Reply to Indictment Monday?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indictment Monday?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.[/quote]

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent[/quote]

That is pretty vague.  How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?[/quote]

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday? [/quote]

There is no crime.[/quote]

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.[/quote]

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

[/quote]
Do you eat lead or something?[/quote]

Are you unable to answer the question?[/quote]
A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.[/quote]

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.[/quote]

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

[/quote]

So the defense doesn't find out until closing arguments what they are defending against?  There is no federal crime, but the defense is not being allowed to argue that.  There is no state law crime, the 17.152 because the illegal means could only plausibly refer back to the nonexistent federal crime.[/quote]

If that is your read, then you should be sharing your insight with the defense team, because that isn't what they are arguing.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics