The Notorious “catch and kill" campaign: Turning the National Enquirer into an arm of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah, and only Democrats are allowed to kill stories about themselves you know. If a Republican does it, its influencing an election! BUt Unlike Trump who used the national enquieror as an "ARM", Biden and the Democrats can use the FBI as their political "arm" to bury things like the Hunter Laptop. Nothing to see there !!

No one is arguing Trump is on trial because of "catch and kill"

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

 

[para bellum]

People are going on about the predicate crime not being spelled out. During trial it is. NY state law says it does not need to be spelled out in any indictment.

Yes it does. That is clearly addressed in the ruling on the "sufficiency of charges" portion.

"The standard that is to be applied on a motion to dismiss an indictment due to legal insufficiency is "whether there was competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof."

EVERY ELEMENT.

There are three elements to 175.10.
1. Intent to defraud
2. Falsification of records
3. Intent to commit the underlying crime

The judge spelled out all 3 elements in that ruling.

They cannot wait until trial to identify one or more of the elements. The underlying crimes were left out of the indictment, but were specified in the bill of particulars back in November. The judge disallowed one of them and allowed the other 3 to stand.

 

[para bellum]

A good link to the Trump whine

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Nowhere are they challenging the predicate crime need be listed.

They had it already them dummy! It just wasn't publicly known. The motion challenged the predicates that were previously specified in the bill of particulars.

They weren't on the indictment, where do you think they got them?

It is Section II B, starting on page 14 of the pdf you linked.

"The People Have Not Identified A Viable Object Offense Under § 175.10"

The Object Offense is the underlying or predicate crime that everyone was wondering about.

The footnote on page 8 of Merchan's Feb. ruling explains that:

The "object offense" referenced by Defendant as well as the terms "other crime", and "another crime", carry equal meaning.

YOU CANNOT WAIT UNTIL TRIAL TO PROVIDE THIS TO THE DEFENSE!

Jesus you are a dense motherfucker.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Someone who defends The Constitution is a shill.

Sorry, I was talking to people who can actually hold more than one thought in their heads at once.

So, not you.

Someone who shills for the orange pile of shit is a shill.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes it does. That is clearly addressed in the ruling on the "sufficiency of charges" portion.

"The standard that is to be applied on a motion to dismiss an indictment due to legal insufficiency is "whether there was competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof."

EVERY ELEMENT.

There are three elements to 175.10.
1. Intent to defraud
2. Falsification of records
3. Intent to commit the underlying crime

The judge spelled out all 3 elements in that ruling.

They cannot wait until trial to identify one or more of the elements. The underlying crimes were left out of the indictment, but were specified in the bill of particulars back in November. The judge disallowed one of them and allowed the other 3 to stand.

That is not a challenge to the law. The statute is not mentioned that covers Bragg's not listing the predicate crime. Nowhere in the motion is that challenged. As usual, you dolts conflate things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They had it already them dummy! It just wasn't publicly known. The motion challenged the predicates that were previously specified in the bill of particulars.

They weren't on the indictment, where do you think they got them?

It is Section II B, starting on page 14 of the pdf you linked.

"The People Have Not Identified A Viable Object Offense Under § 175.10"

The Object Offense is the underlying or predicate crime that everyone was wondering about.

The footnote on page 8 of Merchan's Feb. ruling explains that:

The "object offense" referenced by Defendant as well as the terms "other crime", and "another crime", carry equal meaning.

YOU CANNOT WAIT UNTIL TRIAL TO PROVIDE THIS TO THE DEFENSE!

Jesus you are a dense motherfucker.

Wrong.

 

[para bellum]

^^^ New York CPL 200.50 (7) states:

An indictment must contain:

7. A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, (a) asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s or defendants’ commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation

 

[Nostra]

^^^ New York CPL 200.50 (7) states:

An indictment must contain:

7. A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, (a) asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s or defendants’ commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation

That’s odd. Bragg resurrected dead misdemeanors to felonies by claiming there was some other unnamed crime we have yet to hear about.

NY is one fucked up state.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No statute mentioned.

Try again, Simp.

Nostradumbass getting it wrong yet again in twattrain45 suggestion 6.

 

[para bellum]

That’s odd. Bragg resurrected dead misdemeanors to felonies by claiming there was some other unnamed crime we have yet to hear about.

NY is one fucked up state.

No, the other crime is named- New York Election Law 17-152.

That was finally specified precisely on Tuesday in a sidebar.

It's another misdemeanor, which they can't charge him with because the statute of limitations is expired.

 

[Nostra]

Nostradumbass getting it wrong yet again in twattrain45 suggestion 6.

English, do you speak it?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You ignore everything. Why Faun bothers with you so much is beyond me.

God bless those who do. I have no such patience.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Still no statute, Simp?

This shit is real whether you believe it or not.
Reality persists regardless of your refutations.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

English, do you speak it?

No point, dupe. It’s out there and everyone gets it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Democrats make the rules.

IOW you’re helpless because you understand nothing?
Are you really so victimized?

 

[para bellum]

That is not a challenge to the law. The statute is not mentioned that covers Bragg's not listing the predicate crime. Nowhere in the motion is that challenged. As usual, you dolts conflate things.

Really, have you not embarrassed yourself enough?

It was a challenge to the underlying crimes that were already known to the defense.

The requirements for the indictment I listed in post #410, which clearly shows you are totally full of shit in your claim that they can wait until trial to notify the defendant of the predicate crime- that is an element of the charge.

That would be easy grounds for a dismissal.

 

[Nostra]

This shit is real whether you believe it or not.
Reality persists regardless of your refutations.

Still no statute, huh Simp?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong again which is the norm for you. You are way out of your depth.

Of course they disputed it- in a motion back in September 2023.

And the judge ruled on it, and disallowed one possibility and left three standing.

Read carefully pages 11-18. starting with

2. "Other Crime"

Hilarious.
If you, or anyone for that matter, were within the “depth” that you suggest. Trump wouldn’t be knee deep in a criminal trial.

 

[Yarddog]

No one is arguing Trump is on trial because of "catch and kill"

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

Ok, well wait. Those NY laws are a misdemeanor offense. They want to claim none of this is political? Yet they are going after an ex president. One who is running again on an expired misdemeanor offense ?

Seems to me this decisiveness by one political party is deciding and destroying our country. They can’t leave it for the voters to decide.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dipshit, you don't wait to trial to challenge the indictment.

I am talking about the case, and your claim that identifying the underlying charge is not required by law.

You are flat-out wrong, as the court doc I just posted proves.

At trial is the only place to address an indictment, dope.