America officially becomes a banana republic indicating a presidential candidate, likely jail time

[Fluffypants]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, maybe.  I don't think I ever denied that.  Does Trump deserve it ?  Would he do the same if he had the chance ?  This is why I'm staying away from the whole moral angle.  If politics is a cesspool don't expect me to show up with my white gloves and a pack of sani-wipes...

He did have the chance and didn't do it.

If he wins and regains power? All bets are off.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your pathetic meme is an appropriate answer to the question.

Cause FANTASY is all the RepubliCON House has on Joe. LMAO

How come you haven't replied to any posts about the "extra crime tacked on" or the fact that the most qualified witness in the United States wasn't allowed to testify? 

Until you can make some reasonable headway on these key talking points, pictures like the one I posted of Biden are perfectly accurate.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There was a lot of important stuff there, I just wanted to zero in on these things for a sec:

1a) the fact that there was "an additional crime" tacked on at the end, which Trump and his lawyers never even got to defend him against, is just right out of bizarro world. Judge Merchan might as well have slapped Lady Justice across the mouth with a dildo at that second, it was just that out of line in a "legitimate" democracy. 

1b) the fact that the jury didn't even have to agree on what they were finding him guilty of is just a total joke. The whole trial was a farce from start to finish, 

2) The fact that the judge allowed testimony from a disgruntled jilted ex, and from a known liar and perjurer, but disallowed the expert testimony of a top government official - and arguably the planet's leading expert in this case - is just the epitome of kangaroo court skullduggery. 

If this "trial" happened in lower slobovia, CNN would have instantly noticed all the telltale signs of jumpbuck justice, but it happened to Trump, so they grabbed some popcorn and churned out false narratives as fast as they possibly could. 

You sound like a child talking about things you clearly don't understand. You're just spouting crazy stuff from whatever fever swamp you inhabit when you're not pooping in this pool. Or just as likely, simply parroting Trump himself--a compulsive liar who also knows nothing. 

1a) What "additional crime" tacked on at the end? -- That's pure nonsense. He was charged with 34 felony counts over a year ago and was found guilty of the same 34 felony counts. I'm sure the judge is holding his breath for your apology.

1b) Again, pure, absolute nonsense. The jury DID have to agree on what they were finding him guilty of. And they agreed, unanimously, that he was guilty of each of those 34 counts. They agreed unanimously that Trump was guilty of falsifying each of those business records. And they had very explicit instructions on how to do so. 

2. You, again, don't specify what you mean here, but assuming you're talking about someone like Bradley Smith, your claim is patently false. The court did agree that he could testify. Trump's attorneys chose not to call him.

 

You're factually wrong about every damn thing on your list, but you'll cry with great emotion and certainty about how the court is crooked and it somehow equates to a "banana republic."🙄

Edited May 31, 2024 by Hodad

[West]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It doesn't matter which crime, cause all the jury had to determine was Trump's INTENT to act ILLEGALLY.

The FEC was not involved in 3 of the 4 examples of additional NY STATE crimes.

Were they really? Prove it.

Thanks for your worthless OPINION, Mr. Legal Eagle.

Do you even know the reason why? Those petitions are routinely REJECTED.

Says who? It's a routine business records falsification case with a minor enhancment.

That's allowed because Trump was indicted and he was violating the conditions of his release.

Everyone ELSE (aside from FOS LIES) is saying Merchan bent over backwards to be fair.

He could have jailed Trump for contempt many times but did not.

Not the reason. Duh Judges NEED to control their court.

Seemed to you, which means NOTHING in court.

That's what happens when Trump breaks the law NOW, cause he can no longer buy his way out.

Trump intended to act illegally.. doesn't have to do anything illegal just has to think it and boom Democrats can put him in jail.. 

But nah not bananna Republic at all lol

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, West said:

Trump intended to act illegally.. doesn't have to do anything illegal just has to think it and boom Democrats can put him in jail.. 

But nah not bananna Republic at all lol

Seriously, just stop talking about things you don't know about. He was convicted for things that he actually did, not his thoughts or anything else. Just the actions.  

[Fluffypants]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Seriously, just stop talking about things you don't know about. He was convicted for things that he actually did, not his thoughts or anything else. Just the actions.  

He literally convicted on intent not what he did. See they couldn't go after for him for just falsifying business records because statute of limitations had run out. He had to of intended to commit another crime and at no point did they explain exactly how what he did ran afoul of those other crimes. Essentially the judge was like if you feel like was trying to commit another crime listed here you can convict based on that.

They never told the defense what crime they are saying was the predicate and they tried to call an expert witness from the FEC and were shot down because Merchan made the testimony so narrow that it wouldn't be worth it.

It is insane he was convicted over crimes he was never even charged with nor did the prosecution try to even prove.

I can't wait until the jurors start making their rounds to cash in. I am willing to bet money there will be at least one dummy who will say something like "I knew he was a criminal before I was even put on the jury, I told my family on day one I was going make sure Trump was going to be convicted."

 

[West]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Seriously, just stop talking about things you don't know about. He was convicted for things that he actually did, not his thoughts or anything else. Just the actions.  

I was responding to his first line son

5 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

He literally convicted on intent not what he did. See they couldn't go after for him for just falsifying business records because statute of limitations had run out. He had to of intended to commit another crime and at no point did they explain exactly how what he did ran afoul of those other crimes. Essentially the judge was like if you feel like was trying to commit another crime listed here you can convict based on that.

They never told the defense what crime they are saying was the predicate and they tried to call an expert witness from the FEC and were shot down because Merchan made the testimony so narrow that it wouldn't be worth it.

It is insane he was convicted over crimes he was never even charged with nor did the prosecution try to even prove.

I can't wait until the jurors start making their rounds to cash in. I am willing to bet money there will be at least one dummy who will say something like "I knew he was a criminal before I was even put on the jury, I told my family on day one I was going make sure Trump was going to be convicted."

 

Book deals galore 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Seriously, just stop talking about things you don't know about. He was convicted for things that he actually did, not his thoughts or anything else. Just the actions.  

Seriously, just stop talking about things that you don't understand, dummy.

He was convicted for things that he allegedly did 8 years ago, that are well beyond the applicable statute of limitations. 

No one even knows if what he did was illegal because the FEC Chair wasn't allowed to talk, and he's the country's foremost expert on the subject. 

A Soros judge/Biden donor ran a kangaroo court and you're ecstatic about it because you're a braindead cultist. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

He literally convicted on intent not what he did. See they couldn't go after for him for just falsifying business records because statute of limitations had run out. He had to of intended to commit another crime and at no point did they explain exactly how what he did ran afoul of those other crimes. Essentially the judge was like if you feel like was trying to commit another crime listed here you can convict based on that.

They never told the defense what crime they are saying was the predicate and they tried to call an expert witness from the FEC and were shot down because Merchan made the testimony so narrow that it wouldn't be worth it.

It is insane he was convicted over crimes he was never even charged with nor did the prosecution try to even prove.

I can't wait until the jurors start making their rounds to cash in. I am willing to bet money there will be at least one dummy who will say something like "I knew he was a criminal before I was even put on the jury, I told my family on day one I was going make sure Trump was going to be convicted."

 

It's really easy 

1. Did Trump falsify (fraud) business records to pay his hush money?

2. Did he do so for--art least significantly for--the purpose of his campaign? 

3. Did Trump commit fraud (#1) in order to prevent a person (his opponent) from attaining attaining office?

OR

Did Trump take actions that works falsify his tax records?

OR

Did Trump seek to circumvent campaign finance laws at certain levels?

 

If the jury is convinced of any portion of 3 (or in this case, clearly all 3) then it simply doesn't matter which crime is the trigger. Any of them elevate the falsified records to low class felonies.

They did not have to find him guilty-or even on trial- for #3. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which thing he was trying to cover up through his crimes. As long as the jurors could infer the reasons for the act.

But let's get real. This is a jury of living, thinking people. They know that everyone at Trumpco knows that it's wrong and illegal to falsify business records. They know they falsified the records to hide the transactions. They heard ample testimony that the campaign felt that these stories breaking would be a disaster and was operating in crisis mode. So the fixer fixed.

Be honest, so you have any doubt in your mind that they concealed the payments to protect the campaign? Even without listening to hours of testimony, is there any question?

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, West said:

Trump intended to act illegally.. doesn't have to do anything illegal just has to think it and boom Democrats can put him in jail.. 

But nah not bananna Republic at all lol

Nope, it's ONLY a matter of elevating the STATUS of the business record falsification counts to FELONIES.

AKA, NOT CONVICTION of the additional criminal element. 

You should really listen to the LEGAL EXPERTS NOT ON FOS LIES.

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

He literally convicted on intent not what he did. See they couldn't go after for him for just falsifying business records because statute of limitations had run out. He had to of intended to commit another crime and at no point did they explain exactly how what he did ran afoul of those other crimes. Essentially the judge was like if you feel like was trying to commit another crime listed here you can convict based on that.

They never told the defense what crime they are saying was the predicate and they tried to call an expert witness from the FEC and were shot down because Merchan made the testimony so narrow that it wouldn't be worth it.

It is insane he was convicted over crimes he was never even charged with nor did the prosecution try to even prove.

I can't wait until the jurors start making their rounds to cash in. I am willing to bet money there will be at least one dummy who will say something like "I knew he was a criminal before I was even put on the jury, I told my family on day one I was going make sure Trump was going to be convicted."

 

You ALSO are confused about the ELEVATION of the STATUS of the crimes charged.

[West]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Nope, it's ONLY a matter of elevating the STATUS of the business record falsification counts to FELONIES.

AKA, NOT CONVICTION of the additional criminal element. 

You should really listen to the LEGAL EXPERTS NOT ON FOS LIES.

Made up charges by a judge who skirted every procedure possible that gave the defendant a fair trial  

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Seriously, just stop talking about things that you don't understand, dummy.

He was convicted for things that he allegedly did 8 years ago, that are well beyond the applicable statute of limitations. 

No one even knows if what he did was illegal because the FEC Chair wasn't allowed to talk, and he's the country's foremost expert on the subject. 

A Soros judge/Biden donor ran a kangaroo court and you're ecstatic about it because you're a braindead cultist. 

The head of the FEC is NOT an expert on the intricacies of NY State Law. That is the judge's area of expertise.

Just now, West said:

Made up charges by a judge who skirted every procedure possible that gave the defendant a fair trial  

Sorry but your amateur legal OPINION has NO weight in court.

[West]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It's really easy 

1. Did Trump falsify (fraud) business records to pay his hush money?

2. Did he do so for--art least significantly for--the purpose of his campaign? 

3. Did Trump commit fraud (#1) in order to prevent a person (his opponent) from attaining attaining office?

OR

Did Trump take actions that works falsify his tax records?

OR

Did Trump seek to circumvent campaign finance laws at certain levels?

 

If the jury is convinced of any portion of 3 (or in this case, clearly all 3) then it simply doesn't matter which crime is the trigger. Any of them elevate the falsified records to low class felonies.

They did not have to find him guilty-or even on trial- for #3. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which thing he was trying to cover up through his crimes. As long as the jurors could infer the reasons for the act.

But let's get real. This is a jury of living, thinking people. They know that everyone at Trumpco knows that it's wrong and illegal to falsify business records. They know they falsified the records to hide the transactions. They heard ample testimony that the campaign felt that these stories breaking would be a disaster and was operating in crisis mode. So the fixer fixed.

Be honest, so you have any doubt in your mind that they concealed the payments to protect the campaign? Even without listening to hours of testimony, is there any question?

It's not that simple actually. 

The trial did not allow key witness testimony including an FEC expert who would've opined that this wasn't even a violation of election law. 

And Trump didn't falsify the records.. he hired a lawyer, Michael Cohen, to handle the proper paperwork. 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, West said:

Made up charges by a judge who skirted every procedure possible that gave the defendant a fair trial  

Read the effing LAW! The judge KNOWS the law and you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT.

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, West said:

It's not that simple actually. 

The trial did not allow key witness testimony including an FEC expert who would've opined that this wasn't even a violation of election law. 

In REALITY you DON'T KNOW what the "expert" would have "opined" just cause you heard about it on FOS LIES.

18 minutes ago, West said:

And Trump didn't falsify the records.. he hired a lawyer, Michael Cohen, to handle the proper paperwork. 

He signed documents which indicated the falsification of the records. IF he had not approved those classifications why did he sign them?

In any case, the jury's decision matters and yours does NOT.

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Seriously, just stop talking about things that you don't understand, dummy.

He was convicted for things that he allegedly did 8 years ago, that are well beyond the applicable statute of limitations. 

No one even knows if what he did was illegal because the FEC Chair wasn't allowed to talk, and he's the country's foremost expert on the subject. 

A Soros judge/Biden donor ran a kangaroo court and you're ecstatic about it because you're a braindead cultist. 

No, dummy. He's not "alleged" to have done them 8 years ago. The evidence established being any reasonable doubt that he did exactly what he was accused of doing. He is now convicted of those charges. 

You're welcome to hold an opinion that those things shouldn't be illegal, but that doesn't change the facts of the law what happened.

And, again, the ex-FEC chair was "allowed" to talk. But only on matters relevant to the charges. So the defense chose not no call him. 

What you're doing is just unfocused mewling. 

And nobody has any idea what a "Soros judge" is, you included, but you'll surely keep squawking about it like a good little parrot.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Hodad

[robosmith]

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

Quote

CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan wouldn’t let the defense call campaign finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter.

THE FACTS: As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

“The expert witness that we have, the best there is in election law, Brad Smith, he’s considered the Rolls Royce, or we’ll bring it back to an American car, Cadillac, but the best there is,” Trump said on his way out of court on Monday. “He can’t testify. He’s not being allowed to testify.”

The former president reiterated this falsehood several more times in his post-trial comments, claiming that Merchan was blocking Smith’s testimony “because he’s going to say we did nothing wrong.” He also posted about it on his social media platform Truth Social later that evening, calling Merchan’s decision “election interference.”

So the ONLY "testimony" you have is from Trump's post trial RANT.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, West said:

It's not that simple actually. 

The trial did not allow key witness testimony including an FEC expert who would've opined that this wasn't even a violation of election law. 

And Trump didn't falsify the records.. he hired a lawyer, Michael Cohen, to handle the proper paperwork. 

False. You're repeating falsehoods.

The court DID accept Smith as an expert witness. However, only on condition that his testimony was confined to relevant questions rather than color commentary. With that condition, the defense opted not to call him. 

Do you suppose that he is an expert on falsified business records as well?

I'd ask you the same question. What is your best explanation for why Trumpco illegally hid the payments? We're they committing fraud for fun, or can you reasonably infer that they had an objective?

 

Edited June 1, 2024 by Hodad

[Fluffypants]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's really easy 

1. Did Trump falsify (fraud) business records to pay his hush money?

2. Did he do so for--art least significantly for--the purpose of his campaign? 

3. Did Trump commit fraud (#1) in order to prevent a person (his opponent) from attaining attaining office?

OR

Did Trump take actions that works falsify his tax records?

OR

Did Trump seek to circumvent campaign finance laws at certain levels?

 

If the jury is convinced of any portion of 3 (or in this case, clearly all 3) then it simply doesn't matter which crime is the trigger. Any of them elevate the falsified records to low class felonies.

They did not have to find him guilty-or even on trial- for #3. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which thing he was trying to cover up through his crimes. As long as the jurors could infer the reasons for the act.

But let's get real. This is a jury of living, thinking people. They know that everyone at Trumpco knows that it's wrong and illegal to falsify business records. They know they falsified the records to hide the transactions. They heard ample testimony that the campaign felt that these stories breaking would be a disaster and was operating in crisis mode. So the fixer fixed.

Be honest, so you have any doubt in your mind that they concealed the payments to protect the campaign? Even without listening to hours of testimony, is there any question?

Why wasn't Hilary even indicted for any of those, she literally every one of those things and lives in New York and used campaign funds to do it and got dinged by the FEC and was fined for it. Trump wasn't fined for it and they looked into it but the jury wasn't allowed to hear why it wasn't a campaign violation.

None of what Trump did was illegal he paid his attorney for legal fees.

What was the election interference? Burying a story? If that were the case every politician in Washington would be in jail.

No tax tax crimes because he never deducted it.

I would think you would have to be able prove the predicate crime and best they got was Cohen pleading guilty of campaign finance violations in his plea agreement which was inadmissible and the judge allowed it.

Your just happy Trump got convicted and you don't see what can of worms this has opened up but you will.

Because once Trump is elected you are going to be crying that Trump is Hitler because he is going after his political enemies. But according to you no one is above the law, right? So if Trump can get convictions than its perfectly valid.

 

 

[West]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

False. You're repeating falsehoods.

The court DID accept Smith as an expert witness. However, only on condition that his testimony was confined to relevant questions rather than color commentary. With that condition, the defense opted not to call him. 

Do you suppose that he is an expert on falsified business records as well?

I'd ask you the same question. What is your best explanation for why Trumpco illegally hid the payments? We're they committing fraud for fun, or can you reasonably infer that they had an objective?

 

So he was gagged from providing a legitimate piece of information 

[Legato]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's really easy 

1. Did Trump falsify (fraud) business records to pay his hush money?

2. Did he do so for--art least significantly for--the purpose of his campaign? 

3. Did Trump commit fraud (#1) in order to prevent a person (his opponent) from attaining attaining office?

OR

Did Trump take actions that works falsify his tax records?

OR

Did Trump seek to circumvent campaign finance laws at certain levels?

 

If the jury is convinced of any portion of 3 (or in this case, clearly all 3) then it simply doesn't matter which crime is the trigger. Any of them elevate the falsified records to low class felonies.

They did not have to find him guilty-or even on trial- for #3. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which thing he was trying to cover up through his crimes. As long as the jurors could infer the reasons for the act.

But let's get real. This is a jury of living, thinking people. They know that everyone at Trumpco knows that it's wrong and illegal to falsify business records. They know they falsified the records to hide the transactions. They heard ample testimony that the campaign felt that these stories breaking would be a disaster and was operating in crisis mode. So the fixer fixed.

Be honest, so you have any doubt in your mind that they concealed the payments to protect the campaign? Even without listening to hours of testimony, is there any question?

Your gaslight needs a new mantle.

[West]

33 minutes ago, Legato said:

Your gaslight needs a new mantle.

I don't know why these folks don't just own their authoritatianism

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

You sound like a child talking about things you clearly don't understand. You're just spouting crazy stuff from whatever fever swamp you inhabit when you're not pooping in this pool. Or just as likely, simply parroting Trump himself--a compulsive liar who also knows nothing. 

1a) What "additional crime" tacked on at the end? -- That's pure nonsense. He was charged with 34 felony counts over a year ago and was found guilty of the same 34 felony counts. I'm sure the judge is holding his breath for your apology.

1b) Again, pure, absolute nonsense. The jury DID have to agree on what they were finding him guilty of. And they agreed, unanimously, that he was guilty of each of those 34 counts. They agreed unanimously that Trump was guilty of falsifying each of those business records. And they had very explicit instructions on how to do so. 

2. You, again, don't specify what you mean here, but assuming you're talking about someone like Bradley Smith, your claim is patently false. The court did agree that he could testify. Trump's attorneys chose not to call him.

 

You're factually wrong about every damn thing on your list, but you'll cry with great emotion and certainty about how the court is crooked and it somehow equates to a "banana republic."🙄

1a) from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/trump-awaits-jury-verdict-analysis/index.html

• As Merchan explained, the ex-president is facing 34 charges of falsifying business records. Such an act is only a misdemeanor in New York. To convict Trump of a felony, therefore, the jury must also find that he falsified the documents to hide another crime. Prosecutors are not required to prove a secondary crime took place or even to nail down exactly what it is. In this case, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office raised the possibility of tax law infringements and the intent to falsify other documents and suggested Trump may have wanted to violate election law using “unlawful” means to deprive someone else of an election win.

Trump was charged with misdemeanours, but even if he was being charged with felonies, the stautue of limitations was exceeded in 2022. This trial had no legitimate basis.

1b) Those alleged crimes were past their due date. This trial had to be held in 2021 in order for it to be legitimate. The jury didn't fid Trump guilty of anything within the state of NY's purview. 

Can you tell me how NY State is trying Trump for misdemeanours from 2016? Even if they were upgraded to felonies, they passed their statute of limitations in 2021. 

2.) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/key-trump-witness-nixed-after-merchan-s-stringent-rulings-reveals-what-his-testimony-would-have-been/ar-BB1mNALM

• Former President Trump’s legal team was slated to call on a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission to testify in the NY v. Trump case, but the expert’s testimony was not heard after the presiding judge curbed the scope of what he could discuss before the jury. 

What's the point of calling a witness who can't talk?

The perjurer and the porn star were allowed to go on at length, but the country's most knowledgeable expert on the topic of election finance laws was supposed to keep his trap shut? 

That's kangaroo court BS, and you know it.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Why wasn't Hilary even indicted for any of those, she literally every one of those things and lives in New York and used campaign funds to do it and got dinged by the FEC and was fined for it. Trump wasn't fined for it and they looked into it but the jury wasn't allowed to hear why it wasn't a campaign violation.

None of what Trump did was illegal he paid his attorney for legal fees.

What was the election interference? Burying a story? If that were the case every politician in Washington would be in jail.

No tax tax crimes because he never deducted it.

I would think you would have to be able prove the predicate crime and best they got was Cohen pleading guilty of campaign finance violations in his plea agreement which was inadmissible and the judge allowed it.

Your just happy Trump got convicted and you don't see what can of worms this has opened up but you will.

Because once Trump is elected you are going to be crying that Trump is Hitler because he is going after his political enemies. But according to you no one is above the law, right? So if Trump can get convictions than its perfectly valid.

 

 

A. That's just not true. Clinton was never accused of falsifying business records. There was no business involved. (The campaign got dinged by the FEC for a minor infraction and settled because it was vastly cheaper to do so.)

B. Yes, what Trump did was illegal. It is 100% illegal to falsify business records. In isolation it's a misdemeanor. Done with the intent to cover up other crimes those infractions are elevated to felony. 

And there is no requirement to prove or even try the predicate. Though in this case it's rather clearly baked in with the argument that he falsified the business records as part of an effort to keep Clinton out of office. An argument which the jury seems to have found compelling. 

And if we're being honest, I think you would have to admit it's obvious that the illegal actions were undertaken to help his campaign. The jury heard compelling insider testimony that this was the case. Hence, justifying the elevation.

Those are the laws as they stand. Another court may eventually strike those laws through some rationale, but as it stands today, the state met their burden. 

And yes, I'm delighted that he's finally a convicted felon. He has done so much harm to do many people and to the very fabric of our democracy. These crimes are small potatoes compared to the rest, but I have to celebrate any instance of Teflon Don held accountable. He's constantly comparing himself to "Alphonse Capone" and now those two villains share one more thing in common: they were finally tripped up on technicalities.

[robosmith]

39 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1a) from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/trump-awaits-jury-verdict-analysis/index.html

• As Merchan explained, the ex-president is facing 34 charges of falsifying business records. Such an act is only a misdemeanor in New York. To convict Trump of a felony, therefore, the jury must also find that he falsified the documents to hide another crime. Prosecutors are not required to prove a secondary crime took place or even to nail down exactly what it is. In this case, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office raised the possibility of tax law infringements and the intent to falsify other documents and suggested Trump may have wanted to violate election law using “unlawful” means to deprive someone else of an election win.

Trump was charged with misdemeanours, but even if he was being charged with felonies, the stautue of limitations was exceeded in 2022. This trial had no legitimate basis.

1b) Those alleged crimes were past their due date. This trial had to be held in 2021 in order for it to be legitimate. The jury didn't fid Trump guilty of anything within the state of NY's purview. 

Can you tell me how NY State is trying Trump for misdemeanours from 2016? Even if they were upgraded to felonies, they passed their statute of limitations in 2021. 

The last payoff reimbursement record was  filed spring of 2018.

Trump was indicted in early 2023; so just within the statute of limitations of 5 years.

You believe Bragg is too stupid to meet the deadline, but instead it is your IGNORANCE which is on display again.