|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:03:50 GMT
Please describe the "untested legal theories" in the documents case, the January 6 interference case, and the Georgia case. Is this legal analysis coming from the same place as your attempts to prove that there are no rules preventing anyone from "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater"? Along those lines: aside from the legal theories, are there any factual averments in either of the two Federal Court indictments that you dispute? I would just be repeating myself with the 'fire in a crowded theater' law. You were only able to cite an overturned SCOTUS case ad nauseam.
How about we stick with the question I asked? Alvin Bragg is claiming that book entries written in 2017 somehow traveled backward through time and defrauded the American people in the 2016 election. Please explain how this is so.
For the fifteenth or sixteenth time: it was only partially overturned, and the holding concerning context and the First Amendment was not. You must be acting like a complete dumbass on purpose, as the concepts are not that difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:04:44 GMT
The theory of the case is that the 2017 falsified business records related to actions taken in 2016. This isn't rocket science, Jack. That is not what I asked. How did book entries written in 2017 interfere with the 2016 election? Is this going to be another round of you pretending to be too stupid to understand the plain language of what I said? |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Aug 13, 2023 21:06:38 GMT
That is not what I asked. How did book entries written in 2017 interfere with the 2016 election? Is this going to be another round of you pretending to be too stupid to understand the plain language of what I said? No, it's another round of you actually being too stupid to understand what I asked.
Book entries written after the 2016 election somehow traveled backward through time to defraud the American people of their right to know the details of a non-disclosure agreement between Trump and Stormy Daniels.
If this is not a novel and untested legal theory, surely you can show me where this has been successfully tested?
|
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:12:06 GMT
Is this going to be another round of you pretending to be too stupid to understand the plain language of what I said? No, it's another round of you actually being too stupid to understand what I asked. If there is a point to your irrelevant question, just state it. If not, I will write your commentary off as you pretending to be a complete dumbass because it amuses you somehow- again. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Aug 13, 2023 21:16:10 GMT
No, it's another round of you actually being too stupid to understand what I asked. If there is a point to your irrelevant question, just state it. If not, I will write your commentary off as you pretending to be a complete dumbass because it amuses you somehow- again. That's fine by me. Scurry into the gutter, little rat. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:16:47 GMT
Is this going to be another round of you pretending to be too stupid to understand the plain language of what I said? No, it's another round of you actually being too stupid to understand what I asked.
Book entries written after the 2016 election somehow traveled backward through time to defraud the American people of their right to know the details of a non-disclosure agreement between Trump and Stormy Daniels.
If this is not a novel and untested legal theory, surely you can show me where this has been successfully tested?
Here is the indictment: www.npr.org/2023/04/04/1167708172/trump-charges-hush-money-new-york-indictmentApply whatever weird theory you are blathering about to the language in the indictment. It sure looks like you developed whatever incoherent theory you have without reference to the indictment. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 13, 2023 21:19:46 GMT
Well considering there was no violence after the 1st indictment, and none after the 2nd, and none after the 3rd, I think it's a pretty safe bet there will be none after the 4th, 5th and 6th. Seems to be more cops than protesters outside the courthouses now where this happens. I suppose watching their brothers from 1/6 getting arrested and way too long of sentences on bogus charges may also be taking the wind out of their sails. For now. You know it is politicized when a protester, who was just walking around in the halls with a police escort, gets more time than a DUI hit and run driver that killed the victim. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 13, 2023 21:21:27 GMT
If there is a point to your irrelevant question, just state it. If not, I will write your commentary off as you pretending to be a complete dumbass because it amuses you somehow- again. That's fine by me. Scurry into the gutter, little rat. He does a lot of reaching. Doesn't he? I find it kinda cute with his short, stubby arms. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl on Aug 13, 2023 21:23:20 GMT
That's projection. They're not based on "novel and untested legal theories", they are based on actual crimes having actually been committed. There are aspects which are novel and untested, but the illegality of the acts committed has a solid foundation in written law. Interesting. How did book entries written in 2017 interfere with the 2016 election? Because that is what Alvin Bragg is alleging. Please also present case precedent.
Go.
I think you had better go through your sources. That is not what is being alleged by anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Aug 13, 2023 21:23:45 GMT
No, it's another round of you actually being too stupid to understand what I asked.
Book entries written after the 2016 election somehow traveled backward through time to defraud the American people of their right to know the details of a non-disclosure agreement between Trump and Stormy Daniels.
If this is not a novel and untested legal theory, surely you can show me where this has been successfully tested?
Here is the indictment: www.npr.org/2023/04/04/1167708172/trump-charges-hush-money-new-york-indictmentApply whatever weird theory you are blathering about to the language in the indictment. It sure looks like you developed whatever incoherent theory you have without reference to the indictment. "The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 16, 2017 through March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 16, 2017 and transmitted on or about March 16, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization."
Fascinating. What's the other crime? |
|
|
|
Post by drkrippen on Aug 13, 2023 21:29:07 GMT
Blaming trump for them indicting trump. It's like inception levels of TDS Hey stupid, try comprehending this one. It was Trump, by declaring so early so that he could claim election interference, it was him that got a Special Prosecutor appointed. The DOJ could no longer move at their snail's pace at going after Trump. Once the Special Prosecutor was named, it was lightning speed since then. If Trump had waited and declared like a regular candidate there would not have been enough time for a Special Prosecutor to do anything. Thank Trump! ![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/aglhVEHQrHaJeFlTZSWP.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:32:26 GMT
That's fine by me. Scurry into the gutter, little rat. He does a lot of reaching. Doesn't he? I find it kinda cute with his short, stubby arms. You remain a coward and a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:38:29 GMT
"The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 16, 2017 through March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 16, 2017 and transmitted on or about March 16, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization."
Fascinating. What's the other crime? The key language there that you chose not to highlight, is the "and aid and conceal the commission thereof" language. The indictment is only for the 2017 records case, because the New York state Courts have unquestioned jurisdiction and venue. I could try to explain federal-state jurisdiction and inter-state conflict of laws, but it would just provide you with more opportunities to pretend to be mind-bendingly stupid. I notice you are avoiding my question about your claim that the documents indictment and the Jan. 6 indictment involve "novel legal theories." |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Aug 13, 2023 21:40:35 GMT
"The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 16, 2017 through March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 16, 2017 and transmitted on or about March 16, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization."
Fascinating. What's the other crime? The key language there that you chose not to highlight, is the "and aid and conceal the commission thereof" language. The indictment is only for the 2017 records case, because the New York state Courts have unquestioned jurisdiction and venue. I could try to explain federal-state jurisdiction and inter-state conflict of laws, but it would just provide you with more opportunities to pretend to be mind-bendingly stupid. I notice you are avoiding my question about your claim that the documents indictment and the Jan. 6 indictment involve "novel legal theories." What is the 'other crime'? |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Aug 13, 2023 21:42:29 GMT
The key language there that you chose not to highlight, is the "and aid and conceal the commission thereof" language. The indictment is only for the 2017 records case, because the New York state Courts have unquestioned jurisdiction and venue. I could try to explain federal-state jurisdiction and inter-state conflict of laws, but it would just provide you with more opportunities to pretend to be mind-bendingly stupid. I notice you are avoiding my question about your claim that the documents indictment and the Jan. 6 indictment involve "novel legal theories." What is the 'other crime'? Violating campaign finance laws. Your point? |
|
