The Walls be Closing

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

And if he’s acquitted?  So, according to you, either way, it’s political persecution!

 

34 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Those of you who know nothing about criminal justice in New York County need not reply.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

 

Would u accept a reply from Bragg?  Does he know anything about NYS justice system?

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Would u accept a reply from Bragg?  Does he know anything about NYS justice system?

 

Sure. Or any of the freshly minted JDs working ECAB in his office, while we're at it.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Sure. Or any of the freshly minted JDs working ECAB in his office, while we're at it.

Cool. Then if he’s indicted it will be on solid legal grounds and not political persecution

Edited March 27, 2023 by redtail hawk

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

and therefore, if trump used campaign funds , he committed a crime and should be prosecuted somewhere.  right??

You can take up any personal complaints with the DOJ and AG Garland. 

[LeviF]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

Cool. Then if he’s indicted it will be on solid legal grounds and not political persecution 

 

You're not actually dealing with what I said. My entire statement started with the assumption that he is charged with a crime.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

You can take up any personal complaints with the DOJ and AG Garland. 

Looks like Jack Smith is doing a thorough job. I’ll wait for his findings 

2 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

You're not actually dealing with what I said. My entire statement started with the assumption that he is charged with a crime.

Not following the logic. The indictment can be valid yet a conviction cannot?

[Irv]

Another media stunt.  What a waste of NY state taxpayer money.  What a mess.  

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Looks like Jack Smith is doing a thorough job. I’ll wait for his findings 

Not following the logic. The indictment can be valid yet a conviction cannot?

 

Again, we come back to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, yet here you are just yapping. I really don't get it.

 

Forget misdemeanors, how many E felony charges against people with no priors do you think end up at trial in New York County?

 

What do you think happens to people who get charged with a nonviolent E felony after an arrest in New York County? I mean the timeline after arrest, transport, picture and prints?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

 

Again, we come back to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, yet here you are just yapping. I really don't get it.

 

Forget misdemeanors, how many E felony charges against people with no priors do you think end up at trial in New York County?

 

What do you think happens to people who get charged with a nonviolent E felony after an arrest in New York County? I mean the timeline after arrest, transport, picture and prints?

So even the indictment will constitute political persecution despite the fact that Bragg knows NYS law?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

So even the indictment will constitute political persecution despite the fact that Bragg knows NYS law?

 

And indictment does not equal time behind bars. Which again, I had already made the assumption in my initial post.

 

Do you get paid to miss the point or is it more of a hobby?

[All_Pro_Bills]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

So even the indictment will constitute political persecution despite the fact that Bragg knows NYS law?

Apparently he doesn't because the legal basis for his potential indictment is dreadful.  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

And indictment does not equal time behind bars. Which again, I had already made the assumption in my initial post.

 

Do you get paid to miss the point or is it more of a hobby?

No I absorbed it. If the indictment is for a charge that is punishable by prison time then your argument is fallacious 

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Apparently he doesn't because the legal basis for his potential indictment is dreadful.  

How do you know. The indictment hasn’t been released. Why the preemptive rush to judgment on the indictment. Hmmm, I wonder 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

How do you know. The indictment hasn’t been released. Why the preemptive rush to judgment on the indictment. Hmmm, I wonder 

Because the State of New York has no legal jurisdiction over or standing to hear cases involving Federal campaign law.  Period.    

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

No I absorbed it. If the indictment is for a charge that is punishable by prison time then your argument is fallacious 

 

 

Except that's not how it works in practice. Which, again, if you have no knowledge of how criminal justice works in New York County then you need not reply. 

 

The entire landscape has changed. The best way to be convicted of an E felony in Manhattan is to be indicted for a B felony. The joke used to be you get one free murder in Kings. Now we've extended that to Manhattan and Queens.

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

Because the State of New York has no legal jurisdiction over or standing to hear cases involving Federal campaign law.  Period.    

 

From what I understand the campaign finance law violation would be a predicate offense, if anything. I've arrested on crimes committed in NY with predicates elsewhere. It's not without precedent.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[Kemp]

10 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think its clear using campaign funds for such a payment is illegal.  But one claim is Cohen paid Daniels with "his own funds" which seems absurd as he had no relationship with her, it was Trump.

 

But does the State of New York have any legal standing to bring charges for an alleged violation of Federal campaign law that the DOJ has declined to pursue?  I think "no", but the Manhattan DA's office has translated this into a violation of some State law.  There seems to be ongoing internal debate at the DA's office about the merit of such an argument.  My guess is that's part of the hesitation to bring charges to this point.  

 

Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea.

The only reason there is a perception that there is hesitation is because a fellow incapable of telling truth said it would happen last Tuesday.

[Kemp]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

You posted odds for 3 separate cases.  Now you want to combine them all?  Who's changing the bet now?

 

I never offered those odds in a bet to you or anyone else. It was only my feelings on likelihood.

My point, and you know it, is that Trump will be convicted of a felony. That's what I'm offering as a bet directly to you.

If you're not confident in your position, so be it. 

If you truly believe it's all bull and he's not guilty, one has no choice but to wonder why you won't back your position. Methinks you don't have any confidence, at all.

I'm operating under the assumption that you're not a moron and that you really understand that Trump is a gent who has committed many felonies, among all the stuff swirling around him. That's why, backed into a corner, you're scared.

10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

It is not whether the payment is legal. It’s about whether it’s been recorded legally per the business code. It’s similar to whether you’re allowed to write something off on your taxes.

 

Really?

How would one report this transaction in order to make it legal, when the check wasn't personal? It came from the Trump Organization.

At least you understand that Trump is lying when he proclaims that it never happened. 

[BillStime]

 

[Doc]

21 minutes ago, Kemp said:

I never offered those odds in a bet to you or anyone else. It was only my feelings on likelihood.

My point, and you know it, is that Trump will be convicted of a felony. That's what I'm offering as a bet directly to you.

If you're not confident in your position, so be it. 

If you truly believe it's all bull and he's not guilty, one has no choice but to wonder why you won't back your position. Methinks you don't have any confidence, at all.

I'm operating under the assumption that you're not a moron and that you really understand that Trump is a gent who has committed many felonies, among all the stuff swirling around him. That's why, backed into a corner, you're scared.

 

Which gets me back to the "you put up $100 and I put up $1" thing.  You're saying a single felony conviction for any of the 3 things you mentioned.  I'm going to need some odds from you.  Again since you're so confident in a conviction (now where have I heard that before?).  How about you put up $100 and I put up $10?