Bonus question…

@mott-the-hoople said
it is no where in the indictment...there are no statutes that were violated written in the indictment.

I suggest you read it...statutes that were violated have to be listed, not some vauge reference to SOMETHING

Are you a complete idiot or just functionally illiterate?

You haven't even looked at the indictment, have you?

@mott-the-hoople said
it is no where in the indictment...there are no statutes that were violated written in the indictment.

I suggest you read it...statutes that were violated have to be listed, not some vauge reference to SOMETHING

The first sentence in the Indictment:
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:

They say the same charge in bold thirty three more times after that.

@no1marauder said
The first sentence in the Indictment:
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:

They say the same charge in bold thirty three more times after that.

Well. that is Marauder's answer. Many many pundits would disagree with you. No one on the networks have identified the crime. Curious, indeed.

@averagejoe1 said
Well. that is Marauder's answer. Many many pundits would disagree with you. No one on the networks have identified the crime. Curious, indeed.

Only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the specific crime Trump is charged with is specified in the indictment.

Thirty four times.

@kevcvs57 said
Have you considered the possibility that these deep state dems might be trying to ensure Trumps nomination by winding up the base.

.

It's an interesting theory ,Kev, but the Dems have been up Trump's exhaust pipe for 7 years now.

Nothing new to me.

@no1marauder said
Only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the specific crime Trump is charged with is specified in the indictment.

Thirty four times.

even the NYT disagrees with you…

“Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

Astonishingly, the district attorney’s filings do not make clear the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony. Neither the 16-page indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts specifies, though the statement of facts does drop hints about campaign laws. In a news conference, Mr. Bragg answered that he did not specify because he was not required to by law. His answer was oblivious to how law requires more than doing the minimum to the letter — it demands fairness, notice and taking public legitimacy seriously.

Dig deeper into the moment.
Special offer:
As a result of all this, Mr. Trump and the public still know shockingly little about the case — not which particular statute he allegedly violated or whether it is a state or federal campaign crime, [/I]a tax crime or something else. That’s why the indictment really contains only 34 half-counts. This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime, yet it is also standard when charging some cases to specify “crimes in the alternative.””

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-bragg-indictment.html

@mott-the-hoople said
even the NYT disagrees with you…

“Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

[b]Astonishingly, the district attorney’s fi ...[text shortened]... imes in the alternative.””

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-bragg-indictment.html

A) It's not an opinion of the New York Times; it's an opinion piece in the New York Times;

B) It agrees with exactly what I said:

"This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime,"

The rest was just non-legal bitching and moaning.

@no1marauder said
Only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the specific crime Trump is charged with is specified in the indictment.

Thirty four times.

So all of the people who research and report this stuff, with learned staffs, for a living, every day, are idiots?
Mott, you take it from here. M is becoming emotional.

@no1marauder said
A) It's not an opinion of the New York Times; it's an opinion piece in the New York Times;

B) It agrees with exactly what I said:

"This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime,"

The rest was just non-legal bitching and moaning.

So, you are saying they don’t know what it is, but they can smell it?

@averagejoe1 said
So all of the people who research and report this stuff, with learned staffs, for a living, every day, are idiots?
Mott, you take it from here. M is becoming emotional.

No self-respecting legal analyst would make the absurd claim that you and Mott are making.

Link to one who does i.e. says that the indictment doesn't state the crime that Trump is charged with.

@averagejoe1 said
So, you are saying they don’t know what it is, but they can smell it?

I'm saying the same legal conclusion that law professor did i.e. that the indictment need not state the predicate crime which raises Falsifying of Business Records from a Second Degree to a First Degree.

@averagejoe1 said
So, you are saying they don’t know what it is, but they can smell it?

No, that is not what the indictment means. The law does not require the indictment to specify what the OTHER crime is. But the fact of an indictment’s having been issued indicates that the DA presented enough evidence of some other crime or crimes to the grand jury to get an indictment. What that other crime is we will know soon enough.

@mott-the-hoople said
even the NYT disagrees with you…

“Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

[b]Astonishingly, the district attorney’s fi ...[text shortened]... imes in the alternative.””

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-bragg-indictment.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/16/nyregion/trump-indictment-annotated.html

Since you are a fan of the NYT, please read that artticle in the first paragraph they state what was the reason for the indictment.

@no1marauder said
Only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the specific crime Trump is charged with is specified in the indictment.

Thirty four times.

The crime is not listed. If there were one, they would put it FRONT AND CENTER for the common man to be able to understand, and thus vote for free money. They balloon their existence until they become 51% of our society, (a society of losers) and when the 49% cannot support them, we are doomed.

@averagejoe1 said
The crime is not listed. If there were one, they would put it FRONT AND CENTER for the common man to be able to understand, and thus vote for free money. They balloon their existence until they become 51% of our society, (a society of losers) and when the 49% cannot support them, we are doomed.

It's put front and center, in bold thirty four times!