So trump cheated and broke the law to win in 2016?

[mudwhistle]

Obviously it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt 34 separate times.

34 examples of the same silly crime. The number 34only matters if you like making a mountain out of a molehill. This is called charge stacking.

Charge stacking occurs when prosecutors charge overlapping and duplicative offenses against a single defendant. Essentially, it’s like piling on multiple charges related to the same incident. For instance, if someone is charged with theft of a motor vehicle, they might also face additional stacked charges such as “unauthorized use of a vehicle” and "possession of stolen property"1. This practice can significantly increase the potential penalties a defendant may face, even when fewer charges would suffice to capture their culpability2. Whether federally or at the state level, charge stacking often results in more plea bargains due to the pressure created by these extra charges against defendants2. So, in a nutshell, charge stacking involves maximizing the number of charges against a defendant, sometimes to an absurd degree3.

Each one of those imaginary crimes were not crimes at all, and the Defense had an election commissioner on the stand to testify to it, and was prevented by this biased judge. Every question the Defense asked him was objected by the prosecution and sustained by a corrupt judge. The Defendant was prevented from presenting a defense.

End of discussion.

 

[Lesh]

34 examples of the same silly crime. The number 34only matters if you like making a mountain out of a molehill. This is called charge stacking.

Charge stacking occurs when prosecutors charge overlapping and duplicative offenses against a single defendant. Essentially, it’s like piling on multiple charges related to the same incident. For instance, if someone is charged with theft of a motor vehicle, they might also face additional stacked charges such as “unauthorized use of a vehicle” and "possession of stolen property"1. This practice can significantly increase the potential penalties a defendant may face, even when fewer charges would suffice to capture their culpability2. Whether federally or at the state level, charge stacking often results in more plea bargains due to the pressure created by these extra charges against defendants2. So, in a nutshell, charge stacking involves maximizing the number of charges against a defendant, sometimes to an absurd degree3.

Each one of those imaginary crimes were not crimes at all, and the Defense had an election commissioner on the stand to testify to it, and was prevented by this biased judge. Every question the Defense asked him was objected by the prosecution and sustained by a corrupt judge. The Defendant was prevented from presenting a defense.

End of discussion.

Nothing imaginary about any of that

Fail

 

[Hutch Starskey]

34 examples of the same silly crime. The number 34only matters if you like making a mountain out of a molehill. This is called charge stacking.

Charge stacking occurs when prosecutors charge overlapping and duplicative offenses against a single defendant. Essentially, it’s like piling on multiple charges related to the same incident. For instance, if someone is charged with theft of a motor vehicle, they might also face additional stacked charges such as “unauthorized use of a vehicle” and "possession of stolen property"1. This practice can significantly increase the potential penalties a defendant may face, even when fewer charges would suffice to capture their culpability2. Whether federally or at the state level, charge stacking often results in more plea bargains due to the pressure created by these extra charges against defendants2. So, in a nutshell, charge stacking involves maximizing the number of charges against a defendant, sometimes to an absurd degree3.

Each one of those imaginary crimes were not crimes at all, and the Defense had an election commissioner on the stand to testify to it, and was prevented by this biased judge. Every question the Defense asked him was objected by the prosecution and sustained by a corrupt judge. The Defendant was prevented from presenting a defense.

End of discussion.

No, dope.
Each count must be evaluated independently by the jury. Trump could have been found guilty on none or any number of those counts.

 

[mudwhistle]

On what basis do you think that is likely?

Easy:

• The judge was conflicted
• He allowed prejudicial evidence that had nothing to do with the charges
• His refused to allow the defendant to present a defense
• His jury instructions were illegal giving the jury the option to arrive at something other than a unanimous finding
• The laws that Trump was accused of weren't even in the indictment
• The laws Trump was convicted on weren't in the Manhattan DA's jurisdiction
• Exculpatory evidence was never introduced or allowed to be seen by the Grand Jury

 

[mudwhistle]

No, dope.
Each count must be evaluated independently by the jury. Trump could have been found guilty on none or any number of those counts.

Wrong. The charges they found him guilty on weren't in the indictment. Election fraud.

So the judge gave the jury the option to find him guilty on 34 document errors as a remedy because the jurors wanted to convict Trump on something.

 

[mudwhistle]

The number one reason this will be overturned on appeal is because the judge put a gag order on the Defense, but not the prosecution or witnesses. '

This never happens.

The purpose of gag orders is to prevent the witnesses and jurors from obtaining information about a trial that is prejudicial and prevents a fair trial from taking place. Gag orders aren't supposed to keep Trump from campaigning.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Easy:

• The judge was conflicted
• He allowed prejudicial evidence that had nothing to do with the charges
• His refused to allow the defendant to present a defense
• His jury instructions were illegal giving the jury the option to arrive at something other than a unanimous finding
• The laws that Trump was accused of weren't even in the indictment
• The laws Trump was convicted on weren't in the Manhattan DA's jurisdiction
• Exculpatory evidence was never introduced or allowed to be seen by the Grand Jury

Retarded nonsense.
These are especially funny…

• The laws that Trump was accused of weren't even in the indictment
• The laws Trump was convicted on weren't in the Manhattan DA's jurisdiction

Derp…
An indictment is simply a list crimes one is accused of.

Charges can only be brought from within the court’s jurisdiction.

jurisdiction​

Primary tabs​

Jurisdiction can be defined as:

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders; or
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:

See here …

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

manhattanda.org

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong. The charges they found him guilty on weren't in the indictment. Election fraud.

So the judge gave the jury the option to find him guilty on 34 document errors as a remedy because the jurors wanted to convict Trump on something.

Derp…
Trump was neither indicted for election fraud nor found guilty of election fraud, dope.

 

[mudwhistle]

Retarded nonsense.
These are especially funny…

Derp…
An indictment is simply a list crimes one is accused of.

Charges can only be brought from within the court’s jurisdiction.

jurisdiction​

Primary tabs​

Jurisdiction can be defined as:

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders; or
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

See here …

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

manhattanda.org

According to the 5th amendment all charges a defendant is being charged with must be in the indictment. We didn't find out for sure what the charges were till the judge read the jury instructions. Neither the prosecution or the defense presented any evidence to the unlisted charges that the judge gave to the jury to consider.

Trump never ran for office in the State of New York, yet they told the jury he was guilty of violations of NY election laws.

 

[mudwhistle]

Derp…
Trump was neither indicted for election fraud nor found guilty of election fraud, dope.

Of course. Derp.

Now you see why the jury was confused.
Derp

They gave them the option to find him guilty 34 times.

Make Trump pay for angry tweets.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

According to the 5th amendment all charges a defendant is being charged with must be in the indictment. We didn't find out for sure what the charges were till the judge read the jury instructions. Neither the prosecution or the defense presented any evidence to the unlisted charges that the judge gave to the jury to consider.

Trump never ran for office in the State of New York, yet they charged him with violation NY election laws.

Good lord, you are stupid.

Look at his indictment I posted above, dope.
He was convicted of the exact charges listed there.

 

[mudwhistle]

Good lord, you are stupid.

Look at his indictment I posted above, dope.

Fuck the indictment.

Nobody knows what those 2 lawyers told the rest of the jury during deliberations, but it's clear it was enough to convince them that they had to find Trump guilty of something so Biden could throw Trump in prison.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course. Derp.

Now you see why the jury was confused.
Derp

They gave them the option to find him guilty 34 times.

Make Trump pay for angry tweets.

The jury was never confused. They wrapped it up quickly.

There were 34 separate crimes, dope.

You’re the only one confused.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Fuck the indictment.

Nobody knows what those 2 lawyers told the rest of the jury during deliberations, but it's clear it was enough to convince them that they had to find Trump guilty of something so Biden could throw Trump in prison.

Huh?
You said the crimes weren’t listed there.
You’re coming apart, dude.

Take a break.

 

[mudwhistle]

The jury was never confused. They wrapped it up quickly.

There were 34 separate crimes, dope.

You’re the only one confused.

LIAR

34 document errors.
All the same crime.

You're a liar. If there was never any confusion, then why did the jury ask the judge to re-read the jury instructions?
They were confused.

No....fuck off.

we're done talking here,

 

[HeyNorm]

Trump tried to 'corrupt' the 2016 election, hush money prosecutor alleges in opening statement

A defense lawyer countered by saying that Trump “was innocent” and that the case should never have been brought.

www.pbs.org

trump played the system in 2016. He payed off women, had his buddy Pecker kill stories, and the tried to hide it by falsifying records. He was elected in 2016 through illegal means.

Twice Impeached
Proven sexual abuser
Now 34 felonies

trump may be the death of the repub party.

Two words.

Steele dossier

You look a fool.

 

[sartre play]

Fuck the indictment.

Nobody knows what those 2 lawyers told the rest of the jury during deliberations, but it's clear it was enough to convince them that they had to find Trump guilty of something so Biden could throw Trump in prison.

And you know this how????
Wish full thinking?

 

[mudwhistle]

And you know this how????
Wish full thinking?

Wish full thinking?

Don't you mean "wishful thinking"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They worked on stupid leftists.

They work on everyone. That's why people continue to put them out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

election law is Federal and not enforceable by a State.

Wrong of course. States have election laws on the books. Some of New York's election laws were just featured in Trump's trial.