Bonus question…

@no1marauder said
It's put front and center, in bold thirty four times!

@no1marauder said
It's put front and center, in bold thirty four times!

@averagejoe1 said
What crime, minister of doublespeak! Be the first to announce it, no one has on the global airwaves.

@AverageJoe1
I WILL ANSWER THAT BS QUESTION. BECAUSE TRUMP IS A FUKKKING CRIMINAL AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES.

@no1marauder
He wants YOU to read it to him so he can boldly go LIAR, etc, ad nausium.

@no1marauder said
I must admit I'm at a total loss of what to think of people who are so brainwashed that they would rather believe what their propaganda sources tell them then their own eyes.

Here's the indictment: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-34-felony-counts-charges-new-york-read/

34 times it states that Trump is accused of separate counts of the crime of FALSIFYI ...[text shortened]... been deluded into thinking the charge in nowhere in the indictment.

What can possibly explain it?

@mott-the-hoople said
why dont you describe one of these charges for us underlings?

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, [b]and to be informed of the nature and cause of the acc ...[text shortened]... rocess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

@no1marauder said
Trump's not on trial yet but many of the charges give specific check numbers bearing his signature which are alleged to be false business records in violation of the Penal Law statute. Other charges identify various entries in business accounts recording these fraudulent transactions.

Trump is well-informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation".

@no1marauder said
I must admit I'm at a total loss of what to think of people who are so brainwashed that they would rather believe what their propaganda sources tell them then their own eyes.

Here's the indictment: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-34-felony-counts-charges-new-york-read/

34 times it states that Trump is accused of separate counts of the crime of FALSIFYI ...[text shortened]... been deluded into thinking the charge in nowhere in the indictment.

What can possibly explain it?

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder fails to say it is a misdemeanor. I could scream having to ferret out all of the vacuous-ism in the posts of liberals.
They do not close their posts. They do not answer questions. I feel like the Forum Monitor. Should I go over to the other Forums and look them over?

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder, it is about a law in NY against falsifying business records. You and Mott and I know that to be a misdemeanor. The reason the pitiful little charge was made at all is because, you guessed it, he is Donald Trump and hated by many of those involved. Get Trump! Find a Reason!

So, here we simply see that (they are saying ) he falsified a corporate record. Bu ...[text shortened]... you give us a responsible counter to what I just laid out? And, tell how there is a for-real crime?

@no1marauder said
As far as "intent to defraud" as an element of the crime of Falsifying Business Records in NY, here's some homework for ya: https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/

@no1marauder said
Trump's not on trial yet but many of the charges give specific check numbers bearing his signature which are alleged to be false business records in violation of the Penal Law statute. Other charges identify various entries in business accounts recording these fraudulent transactions.

Trump is well-informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation".

@averagejoe1 said
I am indisposed for a link right now, and I unsubscribed NexLex so at a loss on knowing the NY law. But for 100 years, the universal standard, which is all I can go by in an argument, such as this would be that it is a misdemeanor, which could be bounced up to a felony under under certain circumstances, of which Bragg will be digging deep to find. That has not happened. There is no felony.

@averagejoe1 said
I am indisposed for a link right now, and I unsubscribed NexLex so at a loss on knowing the NY law. But for 100 years, the universal standard, which is all I can go by in an argument, such as this would be that it is a misdemeanor, which could be bounced up to a felony under under certain circumstances, of which Bragg will be digging deep to find. That has not happened. There is no felony.