Trump’s history-making hush-money trial begins ...(Mod Warning)

I think you're missing it...

From what I understand, the felony occurs when the State misdemeanor is committed, in order for the perpetrator to have the objective of committing ANOTHER CRIME. It does not stipulate specifically what jurisdiction of crime that has to be, merely that one is being intended. So, The Stain falsified business records (NY misdemeanor), in order to prevent the voting public of receiving information that may influence their vote (FEDERAL election crime).

In other words, as the Bragg charge states, he committed a misdemeanor in furtherance of an underlying crime....ergo, a felony.

Where am I wrong please...?

 

As an analogy, let's suppose that the falsification of business records had been committed to hide the fact that The Stain was paying to transport minors interstate for sex (not an entirely unlikely scenario...). From my understanding, the interstate transport would be normally a Federal crime, investigated by the FBI. However, in this case, because of the underlying STATE crime, the state involved could bring their own action as well.....no?

 

You are purposely off topic

And ever since I disputed that assertion, I have gotten a barrage of responses about NY business records laws and Federal election law. The only responses relevant to state law, Ive shown by quoting the statutes that show New York Election law deals with elections for State and local elections IN NEW YORK state. Strawmen and irrelevancy. Typical tactic around here. AND Federal officials in charge of enforcing Federal Election law all disagree with Bragg.

 

Ahh, Trump and his sleazebags having a problem with the Davidson the sleazebag.
I didn't say Davidson represented the N.E.
They all deserve each other.

 

Fox raised a good point tonight. If Trump conspired with someone to improve his election chances and a conspiracy takes more than one person, why isn't the other person on trial?

 

Because one of them (Pecker) was granted immunity for his testimony and another (Cohen) was actually convicted...

 

The FEC never investigated it, you should know that by now,
Much smarter for NY State Bragg to have indicated Trump then Biden's DOJ.
No pardon from a Republican president .

 

Oh, the irony coming from Fox.

 

Dylan Howard was also given immunity for info on Cohen and Trump.
Howard is back in his home Australia and can't travel due to some back issues..supposedly.
Certain evidence can't be entered because he can't appear.

 

EXACTLY...
Thus, the following statement (from someone at Fox) is the Zenith of Misinformed Idiocy...
If Trump conspired with someone to improve his election chances and a conspiracy takes more than one person, why isn't the other person on trial?
Thus, it begs the question:
WHY would anybody consider a statement from Fox which represents the Zenith of Misinformed Idiocy to be a "good point"?
Puzzling....

 

The case had examined whether Donald Trump violated election law with a $130000 payment shortly before the 2016 election
F.E.C. Drops Case Reviewing Trump Hush-Money Payments to Women - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

One more time.

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152
Casetext
https://casetext.com › statute › chapter-election › sectio...


Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted ..."



"Falsifying business records can be charged as a misdemeanor, a lower-level crime that would not normally result in prison time. It rises to a felony — which carries up to four years behind bars — if there was an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Bragg said his office routinely brings felony false business records cases.

In Trump’s case, Bragg said the phony business records were designed to cover up alleged state and federal election law violations. The $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal cap on campaign contributions, Bragg said. He also cited a New York election law that makes it a crime to promote a candidate by unlawful means.

“That is what this defendant did when he falsified business records in order to conceal unlawful efforts to promote his candidacy, and that is why we are here,” one of the case prosecutors, Chris Conroy, told the judge Tuesday.'

https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc

 

LOL!
A Paywall.

Try reading this again.
It's been posted more then once,


No, the FEC did not absolve Trump of his hush money ...

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
https://www.citizensforethics.org › News

Apr 19, 2023 — The FEC did not acquit Trump of wrongdoing connected to hush money payments, and deadlocked on yet another Trump complaint.

 

I'm still laughing at whatever blithering imbecile at Fox said that.

 

Good point. Curious minds in Arizona are asking the same question.

 

Jimmy Kimmel's show made it into court records today by prosecutors.
His interview with Stormy.

HILARIOUS!

 

Nothing there that disputes my or the NYTimes article. Not sure of your point. "did not absolve"????? LOLOL! FEC doesnt "absolve" anyone. "Did not acquit" LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! FEC doesnt "acquit" anyone. And your article considers this news.

 

Aaaaand one more time. 17-152 doesnt apply to elections for President. Only state office elections.

 

" The office said it had found “reason to believe” violations of campaign finance law were made “knowingly and willfully” by the Trump campaign.

But the election commission — split evenly between three Republicans and three Democratic-aligned commissioners — declined to proceed. Two Republican commissioners voted to dismiss the case while two Democratic commissions voted to move forward. There was one absence and one Republican recusal.

This article will be updated.

 

One more time.
Then Bye Felecia!

"The Potential Object Offenses: New York Election Law"

"This brings us to the final potential object offense, and the one that seems to bear the most weight in Bragg’s presentation of the case so far: New York Election Law § 17-152, a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Trump has sought to challenge Bragg’s use of this statute as well, arguing that it applies only to state and local elections, rather than presidential elections—which Merchan rejected. The former president likewise argued in federal court that FECA preempts § 17-152 in federal elections, but Judge Hellerstein held this to be “without merit.”

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump#:~:text=This brings us to the,public office by unlawful means.”

 

That source you quoted leans far left. In this case, even they seem to be baffled by Bragg's legal spaghetti. When Lawfare questions it, you know the charges are fraudulent. Because if there was any way for them to legitimize it, they for damn sure would.

 

Tell me Mr Edwards...which sources do you regard as non left and non right? Which specific sources are acceptable to you?

 

Sources who don't worship the likes of Lawrence Tribe would be a good start.

 

I did not ask you for a 'don't.'

Take #2:

Tell me Mr Edwards...which sources do you regard as non left and non right? Which specific sources are acceptable to you?