The Democrats have done it again, they got President Trump to be a convicted Felon(until the USSC overrules the verdict) and they awakened the Giant.

[kyzr]

Yes there is. I linked you the law more then once.

Obviously the material is over your head or you are just ignoring it and are trolling facts for Trump.

"Trinity" trol I suspect. Anyhow, not going over it with you for the 4th time.

Go ahead and claim I am running or can't show the facts I have shown you multiple times already and have a good day.

For the 4th time, we'll see who is right after the appeal process.

 

[Blisterfinger]

For the 4th time, we'll see who is right after the appeal process.

catty tucked and ran on me after he pretended to win the argument. Kind of a coward.

 

[jc456]

Yes. Very neat. An opinion piece.

Anyhow, holding people accountable to the law is not a kangaroo court but it does make a good mindless right wing trope.

It saves you from actually having to know the details of the case and debating them.

It's easier to just claim "kangaroo court".

Good job.

From a Yale law school professor

 

[Catsnmeters]

From a Yale law school professor

Not watching a 27 minute video to hear the same shit and have seen posted in these threads over and over.

If you think he has some new and damning points feel free to post it and I will address it.

That said, I did read the first 7 minutes of the transcript and I can see where he is wrong already.

This guy was a yale professor and he didn't know what the secondary crimes are? Lol.

What a clown.

By the way he was suspended for sexually harassing students. Great guy.

 

[jc456]

Not watching a 27 minute video to hear the same shit and have seen posted in these threads over and over.

If you think he has some new and damning points feel free to post it and I will address it.

That said, I did read the first 7 minutes of the transcript and I can see where he is wrong already.

This guy was a yale professor and he didn't know what the secondary crimes are? Lol.

What a clown.

By the way he was suspended for sexually harassing students. Great guy.

Standard demofk response

 

[Catsnmeters]

Standard demofk response

It's better then your response.

Post just a 27 minute video and expect others to watch it and debate you.

That is your arguement? Lol. Lazy.

So, why do you think that clown said he didn't know what the predicate crimes were?

Is he stupid? Lying? Something else...please don't post another video as an answer.

 

[jc456]

It's better then your response.

Post just a 27 minute video and expect others to watch it and debate you.

That is your arguement? Lol. Lazy.

So, why do you think that clown said he didn't know what the predicate crimes were?

Is he stupid? Lying? Something else...please don't post another video as an answer.

He explained the constitutional issues about the trial. The one you have never provided the felony. He tells us there wasn’t one

 

[Catsnmeters]

He explained the constitutional issues about the trial.

Yes, and one was he said Trump didn't know the predicate crimes.

That is false.

Why would he say that?

The one you have never provided the felony. He tells us there wasn’t one

Well, in a way, he is correct. There wasn't one, there was three.

If he didn't know what they were he is an idiot.

Furthermore after reading more of the transcript, he then says the case is a vendetta blah blah blah. Lol. That's not a constitutional defense. Bragg ran on catching criminals. So what? Most do.

Then at the ten minute mark (about) he talks about 6th amendment because Trump didn't know the secondary crimes.

What the fuck? Trump did know the secondary crimes and the 6th amendment doesn't apply regardless because Trump was not charged with those secondary crimes.

And then about 15 minutes mark he says the 6th was violated because the jury didn't have to agree on the secondary crimes. Again, Trump was not charged with those crimes so the jury didn't have to agree.

It's pretty obvious this guy is a paid pundit. He is paid to make up a story that Trump supporters will accept...well because they don't fact check things they like.

Really, this guy is a paid shill. He should be embarrassed to push such lies.

 

[jc456]

Yes, and one was he said Trump didn't know the predicate crimes.

That is false.

Why would he say that?


Well, in a way, he is correct. There wasn't one, there was three.

If he didn't know what they were he is an idiot.

Furthermore after reading more of the transcript, he then says the case is a vendetta blah blah blah. Lol. That's not a constitutional defense. Bragg ran on catching criminals. So what? Most do.

Then at the ten minute mark (about) he talks about 6th amendment because Trump didn't know the secondary crimes.

What the fuck? Trump did know the secondary crimes and the 6th amendment doesn't apply regardless because Trump was not charged with those secondary crimes.

And then about 15 minutes mark he says the 6th was violated because the jury didn't have to agree on the secondary crimes. Again, Trump was not charged with those crimes so the jury didn't have to agree.

It's pretty obvious this guy is a paid pundit. He is paid to make up a story that Trump supporters will accept...well because they don't fact check things they like.

Really, this guy is a paid shill. He should be embarrassed to push such lies.

Standard demofk response

 

[Catsnmeters]

Standard demofk response

White flag noted.

Sorry relying on a video to debate for you didn't work out.

Have a good day.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The article supplies no proof beyond an out of context statement from a CNN pundit.

Do you or the paid pundit Turley have this proof?



No but the decision on orders and motions did from February...which I have already linked to you before...more then once.

Remember? I pointed out to you that Trump lied when he said he didn't know the crimes. He lied to you.

What good is debate if you ignore the facts and keep pushing the same false narrative a day(s) later?

Anyhow, like last time, "other crimes" starts on page 11.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

He didn't.

Trump was charged with falsifying business records in the first degree 34 times.

Those are state crimes.


Trump was not charged with the predicate crimes.

The predicate crimes require intent only.

For someone who uses the word dumbass a lot, you sure are wrong each time.

I don't engage in ad hominem typically but if I did call someone a dumbass about something, I sure as fuck would make sure I was right.

Explain to me in small words how "predicate crimes" that Trump was never charged with, never tried for and never convicted of can be used against him to elevate expired misdemeanors to felonies. Isn't the very basis of our legal system that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Explain to me in small words how "predicate crimes" that Trump was never charged with, never tried for and never convicted of can be used against him to elevate expired misdemeanors to felonies. Isn't the very basis of our legal system that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty?

It's explained in the people vs taveras.

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We also reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the "intent to conceal" prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement — "an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" — not any additional actus reus element.

 

[jc456]

White flag noted.

Sorry relying on a video to debate for you didn't work out.

Have a good day.

Yale law professor, and I waived a white flag, standard demofk statement when facts overwhelmed him