's kinda winding down. His last two replies were just pouting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no distinction in 175.10. You're making up a pseudo-legal distinction that doesn't exist in the law. And then demanding I find it for you.

Laughing...nope. There is no distinction between federal or state crimes in 175.10's felony enhancement. You've imagined it.


NY law says that you can upgrade to a class 1 felony of falsifying business records if you can prove intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

So your argument is that a federal crime ISN'T a crime?

You were saying about pretzels?

Is that it? Just you pouting and insisting that federal crimes aren't crimes? If so, that was easy.

There's no distinction in 175.10. You're making up a pseudo-legal distinction that doesn't exist in the law. And then demanding I find it for you.

No distinction between state and federal law? LOL!

So your argument is that a federal crime ISN'T a crime?

What federal crime?

 

[Skylar]

There's no distinction in 175.10. You're making up a pseudo-legal distinction that doesn't exist in the law. And then demanding I find it for you.

No distinction between state and federal law? LOL!

Not in the felony enhancement of 175.10. All that's necessary to prove is an intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

You're the one arguing that federal crimes aren't crimes.

Good luck with that, Pretzels!

 

[Catsnmeters]

He's kinda winding down. His last two replies were just pouting.

Basically.

He thinks saying "pretzel" is a legal defense.

 

[Skylar]

Basically.

He thinks saying "pretzel" is a legal defense.

At this point his argument has devolved into 'federal crimes aren't crimes'.

Good fucking luck with that one.