One thing coming out of the "Hush money trial"

No, it's just a side affect.

 

TRaitor tRump should have run for Congress.

 

Cohen is not Trump.... this is the Trump trial...

Yes there is a second crime needed to bump the "out of date" misdemeanor into a felony..
What is that second crime and can you please point it out to us
Once again you are being given the opportunity to show us your claims
Here is the indictment.. please show us the second crime listed here... don't just tell....please show us...
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4d9a-dc00-a3d7-4d9f97b40000

 

That isn't what you said.

 

That's the whole idea, it's like a chiuahua heel nipping. It's designed only to annoy and/or wear down, the facts and reality are not on their side and hence, the pestering denial is all that's left.

 

Reimbursing someone for a crime is a crime. Read. Learn. You won't. It's getting old. Your question has been answered repeatedly.

 

BULLSHIT!

That's the prosecutors job. Roberts knows this. Still the prosecutor has to have convincing evidence. And then there IS the trail, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And that is what is taking place now.

But! what is also coming out in the trial and related stories is that tRaitor tRump has engaged in a lifetime of fraud and crime.

 

The reality and fact is that there is no underlying crime that makes the misdemeanors felonies.

Hush money: not a crime

Election influencing: not a crime

Campaign finance violation: state campaign finance laws don't apply to Federal elections.

Fraud: no one was defrauded.

NY Section 17-152: there were no illegal means.

We've asked and asked you all to tell us what the underlying crime is and you've forced us to point out that there isn't one and embarrass you.

 

No, you're right, tRaitor tRump is very predictable.

ALL evidence to the contrary.

Yes, as I said tRaitor tRump is predictable.

 

Oh, so now it's, "Reimbursing someone for a crime is a crime."...lol.

What crime did Cohen commit that he was reimbursed for?

 

That the head of a criminal enterprise was elected to lead this once great country is so shocking it's still difficult to fully absorb. That he is going to be the Repub's nominee for third time is completely disorienting.

Maybe the worst thing about the entire mess is the inability to discuss the subject rationally with his supporters. There is no factual common ground. Virtually no touchstone of agreement on matters that have transpired for the last 8 years or more.

The country's fate may rest in the hands of the hush money case's jury and the remaining persuadable voters in swing states. It is a frightening prospect.

 

Anyone tried to heel nip post#7?¿

 

"Reimbursing someone for a crime is a crime?" NDA are not crimes ... catch and kill is not a crime... as we have discussed that before... so we still have not penned down a crime Trump has committed.... the only documents were after the election.... McConney comptroller entered the "legal expense" to classify the payments... I am just not seeing the crime you say happened...

 

I just did...lol

 

It wasn't a point in consideration until you brought it up.

 

Then you'd better sharpen the teeth, this case would not be proceeding if the chiuahua reach had any merit. Falsifying corporate business records in furtherance of NY election interference. Two crimes make it a felony AKA high crime , it's NY brah...

 

That's what the trial is about. But, the jury isn't blind, they can see that tRaitor tRump has led a life composed of fraud, one after the other ... after the other. He has no moral compass, he has no purchase on truth or, concept of how to conduct himself legally.

 

What Cohen did was a crime. No one claimed NDAs were a crime. No one claimed catch and kill was a crime. Doing those things to help a campaign and failing to report them as a campaign contribution is the crime. Please stop pretending you can't understand this. It's embarrassing.

 

The jury can't use that to make their decision. They can only consider the evidence presented in the case. That's how trials work in The United States.

 

But, his past and other affairs are coming out in the trial.

 

That New York law doesn't apply to Federal elections.




11 CFR § 108.7 - Effect on State law (52 U.S.C. 30143).


(a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.

(b) Federal law supersedes State law concerning the—

(1) Organization and registration of political committees supporting Federal candidates;

(2) Disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees; and

(3) Limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates and political committees.

(c) The Act does not supersede State laws which provide for the—

(1) Manner of qualifying as a candidate or political party organization;

(2) Dates and places of elections;

(3) Voter registration;

(4) Prohibition of false registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses;

(5) Candidate's personal financial disclosure; or

(6) Application of State law to the funds used for the purchase or construction of a State or local party office building to the extent described in 11 CFR 300.35.

 

And it shouldn't be allowed, because it's irrelevant. Just more proof that the judge is crooked AF.

An honest judge would strike all that testimony because it's prejudicial.

 

Sure it does, you are still ignoring that the crux of the case brought by the State is the TWO crimes MAKE it a high crime, a felony. Stop reaching, you have already tipped over and face planted. Even the defense is that dumb to posture that, hello!

 

That isn't what the law says. It says that falsifying business records becomes a felony if it's used to conceal another crime.

Paying hush money isn't a crime.

 

I can be allowed if it's relevant and shows a propensity for similar crimes.

The judge has extended every consideration possible, more than you or I would ever get.

Not if it's relevant.