14 Apr 23
@mott-the-hoople saidAre you a professor emeritus from Harvard Law School?
answer my question, who in NY would prosecute federal crimes?
By your logic a crime committed in another country would count also. face it, you are looking like an idiot.
No, of course you're not. Not even close.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you could walk and chew gum at the same time.
But keep talking, it's like Trump's Greatest Hits in here.
15 Apr 23
@suzianne saidHe is simply asking Marauder for a plain answer, not some stuff that some paralegal has researched, replete with links. Like, if we were sitting at a coffee shop and say.,,,,,'hey, a lot of pundits keep saying 'what crime??.....what do they mean by that...has there been no crime cited?" That is all he, and I , want from th libs here.
Are you a professor emeritus from Harvard Law School?
No, of course you're not. Not even close.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you could walk and chew gum at the same time.
But keep talking, it's like Trump's Greatest Hits in here.
15 Apr 23
@mott-the-hoople saidBragg isn't prosecuting a federal crime as you well know so your question is besides the point trolling.
answer my question, who in NY would prosecute federal crimes?
By your logic a crime committed in another country would count also. face it, you are looking like an idiot.
Read the statute.
15 Apr 23
A reminder:
"§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."
Please say where in that statute it specifies that the "another crime" must be prosecutable by State officials in NY.
I can see a scenario where it would apply to crimes in foreign nations. Suppose for example the Trump organization paid a billion dollars in bribes to Italian officials in order to build a hotel in Rome. Suppose it then entered these payments in its corporate records in New York as legitimate business expenses i.e. local taxes or some such. It would have falsified records in New York to commit and conceal the crime of bribery in Italy. By the express language of the statute, that would support a charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.
Now at this point, we don't know what theory Bragg will use and he is not required to disclose such information in the indictment. As I keep telling you wannabe lawyers for Trump's defense his actual lawyers, assuming they have a modicum of competency, will soon file discovery demands, pretrial motions and a request for a Bill of Particulars. You'll get the answer as to what predicate crime(s) Bragg is relying on in due course in the manner specified by the law.
@averagejoe1 saidSo you're asking a legal question but you don't want any actual legal research done to give you the answer to it.
He is simply asking Marauder for a plain answer, not some stuff that some paralegal has researched, replete with links. Like, if we were sitting at a coffee shop and say.,,,,,'hey, a lot of pundits keep saying 'what crime??.....what do they mean by that...has there been no crime cited?" That is all he, and I , want from th libs here.
Keep listening to your half-witted "pundits".
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
@no1marauder saidthe world is wrong, marerider is right
So you're asking a legal question but you don't want any actual legal research done to give you the answer to it.
Keep listening to your half-witted "pundits".
😂
15 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidYou imply that it is not realistic to ask ‘what is the crime. The people you speak of are quite qualified to disagree with the great marauder and his Lexis. Jonathon Turley is a law professor at Georgetown. A contributing ‘pundit’. You reference ‘pundit’ as a bad thing, but it simply encompasses the news contributors. The horrible tax evader Al Sharpton is a pundit.
So you're asking a legal question but you don't want any actual legal research done to give you the answer to it.
Keep listening to your half-witted "pundits".
So you are saying you are right and they are wrong. What a f’n laugh. Am I qualified to say Biden is not fit? Why, not by your standards! Wow. You need to build yourself a throne. Jesus.
You’re no fun Marauder. Know-it-all boredom. I’d think that as you are so smart, you would tone it down a bit to the level of us posters. Here is a fact from me. Y’all will not prosecute Hunter Biden for falsifying his gun application; y’all will not prosecute Hillary Clinton for destroying evidence, destroying government property, her server, and the hoax. You know I’m correct when I say that, but you will not answer that straight out. I am right. You will not say I am right. Yet you say pundits are wrong, and I am wrong.
YOU are wrong.
15 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
A reminder:
"§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business recor ...[text shortened]... as to what predicate crime(s) Bragg is relying on in due course in the manner specified by the law.
15 Apr 23
@suzianne saidGregg Jarrett and Jonathon Turley are quite qualified to show the fallacy of Bragg’s persecution. Legal scholars. There are many.
Are you a professor emeritus from Harvard Law School?
No, of course you're not. Not even close.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you could walk and chew gum at the same time.
But keep talking, it's like Trump's Greatest Hits in here.
Hey Sue can you tell us why Hunter and Hillary will never incur the wrath that Trump incurs? Do y’all realize how strong this guy is, that he can tolerate you hyenas over all these years and have absolutely no difference in his demeanor? We need him as president, trash mouth and all. Did you see Biden’s answer to the excited Irish lad yesterday? Suzianne?
15 Apr 23
@mott-the-hoople saidSue will file an Alert on your misspell above. Did you see where she used a whataboutism yesterday? What in the hell🤔
the world is wrong, marerider is right
😂
@averagejoe1 saidAppeal to Authority is always a fallacy. That is esp. true when the "authority" appealed to are paid contributors to a propaganda network.
Gregg Jarrett and Jonathon Turley are quite qualified to show the fallacy of Bragg’s persecution. Legal scholars. There are many.
Hey Sue can you tell us why Hunter and Hillary will never incur the wrath that Trump incurs? Do y’all realize how strong this guy is, that he can tolerate you hyenas over all these years and have absolutely no difference in his demeano ...[text shortened]... ent, trash mouth and all. Did you see Biden’s answer to the excited Irish lad yesterday? Suzianne?
However, if you could provide me a link with either one of them discussing the specific legal issues I have mentioned, I'd respond to it.
Those are:
1) Is a Federal crime "another crime" within the meaning of NY Penal Law section 175.10? If not, why?;
2) Why isn't it tax fraud to claim reimbursements for hush money payments as tax deductible "legal expenses"? Is State tax fraud "another crime" withing the meaning of NY Penal Law section 175.10? If not, why?
I haven't seen any actual legal analysis from either.
15 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidI’m not going to read all that, am sure you are right. Trial etc was not my thing, money was in biz and commercial transactions, found great investments along the way. So I know little about the statutes/laws you reference.
You could add in:
3) In New York, is an indictment required to list predicate crimes i.e. other crimes which are used to affect the severity of the charges in the indictment?
Secondly, I find it impossible to listen on TV to lib networks/pundits when I know full well they are after successful people, and persecution is a way of life to them. I don’t like them, in any way. It would be like watching The View. Brrrr. You can understand why I would not want to listen to them with their collective attitudes.
so all I have are the law professors, etc., and I sort of believe their reasoning. You can Google, Greg Jarret or whomever and see what I’m talking about. I think they are correct in their assessments. why else would they keep saying where is the crime. They must be looking at it from a conservative point of you, and you are looking at it liberally. I guess that is our distinction here. I think I’ll go with a conservative side..
15 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhy do you bother posting on a "Debates" Forum when you refuse to actually debate? You won't even engage on the points I raise nor even link to somewhere your so-called experts (none of whom ever practiced criminal law in NY as far as I can tell) do.
I’m not going to read all that, am sure you are right. Trial etc was not my thing, money was in biz and commercial transactions, found great investments along the way. So I know little about the statutes/laws you reference.
Secondly, I find it impossible to listen on TV to lib networks/pundits when I know full well they are after successful people, and persecution is ...[text shortened]... ng at it liberally. I guess that is our distinction here. I think I’ll go with a conservative side..
This is ridiculous and just shows, once again, the extreme gullibility and sheep like mentality of US right wingers.