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

Bbbut I believe the law to be thus and such and judges and lawyers don’t know better than I do!

Here’s a definition! I am making no effort to link the definition to the case but it applies because I say so!

 

No. How many times will we need to do this?

Not a claim I've made. HE DOES have to prove the existence of a criminal statute that defines such a crime that Trump is alleged to have attempted or succeeded or attempted or succeeded to cover.

ON TO THE NEXT Strawman, irrelevancy or distraction from the ACTUAL content OF THE POST OF MINE that you are quoting or responding to. Thats what you do here.

 

?????? Definitions in Sec 17-100 apply to Sec 17-152 AND ALL OTHER SECTIONS of Election Law Chapter 17 of the Consolidated Laws of the state of NY

 

Are you FINALLY to the point where you agree that Bragg doesn’t have to prove a violation of an underlying crime?

Did Trump falsify his records? It’s quite obvious that he did. Those weren’t “fees”. Cohen was an employee and already paid a salary. The payments were reimbursement for a payment to a porn star.

Did the Orange Anus falsify his records to hide what he believed to be a crime? There’s already testimony about that,with more to come.

Now use google to find the federal court order rejecting Trump’s attempt to remove the matter to federal court. Chuckling about the link is not a legal argument and it’s lazy.

 

LOLOL You all are the ones whining. Im quoting statutes and making rational arguments. AND have said a few times that in this court he will be convicted. That he will appeal to I believe 3 steps in higher NY courts that will uphold the conviction, and only then will he be able to appeal to a federal court to get justice.

 

Do any of you righties know what a straw man argument is? It doesn’t look like it.

 

What will he argue on appeal? And how do your citations apply here? You’re tossing **** against the wall and hoping that it sticks. Read the court decisions.

 

I never claimed otherwise. You can let go of the strawman now.

Cohen isnt an employee and payments that are a reimbursement for a payment to a porn star arent illegal.

No. How many more times do we need to do this question? Thats the 3rd time. I think thats enough. I suspect "reimbursement for a payment to a porn star" didnt fit in the acounting softwares classification of expense and "reimbursement for a payment to a porn star" is embarrassing thing for all the girls in the accounting department to see.

 

I do. It looks like

I never claimed Bragg DOES "have to prove a violation of an underlying crime". Thats your strawman. You kicked the shiite outa that argument. We are all impressed. You CAN let it go now.

 

Well, one of many would be that this NY state election law doesnt apply to Federal election candidates and my citation of NY state election laws shows that it does not.
AND upon searching fragments of your link, I was able to find the federal court decision that simply deals with Trumps ability to remove a state case to federal court as a Federal official. AS I SUSPECTED irrelevant to my point. Thats what you do here. That case only means that Trump will need to wait till this court case and any state court appeals are completed before he can get to a Federal court. Just like ANYONE other than a federal official would need to do.

 

"Where a specific provision of law exists in any other law which is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, such provision shall apply unless a provision of this chapter specifies that such provision of this chapter shall apply not withstanding any other provision of law."
State of New York 2023 Election Law (ny.gov)
page 36

Searching the entire 95 pages of statutes shows exactly two provisions that "shall apply not withstanding any other provision of law" and neither one has anything to do with 17-152

 

Absurd argument that 34 payments in 2017 and "falsifying" these 2017 accounting entries were to "unlawfully influence the election" that occurred in 2016.
Tax fraud???? Such NDAs are tax deductible as a business expense. Where is the fraud?

 

It wasn't reported as a NDA. So straight away that represents falsifying business records

 

The actual planning and execution was before the election, it's only because tRaitor tRump is such a tightwad that it wasn't paid for until after the election.

 

You should “search” for the federal court order which lays out the facts and the law and also debunks your bogus notion of “preemption”. Get to it.

 

But no tax fraud.

 

But falsifying business records.

 

No, the so called falsifying of business records, what he is charged with ALL occured in 2017. Paying pornstars to shut up isnt a crime.

 

Falsifying business records to avoid embarrassment. A misdemeanor.

 

Which is a crime. And if used for other crimes, like campaign finance violations, it becomes a felony. I'm sorry you don't take crime that seriously, but that's indicative of your party these days.

 

@dixon76710 , finish the assignment that I gave you. PRONTO!!

Preemption doesn’t apply.

 

Embarrassment is what he’s trying to avoid? He’s cheated on all of his wives. He’s deliberately publicized many affairs. Now he’s embarrassed about philandering? LOL!

 

You obviously didn’t read the federal order @dixon76710 . The order lays out the essential facts, the law, and goes onto explain why the FECA does NOT preempt the state’s authority to use the statute in the prosecution.

 

Oh stop it. YOU didnt even read the case.

Defendant, Donald Trump, previously President of the United States, removed this criminal case from the New York Supreme Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The People of the State of New York (the "People") moved to remand. The question to be decided, and upon which I write, is whether the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), authorizes such removal. Section 1442(a)(l) allows "officers ... of the United States" to remove a civil or criminal case brought against them in a state court, if the case is "for or relating to any act [performed by or for them] under color of [their] office."
gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.43.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Paying pornstars to shut up and making accounting entries in his business or personal records isnt "[performed by or for them] under color of [their] office." as President