or through Nov. 5 2024...the lefts answer for any post from here on out will be "trump got indicted, trump got indicted, trump got indicted. ". even if it never sees a court room.
So at what point in the legal process do you think it is appropriate to spell out the crimes that one is being charged with? The answer to that question is before arraignment. What is he desperately scrambling to fabricate something?
They fully intend to drag it out for as long as possible for political reasons. Everything about the timing of this makes this completely obvious.
As I pointed out, the US Constitution says differently. Any State can pursue a crime that is committed in that state except if they are expressly forbidden to do so. There is nothing that suggests that that exists. In many crimes the State and the Fedral Government discuss who will charge since both are inabled to do so. If what you say is then the former President needs to find new lawyers becaue a good one would have shut this down.
@Sirius Black "If what you say is then the former President needs to find new lawyers becaue a good one would have shut this down." Nope.... Trump's lawyers are saying the same things the DOJ and FEC have already said...
Pres Trump... the most vetted politician n all of American history... I can't think of another pol that could withstand that scrutiny.
We take it, you have no clue what you're talking about as Bragg himself told reporters that he wasn't required to list the crimes he was charging for in the indictment. Which is why he didn't. Seems everyone but you knows there are no crimes listed in the indictment. You have to have intent to defraud in that statute to be a crime. So who is being defrauded? Who is the victim? What entry did Trumps accountants make that defrauded someone?
Fine, then tell us what rule of law he's being held too since even the DA has refused to tell anyone. I'll wait
No matter what your interpretations are, Local DAs don't charge for federal crimes and the Federal Government doesn't charge for state charges in a federal court.
Here: That's the second crime to make the falsifying business records a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Look at the graphics in his press conference. It was a conspiracy with Pecker and Cohen to stop negative stories to promote him becoming president, but they did it by illegal means, falsifying business records. It's actually not extremely complex. The extent of my legal training is lettering in speech and debate (forensics) in high school and mock trial. Bragg just kind of blew the messaging.
I fully agree with the sentiment, but there is nothing unseemly about a non disclosure agreement. It happens all the time.
I'm thinking that you did not understand the meaning of my post.... Prosecutor has accused him of trying to cover up crimes but yet he has completely failed to articulate what those crimes supposedly are. It is actually required of him to do so.
Oh they are very aware of it and have stated it. Guess what else they stated. This indictment is meaningless. It has no teeth. It has listed no crimes the DA is trying to allude too. Its 3 years out of the Statue of limitations even if it is a felony. Now, if you want to dig around the internet and find a federal election candidate that was charged and/or jailed under state election laws, I am all ears.
On the other hand you don't need that sort of NDA if you keep your pants zipped and don't chase tail after you're married.
Dude that's what Bragg is doing. Bragg has no authority to prosecute a crime that did not happen in New York.