- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DeSantis looks to be easing out of a '24 run
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:38 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
NY law doesn’t require them to specify the underlying crime that elevates the falsification charge to a felony in the indictment.
Obviously they would have to show it at any trial.
1
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Nope. He disputed that they are accurate.
His words:
quote:
No, there are 34 charges, one of which is a felony
His point stands. People 100% are grasping your passiv aggressive tactic.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Right. So instead of responding in this thread, to the comments I made in this thread, you just randomly decided to talk about something else entirely?
Par for the course I suppose.
Yes he just tried to get me to talk about free trade, which wasn't even being discussed in here, b/c I ignored his idiocy in a different thread entirely (which is like a double-inception b/c we weren't talking about his chosen topics in that one, either).
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:40 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
His point stands.
No it doesn't.
He was indicted.
He was indicted for 34 felonies.
Any other statement about the nature of Trump's charges is incorrect.
2 + 2 = 4
Trump is charged with 34 felonies.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
NY law doesn’t require them to specify the underlying crime that elevates the falsification charge to a felony in the indictment.
Obviously they would have to show it at any trial.
How many people have been convicted there in such a fashion?
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:46 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
How many people have been convicted there in such a fashion?
None that I’m aware of.
But no one in this discussion is saying the charges are appropriate/strong/likely to succeed if that’s what you’re going for.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I was trying to warn this very board about ballot harvesting in 2020. It's not always illegal or fraudulent, though.
It was harvesting (which is sometimes illegal) combined with fraud.
Not realizing that tons of votes were cast by people other than the voter is pure ignorance. And, I'm not going to let you pretend you realize it. I'm going to hang you from this post if you try to pretend you knew.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes he just tried to get me to talk about free trade, which wasn't even being discussed in here,
No, I pointed out that in every thread where it is the topic, you bail.
You will always bail.
quote:
b/c I ignored his idiocy in a different thread entirely (which is like a double-inception b/c we weren't talking about his chosen topics in that one, either).
No, because you can't address it. It ruins your belief.
Please do not make me link the thread on free trade where you did so.
Just step up and state that you have no answer or just say you don;t give a damn about the effects.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:52 pm to Indefatigable
In other words, I don’t think one can definitively state that “ NY law doesn’t require them to specify the underlying crime that elevates the falsification charge to a felony in the indictment.”
Certainly this DA is operating under the assumption that it doesn’t, but he doesn’t “make law.” I would assert it is an inherent requirement under our longstanding appreciation of criminal due process.
I guess we will ultimately see what the “law allows,” but based on where we are now, your blanket statement is spurious at best.
Certainly this DA is operating under the assumption that it doesn’t, but he doesn’t “make law.” I would assert it is an inherent requirement under our longstanding appreciation of criminal due process.
I guess we will ultimately see what the “law allows,” but based on where we are now, your blanket statement is spurious at best.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:53 pm to moneyg
quote:
Not realizing that tons of votes were cast by people other than the voter is pure ignorance. And, I'm not going to let you pretend you realize it. I'm going to hang you from this post if you try to pretend you knew.
You do know ballot harvesting existed before 2020, right?
And it was no secret that many states fought to permit harvesting (while it was previously illegal), right?
This stuff was only news to the Trump crowd, and most didn't even come to accept it until after they quit the Sydney Powell/Lin Wood insanity, years after the fact.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:57 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I don’t think one can definitively state that “ NY law doesn’t require them to specify the underlying crime that elevates the falsification charge to a felony in the indictment
Yes, one can. The simple fact is that NY law does not require that the underlying crime be specified in the indictment in this instance. That has nothing to do with anything else in your post, and has no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate resolution of the case.
The judge accepted the indictment. It will be the DA’s burden to show the underlying crime’s existence in order to prove his case.
quote:
Certainly this DA is operating under the assumption that it doesn’t, but he doesn’t “make law.” I would assert it is an inherent requirement under our longstanding appreciation of criminal due process. I guess we will ultimately see what the “law allows,” but based on where we are now, your blanket statement is spurious at best.
And this word salad has nothing to do with whether NY requires that the prosecution specify the underlying crime in the indictment.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 4/10/23 at 1:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You do know ballot harvesting existed before 2020, right?
Mail in voting made that possibility order of magnitudes more impactful. It's noted that this has to be explained to you. I'll remind you of it later, when you pretend you already knew.
quote:
This stuff was only news to the Trump crowd
This is such a lie. Trump himself was warning of it during the lead up to 2020. That you need to lie about that reality is meaningful.
quote:
most didn't even come to accept it until after they quit the Sydney Powell/Lin Wood insanity
The idea that the Sydney Powell version of events is the only thing that lives up to the definition of fraud is humorous.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The simple fact is that NY law does not require that the underlying crime be specified in the indictment in this instance.
Unless and until you can show me a conviction that has been upheld under such a process, you can’t say this. I mean, I guess you can, but it’s still not correct as of this moment.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:04 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Unless and until you can show me a conviction that has been upheld under such a process, you can’t say this
This does not make any sense.
Bragg doesn’t have to disclose the “underlying crime” until he submits his bill of particulars to the defense.
That isn’t specific to this charge and has nothing to do with whether anyone has been convicted under this specific charge. It’s common-place in white collar crimes like conspiracy/racketeering, etc.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:06 pm to Indefatigable
How not? What’s necessary to get a conviction is what the law requires. If this gets thrown out for THIS REASON it would be a requirement under the law.
I know you’re dense, but I didn’t think you were this bad.
I know you’re dense, but I didn’t think you were this bad.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:08 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What’s necessary to get a conviction is what the law requires. If this gets thrown out for THIS REASON it would be a requirement under the law.
No, the law does not require in any way that everything necessary for a conviction be laid out in an indictment. Not even close.
quote:
I know you’re dense, but I didn’t think you were this bad.
The best part is that you’re the one who has no idea what they are talking about at the moment. See my prior edit.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, the law does not require in any way that everything necessary for a conviction be laid out in an indictment. Not even close.
When you have to COMPLETELY reframe a point and address a straw man. I know where we are.
Good talk.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:11 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
When you have to COMPLETELY reframe a point and address a straw man. I know where we are.
Reframing how? You are the one that stated that the law requires what is necessary for a conviction.
My response simply points out that you are incorrect—at least to the level of detail that you are arguing is necessary.
The law does not require that.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:17 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Either DeSantis is using this as cover, or the GOPe is trying to force his arse out. So they can legitimately and forcefully move on
Or it’s the DEMs trying to get the nominee to be Trump so they can run a train on him…again!
Posted on 4/10/23 at 2:18 pm to Penrod
quote:
Or it’s the DEMs trying to get the nominee to be Trump so they can run a train on him…again!
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News