Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[BabyBoomer50s]

Did you read the article you linked?

“Bragg’s indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And prosecutors still haven’t identified the specific offense to jurors.”

You’re welcome.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

“Bragg’s indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And prosecutors still haven’t identified the specific offense to jurors.”

You’re welcome.

So you didn’t read it.
Thanks.

 

[jaF0]

But I'll bet they insist that Menendez and Cuellar are guilty.



(Which they probably are.)

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So you didn’t read it.
Thanks.

It says no crime identified. Pasted a quote straight from the article. Sorry you’re having difficulty comprehending it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It says no crime identified. Pasted a quote straight from the article. Sorry you’re having difficulty comprehending it.

It doesn’t say that at all, you still haven’t read it.

 

[icanhelp1]

“Bragg’s indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And prosecutors still haven’t identified the specific offense to jurors.”

You’re welcome.

Bragg's indictment (34 counts) has a much deeper problem than just a failure to establish a statutory criminal felony charge. This case is in deep trouble starting with the grand Jury and Bragg's apparent withholding exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. Bragg, also as stated by Cohen's attorney Castello, refused to provide the grand jury hundreds of email conversations between Costello and Cohen which would prove that Cohen would have to lie in court under the direction of Alvin Bragg and his subordinate DAs. Refusing to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury seems to be a pattern for leftist court officers. He we go again with misinterpreting the law concerning what defines admissible hearsay evidence in a trial or grand jury. Bragg could be prosecuted for directing Cohen knowing full well that Cohen would have to perjure himself to give credence to Bragg's indictment ( subornation of perjury ) Just a thought.

Source: Mark Levin interview with attorney Robert Costello

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yet you are still unable to identify what the crime is that the prosecutor alleges Trump tried to commit or cover up. Keep trying.

So here you don't know the crime...

Fuzzy, the WaPo article you shared is over a year old. We know that the charges feature 134 counts of falsification. Basically one count for each invoice, ledger entry and check to pay Cohen. If you and SpiderMan had read the article in my post, you would understand that falsifying business records is a felony in New York only if it is done to conceal or commit another crime.

Yet here, one year ago you do know the crime....

Which is it Boomer,you can have it both ways......(entertainment at it's finest)...*chuckles*

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So here you don't know the crime...

Yet here, one year ago you do know the crime....

Which is it Boomer,you can have it both ways......(entertainment at its finest)...*chuckles*

Try reading the articles I shared. The Washington Examiner article from last week and/or the Wall Street Journal article published today. I’ve posted links as well as excerpts from both of them.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The only way it becomes a felony is if it can be proven the falsification was intentionally done to commit or cover up a crime. Bragg is charging Trump with felony charges but has not identified the alleged crime that was committed or covered up.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Try reading the articles I shared. The Washington Examiner article from last week and/or the Wall Street Journal article published today. I’ve posted links as well as excerpts from both of them.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The only way it becomes a felony is if it can be proven the falsification was intentionally done to commit or cover up a crime. Bragg is charging Trump with felony charges but has not identified the alleged crime that was committed or covered up.

So again, you post that you understand the charges...that's 2 posts for understanding, and 1 post against. Is this best out of 3, 5 or 7?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So again, you post that you understand the charges...that's 2 posts for understanding, and 1 post against. Is this best out of 3, 5 or 7?

The question is what is the underlying crime? Bragg hasn’t said.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The question is what is the underlying crime? Bragg hasn’t said.

It's all tied up!! 2 post for understanding, and 2 for not.....and we're on to the best out of 5, or 7!!

 

[HisArpy]

So again, you post that you understand the charges...that's 2 posts for understanding, and 1 post against. Is this best out of 3, 5 or 7?

dudly, there are TWO levels of crimes you have to go through to get a conviction here.

One level is the accounting entries, which are misdemeanors.

The SECOND level is the supposed felony offense that the misdemeanor accounting entries are supposed to be concealing.

There is no second level crime alleged, or proven, or even named. Without that, there can be no felony conviction and the statute of limitations has run out on the misdemeanors.

So it seems as if it's YOU who doesn't understand.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

dudly, there are TWO levels of crimes you have to go through to get a conviction here.

One level is the accounting entries, which are misdemeanors.

The SECOND level is the supposed felony offense that the misdemeanor accounting entries are supposed to be concealing.

There is no second level crime alleged, or proven, or even named. Without that, there can be no felony conviction and the statute of limitations has run out on the misdemeanors.

So it seems as if it's YOU who doesn't understand.

Aren't you another one "pretending" to not know the crimes??? I think you are.....*chuckles*

Seem's there's a third option I've not thought about for the comedic value of this Trump trial.....continuation.

 

[butters]

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Funded by / Ownership​

The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, owned by Philip Anschutz, an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and has donated millions of dollars to right-leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups, such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. The Washington Examiner is funded through an advertising and subscription model.

Analysis / Bias​

In review, the Washington Examiner format and content have been compared to The Hill, albeit with a right-leaning tilt. They generally report political news as well as local Washington DC news stories. The Washington Examiner frequently utilizes loaded wording in sensationalized headlines like Trump’s manic Monday amid the Kavanaugh storm. While the headlines may be sensational, the articles’ content is written with less bias and tend to be adequately sourced to credible media outlets.

Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines such as this: Obama, the Great Divider when in office, lacks the credibility to lecture America.

Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks. (7/18/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/17/2022)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

 

[HisArpy]

Aren't you another one "pretending" to not know the crimes??? I think you are.....*chuckles*

Seem's there's a third option I've not thought about for the comedic value of this Trump trial.....continuation.

So, if you're so smart, what's the felony?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, if you're so smart, what's the felony?

Sorry, the game is on with Boomer at the moment, you have to wait to play till he's done.

 

[HisArpy]

Bias Rating: RIGHT

In review, the Washington Examiner format and content have been compared to The Hill, albeit with a right-leaning tilt...

Analysis / Bias​

In review, While the headlines may be sensational, the articles’ content is written with less bias and tend to be adequately sourced to credible media outlets.

Lol. You can't even manage to find something that says what you want it to say. In fact, your cite actually does EXACTLY what they claim the Examiner does.

Which is about as good of a face plant as I've seen in recent days.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Try reading the articles I shared. The Washington Examiner article from last week and/or the Wall Street Journal article published today. I’ve posted links as well as excerpts from both of them.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The only way it becomes a felony is if it can be proven the falsification was intentionally done to commit or cover up a crime. Bragg is charging Trump with felony charges but has not identified the alleged crime that was committed or covered up.

He has, it’s literally outlined in the article you cited.
Please read it.

 

[HisArpy]

He has, it’s literally outlined in the article you cited.
Please read it.

The you should be able to name the crime. Right?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The you should be able to name the crime. Right?

Don’t bet on it. He’s been trying for two days. Fuzzy is struggling too.

 

[icanhelp1]

Try reading the articles I shared. The Washington Examiner article from last week and/or the Wall Street Journal article published today. I’ve posted links as well as excerpts from both of them.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The only way it becomes a felony is if it can be proven the falsification was intentionally done to commit or cover up a crime. Bragg is charging Trump with felony charges but has not identified the alleged crime that was committed or covered up.

What you need to do is go into your backyard and find a big rock then explain to the rock that a crime was never established by the DA. You’ll have better luck with a rock!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Try reading the articles I shared. The Washington Examiner article from last week and/or the Wall Street Journal article published today. I’ve posted links as well as excerpts from both of them.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The only way it becomes a felony is if it can be proven the falsification was intentionally done to commit or cover up a crime. Bragg is charging Trump with felony charges but has not identified the alleged crime that was committed or covered up.

You still haven’t read the article.
“Colangelo went on to weave a tale in which Trump, then-National Enquirer chief David Pecker, and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen “formed a conspiracy … to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected.”

That’s from your link.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What you need to do is go into your backyard and find a big rock then explain to the rock that a crime was never established by the DA. You’ll have better luck with a rock!

Besides the one the DA explained to the jury?

 

[HisArpy]

You still haven’t read the article.
“Colangelo went on to weave a tale in which Trump, then-National Enquirer chief David Pecker, and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen “formed a conspiracy … to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected.”

That’s from your link.

That's a crime? In what statute is it found?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's a crime? In what statute is it found?

The DA likely already outlined that. As an attorney would you allow a case to proceed if your client wasn’t charged with a crime?