TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.

---

Stormy Daniels' testimony and credibility probably doesn't really matter, though. So disastrous to what?

There are several media members who have been going to the trial every day who thought she didn't need to get on the stand at all. She was there to (1) say they had sex to explain what Trump was worried about and (2) to say Trump didn't express a need at the time to "cover it up."

That's tangentially important. But no one disagrees Trump wanted to "cover it up" and no one disagrees the story would hurt his reputation and was a concern to the campaign.

She didn't and can't testify about how the Trump Organization handled the incident internally and in public documentary evidence which is what this is about.

They had her testify to add color to the idea this could hurt his election chances, but I also think she didn't even have to testify at all.

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

Rockdoc said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Funny that as of this morning, this is almost assuredly the only criminal case against Trump with any chance of success remaining.

The DC case is going to get gutted by scotus.
The GA case got Fani Willis'd.
The documents case is now just the episode of Seinfeld where George costanza drives all the way to the Hamptons.

---

And other than a couple of TDS infected water carriers on here, the majority of the nation thinks this case is a clown show. They're even losing the lib lawyers on the lib media. Ultimately this won't end well for them.

---

They don't need to win over lib lawyers on lib media to end well for them. They just have to win over the 12 jurors chosen from a pool of people who overwhelmingly hate Trump. So there's a more than a decent chance it could still end well for them. Having to have it overturned on appeal is still a win for them.

Quote:

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

---

And painting herself as some sort of victim of unwanted sexual congress when that has never been her story until now? It was scripted by that prosecutor for her to say that, to MeToo Trump.

Again, completely irrelevant to the charges.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

---

And painting herself as some sort of victim of unwanted sexual congress when that has never been her story until now? It was scripted by that prosecutor for her to say that, to MeToo Trump.

Again, completely irrelevant to the charges.

---

After the Weinstein reversal...could things like this also be grounds for appeal?

Tomorrow's cross will be brutal for the prosecution imo.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Funny that as of this morning, this is almost assuredly the only criminal case against Trump with any chance of success remaining.

The DC case is going to get gutted by scotus.
The GA case got Fani Willis'd.
The documents case is now just the episode of Seinfeld where George costanza drives all the way to the Hamptons.

---

And other than a couple of TDS infected water carriers on here, the majority of the nation thinks this case is a clown show. They're even losing the lib lawyers on the lib media. Ultimately this won't end well for them.

---

They don't need to win over lib lawyers on lib media to end well for them. They just have to win over the 12 jurors chosen from a pool of people who overwhelmingly hate Trump. So there's a more than a decent chance it could still end well for them. Having to have it overturned on appeal is still a win for them.

---

Oh I didn't mean THIS episode wasn't going to go their way. I said ultimately.

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

---

And painting herself as some sort of victim of unwanted sexual congress when that has never been her story until now? It was scripted by that prosecutor for her to say that, to MeToo Trump.

Again, completely irrelevant to the charges.

---

After the Weinstein reversal...could things like this also be grounds for appeal?

---

Oh certainly yes it can. Merchan stating from the bench that he would not follow that court of appeals decision in the instant case (which is binding on him, BTW) certainly can be raised on appeal.

I am undecided if that would be enough to obtain a writ of mandamus however. My gut says that alone was not enough but the upcoming cross and redirect of Stormy tomorrow might change my mind.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.

---

Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"

Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"


As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.

---

as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.

So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?

---

Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.

---

Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.

And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.

I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.

---

Do you believe that the charges are valid?

---

---

I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.

This comes down to nitty gritty issues of who knew or said this or that based on emails, texts, daily practice, etc., which is exactly the kind of issue a jury exists to wade through and decide.

We'll see what else the state can show over the next couple of weeks.

---

What changed since the FEC, Cy Vance and Alvin Bragg all didn't think these misdemeanors were worth pursuing, allowing the SoL to expire?

Rockdoc said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Funny that as of this morning, this is almost assuredly the only criminal case against Trump with any chance of success remaining.

The DC case is going to get gutted by scotus.
The GA case got Fani Willis'd.
The documents case is now just the episode of Seinfeld where George costanza drives all the way to the Hamptons.

---

And other than a couple of TDS infected water carriers on here, the majority of the nation thinks this case is a clown show. They're even losing the lib lawyers on the lib media. Ultimately this won't end well for them.

---

They don't need to win over lib lawyers on lib media to end well for them. They just have to win over the 12 jurors chosen from a pool of people who overwhelmingly hate Trump. So there's a more than a decent chance it could still end well for them. Having to have it overturned on appeal is still a win for them.

---

Oh I didn't mean THIS episode wasn't going to go their way. I said ultimately.

---

Ahh yes. I agree. Other than them somehow getting Trump off the ballot, IF we have even a close to fair election I honestly don't see how Sh**s his pants Joe can beat Trump. That's a big IF though. Not sure what the reaction would be if Joe "gets another record total of votes" while having an approval rating in the 30's. I'm sure we'll be told it is the most free and fair election in history though, even more so than 2020!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.

---

Stormy Daniels' testimony and credibility probably doesn't really matter, though. So disastrous to what?

There are several media members who have been going to the trial every day who thought she didn't need to get on the stand at all. She was there to (1) say they had sex to explain what Trump was worried about and (2) to say Trump didn't express a need at the time to "cover it up."

That's tangentially important. But no one disagrees Trump wanted to "cover it up" and no one disagrees the story would hurt his reputation and was a concern to the campaign.

She didn't and can't testify about how the Trump Organization handled the incident internally and in public documentary evidence which is what this is about.

They had her testify to add color to the idea this could hurt his election chances, but I also think she didn't even have to testify at all.

---

SCONY just threw out the Weinstein case because of what you just said in the Trump case. The prosecution and judge don't care; they want their political verdict even though it will be overturned on appeal.

Hope Hicks already said Trump didn't want Melania to find out.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TRIDENT said:

---

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

---

They haven't really said. Some type of "election interference" There was some talk of another state statute touching on corruptly acting to do something in an election but that was still a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that.

---

The three predicate crimes they can pursue are Federal FECA's contribution limits, New York Law 17-152, and New York Law 1801 and 1802. (See below.)

And everything bolded in your doesn't matter.

Its not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

---

If the predicate crime was never charged or tried how can it then be deemed as basis for a subsequent crime?

I dont see the legal logic holding up.

A legal determination would have to be determined first before the 2nd could apply, no?


Forget Trump for a moment

Give me another scenario where such a case or scenario has been brought

Person is not charged federally for a misdemeanor. Actions related to this same incident/action that may or may not have been a federal misdemeanor( we can never know) are now being alleged to be felonious because they may have been performed in conjunction with an alleged federal misdemeanor?

Quote:

---

What changed since the FEC, Cy Vance and Alvin Bragg all didn't think these misdemeanors were worth pursuing, allowing the SoL to expire?

---

Biden and Garland sent Michael Colangelo to Bragg's office to force him to bring these weak ass charges, which was supposed to be a back up case to the DC Jan 6th Trump case. But Smith managed to torpedo that case so badly SCOTUS agreed to review it, bringing those proceedings to a halt.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A judge and jury assigned to determine guilt on that matter. It's BS you can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony based on a crime that has not been adjudicated.

---

Have you ever heard the saying "the cover up was worse than the crime?"

Or maybe Proverbs 28:13 "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"


As I said earlier, I have long questioned if the state can meet their burden about the intent to conceal another crime. But this would be a classic case of lying about the original sin was worse than the original sin.

---

as the original post says....there hasn't been an adjudicated crime for him to have covered up. Hard to cover up a crime if there was no crime to cover up.

So you think he should admit to a crime he hasn't committed? Why? Or do you think his crime is just not being a good person?

---

Apparently, a jury can just deem someone guilty of another crime, even though it has never even been charged. That sounds very fascistic to me.

---

Trump doesn't have to be charged and found guilty of another crime to be guilty of the charged offenses. That's just how works, sorry if you don't like it.

And a jury can certainly hear evidence and decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit/conceal a crime, whether that crime was separately charged or not. Again, sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it works.

I'll say for the 3rd time that I have my doubts about whether the state will prove it at this trial, but that's a separate issue.

---

Do you believe that the charges are valid?

---

---

I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.

This comes down to nitty gritty issues of who knew or said this or that based on emails, texts, daily practice, etc., which is exactly the kind of issue a jury exists to wade through and decide.

We'll see what else the state can show over the next couple of weeks.

---

What changed since the FEC, Cy Vance and Alvin Bragg all didn't think these misdemeanors were worth pursuing, allowing the SoL to expire?

---

The calendar.

It got closer to the election...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What changed since the FEC, Cy Vance and Alvin Bragg all didn't think these misdemeanors were worth pursuing, allowing the SoL to expire?

---

Biden and Garland sent Michael Colangelo to Bragg's office to force him to bring these weak ass charges, which was supposed to be a back up case to the DC Jan 6th Trump case. But Smith managed to torpedo that case so badly SCOTUS agreed to review it, bringing those proceedings to a halt.

---

Colangelo made a pit stop in Leticia James' office, then a stint "consulting" for the DNC before landing in Bragg's office. Weird coincidences. What a small world.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

---

And painting herself as some sort of victim of unwanted sexual congress when that has never been her story until now? It was scripted by that prosecutor for her to say that, to MeToo Trump.

Again, completely irrelevant to the charges.

---

After the Weinstein reversal...could things like this also be grounds for appeal?

---

Oh certainly yes it can. Merchan stating from the bench that he would not follow that court of appeals decision in the instant case (which is binding on him, BTW) certainly can be raised on appeal.

I am undecided if that would be enough to obtain a writ of mandamus however. My gut says that alone was not enough but the upcoming cross and redirect of Stormy tomorrow might change my mind.

---

Would it possible, even prudent, for Trump's attorneys to be drafting a writ of mandamus to submit while the evidentiary portion of the trial was ongoing? Are they allowed to submit before a possible conviction?

However, I'm going to assume that the appeals court would just ignore it.

Does the state have any evidence of specific intent that a crime be committed?

Seems like that would be an essential element on any of the above theories, no?

They'll do it anyway, but how you gonna put the case in the hands of a jury lacking some evidence of specific intent?

Quote:

---

Would it possible, even prudent, for Trump's attorneys to be drafting a writ of mandamus to submit while the evidentiary portion of the trial was ongoing? Are they allowed to submit before a possible conviction?

However, I'm going to assume that the appeals court would just ignore it.

---

What is possible in theory is one thing.

What is practical is another.

What I expect is that Trump's attorneys renew their motions for mistrial at several points in the coming days. Both Stormy and Cohen's testimony will become very problematical for Merchan to navigate, or navigate cleanly at least.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Does the state have any evidence of specific intent that a crime be committed?

Seems like that would be an essential element on any of the above theories, no?

They'll do it anyway, but how you gonna put the case in the hands of a jury lacking some evidence of specific intent?

---

I'm guessing the only evidence they have is Cohen's word, unless the prosecution can produce some document/image/recording of Trump that could imply intent.

It is further problematic because it was revealed under cross that Cohen's cell phones had been tampered with.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What changed since the FEC, Cy Vance and Alvin Bragg all didn't think these misdemeanors were worth pursuing, allowing the SoL to expire?

---

Biden and Garland sent Michael Colangelo to Bragg's office to force him to bring these weak ass charges, which was supposed to be a back up case to the DC Jan 6th Trump case. But Smith managed to torpedo that case so badly SCOTUS agreed to review it, bringing those proceedings to a halt.

---

I really don't think enough people understand that this and Fani were just PR side shows to the main event, which Garland/Jack Smith completely blew.

Depending on these to be some sort of electoral/inquisition back up plans is absolutely nuts. They're only galvanizing support for Trump by the day.

Quote:

---

If the predicate crime was never charged or tried how can it then be deemed as basis for a subsequent crime?

I dont see the legal logic holding up.

A legal determination would have to be determined first before the 2nd could apply, no?

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

What legal principal, theory or "logic" is violated by not formally charging the commission of another crime?

Seriously. This is the first day I've looked at this thread in weeks, so perhaps I'm missing it, but I've been scrolling through the last few pages and I'm not seeing an articulation of what's actually wrong with this law other than "that can't be how it works!"

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous


like i said, forget Trump


Assume a federal misdemeanor was in fact committed but never tried

Some subsequent state law allows charges to brought in relation to or in the commitment of an otherwise unproved Federal misdemeanor.

lay it out for me?


How can a New York jury make any meaningful determination with regards to an alleged federal crime?

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous


like i said, forget Trump


Assume a federal misdemeanor was in fact committed but never tried

Some subsequent state law allows charges to brought in relation to or in the commitment of an otherwise unproved Federal misdemeanor.

lay it out for me?


How can a New York jury make any meaningful determination with regards to an alleged federal crime?

---

I believe the prosecution is using a NY election law (or 2?) here. Since the states run their own elections, they can have additional election laws as long as they are not contradictory to federal ones.

SwigAg11 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous


like i said, forget Trump


Assume a federal misdemeanor was in fact committed but never tried

Some subsequent state law allows charges to brought in relation to or in the commitment of an otherwise unproved Federal misdemeanor.

lay it out for me?


How can a New York jury make any meaningful determination with regards to an alleged federal crime?

---

I believe the prosecution is using a NY election law (or 2?) here. Since the states run their own elections, they can have additional election laws as long as they are not contradictory to federal ones.

---

And all they have to do is convince THIS jury that Trump "intended" to cover up that other crime - even though he was never charged with that crime - and he is guilty of a felony.

That's BS.

SwigAg11 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous


like i said, forget Trump


Assume a federal misdemeanor was in fact committed but never tried

Some subsequent state law allows charges to brought in relation to or in the commitment of an otherwise unproved Federal misdemeanor.

lay it out for me?


How can a New York jury make any meaningful determination with regards to an alleged federal crime?

---

I believe the prosecution is using a NY election law (or 2?) here. Since the states run their own elections, they can have additional election laws as long as they are not contradictory to federal ones.

---

its combined i thought

They allege a federal election violation that triggers other state law attachments and are making a determination if that federal law was indeed broken.

I dont see where they have jurisdiction to make any such determination

at least as it pertains to the 1st scenario given

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TRIDENT said:

---

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

---

They haven't really said. Some type of "election interference" There was some talk of another state statute touching on corruptly acting to do something in an election but that was still a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that.

---

The three predicate crimes they can pursue are Federal FECA's contribution limits, New York Law 17-152, and New York Law 1801 and 1802. (See below.)

And everything bolded in your doesn't matter.

Its not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

---

If the predicate crime was never charged or tried how can it then be deemed as basis for a subsequent crime?

I dont see the legal logic holding up.

A legal determination would have to be determined first before the 2nd could apply, no?


Forget Trump for a moment

Give me another scenario where such a case or scenario has been brought

Person is not charged federally for a misdemeanor. Actions related to this same incident/action that may or may not have been a federal misdemeanor( we can never know) are now being alleged to be felonious because they may have been performed in conjunction with an alleged federal misdemeanor?

---

Think of it like a conspiracy charge. It's not an exact analogy since conspiracy isn't charged here, but it's close enough for this discussion. Say you and three of your buddies want to commit the big boy federal felony of wire fraud. You all meet, decide how you're going to do it, and commit the wire fraud. The feds swoop in, and charge everyone with wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. As the case lingers, the wire fraud charge gets dropped for whatever reason, but the conspiracy charge stays. All they have to do to prove conspiracy was 1) there was an agreement between two or more persons (there were four of you) 2) to commit wire fraud (you all talked about committing wire fraud), and 3) an overt act was committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy (someone opened a bank account to receive the funds). The fact that the wire fraud charges were dropped has zero bearing as to if there was a conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and they don't have to prove that you actually committed wire fraud for the conspiracy charge to hold up.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

So you think this is a fair and just trial?

---

I'll post this one last time to Aggie2011 to see if he'll maybe answer instead of dancing around other posters.

---

It'll be like the other posters on the sham bank trial that realize how insane their positions are - eventually say "well I don't agree I'm just trying to explain why the judge is right". Theyd look better/have more credibility just saying "it's a sham and I agree with the sham". Similar to how people look when they say "I don't want to take your guns I'm just trying to explain why being allowed only one pistol locked away is reasonable gun control."

---

Where is good emperor Antoninus these days?

okay

but apples to apples would be

Feds investigate but never charge

then the state goes in for conspiracy to commit federal wire fraud


for scenario 1

again, that just reads wonky to me

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous


like i said, forget Trump


Assume a federal misdemeanor was in fact committed but never tried

Some subsequent state law allows charges to brought in relation to or in the commitment of an otherwise unproved Federal misdemeanor.

lay it out for me?


How can a New York jury make any meaningful determination with regards to an alleged federal crime?

---

It doesn't have to make logical or legal sense. It's Trump vs. a New York jury. Easy conviction based on political hatred alone and that plus election interference is the motive. There are no consequences since there is no one willing to hold the Democrat party accountable at the federal level and certainly not at the New York State level.

The people pulling the strings here understand it exactly how I described it above as do the liberals in this thread; although, none of them would ever admit it because they are all habitual liars.

pacecar02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This jury in this case will have to decide, as an element of the case, whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to commit or aid or conceal the commission of another crime. That will be tried. The State of New York will have the burden of proof.

---

legally how can a New York jury "decide" a federal crime that was never charged or adjudicated.

That seems preposterous

---

First of all, you're changing the subject (maybe unintentionally). You said how can you be charged for covering up a crime you weren't charged with. Now, you're talking about whether the crime is federal or not. That's a different issue.

Second, as noted, there are two New York state crimes involved.

Third, a state cannot directly charge a person with a federal crime without permission from Congress. But New York is not doing so. They are not charging Trump with a federal crime. States are generally allowed to use federal crimes (or intended crimes, etc.) as predicates or as elements of state crimes.


And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TRIDENT said:

---

What exactly IS the predicate crime in this case?

---

They haven't really said. Some type of "election interference" There was some talk of another state statute touching on corruptly acting to do something in an election but that was still a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Piling misdemeanors on top of each other by count stacking does not a felony make. If their theory is some type of federal crime involving campaign finance violations, Bragg's office does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that.

---

The three predicate crimes they can pursue are Federal FECA's contribution limits, New York Law 17-152, and New York Law 1801 and 1802. (See below.)

And everything bolded in your doesn't matter.

Its not required that the underlying crime is a felony or not. And it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is federal or not. The State isn't charging Trump with a federal crime or trying to "enforce it." The State has to prove Trump falsified business records to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. Full stop.

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

---

Doesn't matter? Bull****!!!! As for number 2, I guess it doesn't matter either if the predicate "crime" was also a misdemeanor, and also out of statute of limitations.

Here's the obligatory response from earlier in the thread (again) to the BS you're posting without comment (again) and not calling out as ridiculous.

(1) How does any rational human being allege an illegal campaing contribution made by the attorney of the defendant in which the defendant repaid the attorney using personal funds. There are NO restrictions of a candidate making contributions to his own candidacy as far as I am aware. I am surprised that some attorneys who are watching aren't at all concerned with the precedent of how this could be misused in the future of one acting as agent for an individual. This is a dangerous precedent to ignore, imo.
(2) Again, a New York misdemeanor statute that is out of SOL further than the alleged coverup? Never been charged, much less convicted. Any attempt to try or convict him of this crime now in order to justify the administrative crime should never be allowed to happen in a courtroom and any rational NONBIASED individual would know that. As for a political trial against a political opponent, however?...
(3) Tax Law? Are you kidding me? I don't know how you bill, but I've never been billed by an attorney where I am not paying for the attorney's services in addition to expenses. And I'm pretty dammed sure that any taxes that the attorney is going to have to pay as income tax on my project will be included in the invoice. If Cohen billed Trump for "legal services" and that number included Stormy's payment as well as taxes that Cohen would have to pay, that's on Cohen, not Trump.

I'm getting really tired of Abbe Lowell type BS from attorneys who try to twist the law for POLITICAL gain. And I imagine others are getting really tired of it as well.

I'll remind you (again) that as an attorney, you should want to acknowledge BS when you see it. Otherwise, you yourself contribute to the severe reduction in faith that our justice system has the ability to treat us fairly.

Will the State of New York convict their chief political rival on the underlying basis of a double conspiracy and under the legal principle of reverse-comity?

Will a foreign born state-court judge (appointed and not elected) allow the felony prosecution of the leading US presidential candidate in 180-days before the US presidential election where the State's theory of the case relies on double conspiracy and reverse-comity?

And remember, this case already went up to federal Court when Trump was trying to get it removed in 2023. Federal court kicked it back down and didn't have a problem with FECA being used as a predicate crime.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642260.html

Trump ain't walking away Scott-free. The judge is going to instruct the jury to make it impossible to do so. The only question in my mind is will Trump be convicted of felonies or just misdemeanors.