Jonathan Turley says he’s not blaming the jurors for Trump’s conviction

paying Cohen was not illegal

Trump made up no stories

complete ■■■■■■■■■ The fact that he was running a campaign does not prove motive for paying Cohen

paying him was still not illegal

You are confusing what must be plead. The indictment need only state the elements of the offense, in this case that the false statement was in furtherance of another crime. That’s it. The burden on the prosecutor during discovery and at trial may be to identify what the other crime is, but the indictment need not. There is really nothing in your armchair lawyer belief that is going to change the rules of criminal conduct procedure.

1 Like

A federal court says you are full of crap about the “other crime”.

“Under the same principle, where an indictment charges a crime that depends in turn on violation of another statute, the indictment must identify the underlying offense.” ___ United States of America v. Albert J Pirro Jr Anthony G Pirro, 212 F.3d 86 (2nd Cir. 2000)?

Seems to me both juries were hoodwinked by the prosecution about the “other crime”, and if that is the case, then Jonathan Turley may be right in not blaming the jury.

nope. federal courts are very clear. the underlying offense mst be identified

didn’t do it then either.

Bragg identified the predicate other crimes in response to Trump’s Omnibus Motion. In addition, the NY Court of Appeals has held that the predicate crimes need not be in the indictment.


The confusion you are having is that Piero holds that the underlying crime must be specified where commission of that crime is a predicate. Under the law for which Trump was convicted, commission of the crime is not required to be proven.


the confusion is yours. The people did not argue that Trump intended to violate other laws, they argued that he did. And “may” include listed in a smorgasbord of crimes is not sufficient, which is why a bill of particulars was asked for. Something the courts had absolutely no reason not to grant.

In New York a demand for a bill of particulars is standard practice because in New York the underlying documents can be sparse and the bill of particulars…. Well it particulates what is missing

waterboy logic

And what was it the whore said? “Legal matter being handled by legal documents”?

1 Like

Neither was paying the whore.

and yet the court denied it forcing the defense to defend… anything

I see you are still making stuff up, ignoring the Sixth Amendment’s due process, and deflecting from what is specifically stated in the New York Indictment, 34 freaken times.

The INDICTMENT indicates 34 times that another crime existed which Smith wanted to give an expert opinion on.

The New York Indictment against Trump is defective on its face and has a fatal flaw. It mentions another crime but does not specify what that crime is. For the indictment to pass constitutional muster it “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged.”” State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 267 (N.C. 2003)

What is that other crime, and where is it mentioned in the New York indictment of Trump?


When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our countries inner cities.

Trump has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Does that disqualify him from the Republicans or MAGA?

Thanks for proving us correct.

no, but it may disqualify him from judging a case against hillary.

Your absurd deflection is noted. Now, back to reality . . .what is the “other” crime?