Trump-appointed Judge orders Steve Bannon to report to prison

The falsification of other business records was one of three choices the jury were to choose from which elevated the misdemeanor falsification of business records to a felony.

Hey, you paid attention for once. You feeling up for

edy • June 7, 2024 3:45 PM BST
Aha, and you are certain those were never mentioned until after the closing arguments had been made?

edy • June 7, 2024 3:46 PM BST
Or would you like to retract that statement before you are found guilty of having had lied?

now?

Who did Trump rape?

I am not buying a New York Times subscription for one transcript.

You don't need to buy a subscription. Here they are from the court all officially then

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/

.

Which pdf and which page do I need to look at?

It's your research

The documents are searchable so you can ctrl+f them for keywords you deem suitable in your research.

So you haven't got any supporting evidence. Just as I thought.

I'd like an engagement on this so that I get to officially and with your approval get to call you a liar if you don't retract.

edy • June 7, 2024 3:45 PM BST
Aha, and you are certain those were never mentioned until after the closing arguments had been made?

edy • June 7, 2024 3:46 PM BST
Or would you like to retract that statement before you are found guilty of having had lied?

I am now merely helping you make the correct decision by providing assistance to your research.

I am not sure we agree about what we are disputing. It's obviously not enough for the government to vaguely reference the crimes they had in mind. They would need to be exactly defined for the defense to be able to contest it. The falsification of business records misdemeanor was talked about and known from the beginning which is not disputed, and that is a separate issue from the falsification of other business records. What is disputed is whether the 3 crimes were defined properly so that the defense knew what they were contesting before the closing arguments.

That's not what you initially said. You said "prosecutor didn't reveal what crimes Trump was accused of until after the defense had made it's closing arguments"

Which means they did specify, but only after the closing arguments. What is it now?

The 3 choices of crimes which elevated the misdemeanor were not defined until after the defense made closing arguments, so they were not revealed to the defense and the defense could not contest them.

What are sentences like

The primary crime that we have alleged is New York State Election Law Section 17-152

from the transcript of April 23 all about?

Is New York State Election Law a crime?

Laws define crimes, yes. If they have adequate titles you can also say it like the prosecutor did.

So what's a sentence like that doing in the transcript, Ronald?

That's ridiculously vague. The New York State Election Law outlines provisions related to campaign contributions, such as limitations and regulations, so the defense would need to know which limitation or regulation was the problem for them to be able to address it. And you have still not provided any evidence they defined the 3 crimes before the defense's closing arguments which they said were the candidates for the unlawful means by which the election was influenced.

edy • June 7, 2024 5:00 PM BST
I'd like an engagement on this so that I get to officially and with your approval get to call you a liar if you don't retract.

edy • June 7, 2024 3:45 PM BST
Aha, and you are certain those were never mentioned until after the closing arguments had been made?

edy • June 7, 2024 3:46 PM BST
Or would you like to retract that statement before you are found guilty of having had lied?

I can help you some more in making the correct decision. I really don't want to trap you and be mean and stuff.

Like...can you imagine that court filings exist from months prior...like May 2023 or law blog entries from March 2024 where the court filings were picked up?

Were then regarding e.g. the by you mentioned "Violations of tax laws." had been specified with...specific laws?

*Where then

Kids these days really need every bit of research skill hand fed to them. If they don't have it on their X timeline pre-chewed, they really are lost in finding information and documents.

Law blog entries? What's that got to do with anything?
Are the 3 crimes I mentioned defined in the indictment? Or during the case?
Where are you saying they were officially defined?

Law blog entries that cite the court filings are relevant because they take the information from...you know....court filings.

And court filings are kind of relevant to court cases. Look, the first word of "court filings" and "court cases" is even the same - court!

Jun 7, 2024 -- 6:31PM, Ronaldmcdonald wrote:

Law blog entries? What's that got to do with anything?Are the 3 crimes I mentioned defined in the indictment? Or during the case?Where are you saying they were officially defined?

Court filings from May 2023 is really not enough of a hint yet for you? It's even on X if it makes it easier for you.

Kids and their research skills, man....

I don't believe I said court filings were not relevant, but you were talking about law blogs.
So let's see it then, where's the evidence?

Seriously dude, court filings from May 2023 is not enough of a hint for you? What if I tell you court filings in response to a request for a bill of particular from Trump and his team?

That's enough to show off your research skills surely.

particulars

So you haven't go any evidence then?

I do, but you and your development in regards to research and critical thinking are much more helped if you take my hints and do your own research based up on it. If you learn to exist without absolutely everything preing pre-chewed on X or here.

Which (potential) document(s) have you been able to identify so far?

Or have you not been able to identify any candidates and need yet more assistance?

If it's in the filings why did you send me on a wild goose chase searching through court transcripts?

Edy's pedantry is off the scale

Why is it my pedantry and not Ronald's in this case, tobermory? It is him who is making the claim, possibly on some technicality, that "prosecutor didn't reveal what crimes Trump was accused of until after the defense had made it's closing arguments"

Jun 7, 2024 -- 7:28PM, Ronaldmcdonald wrote:

If it's in the filings why did you send me on a wild goose chase searching through court transcripts?

Seemed a good opportunity to get my joke of

edy • June 7, 2024 4:38 PM BST
https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-transcripts.html

You can do your research and read the transcripts there. As we know from Trump's Ukraine thing back in the day, it's very important to always read the transcripts. Don't be a sheep. Do your own research. It's very important.

in

It's my favourite joke on here really and reminds me of you in some ways. It's based on a Jordan Klepper segment that once went like this

Trumper: Read the transcript
Klepper: Read the transcript
Trumper: Yeah
Klepper: Have you read the transcript?
Trumper: I don't have to *laughs* Everyone else has. I can read it if I need to, but...
Klepper: But it's important that everyone read the transcript?
Trumper: It is very important. Pay attention...and think for yourself
Klepper: Yes...but to be clear: You have not read the transcript?
Trumper: I haven't, right.
Klepper: Right...but it is just important?
Trumper: Yeah, don't be a sheep, think for yourself
Klepper: But again, just to be very clear: You have not read it?
Trumper: I have not read it.
Klepper: You just trusted somebody else who has?
Trumper: Yes
Klepper: What have you said about "Don't be a sheep, think for yourself"?
Trumper: *emphatically* Don't be a sheep! Think for yourself! Do your own research!

So either way, Ronald, what candidate documents have you been able to identify?

Does middle of May help?

2023

Not? Does it help that Trump's request of bill of particulars that it was in response to, as mentioned earlier, was from the end of april 2023?

You are so lost when things are chewed for you on X

But again...I am here to help you. It will be very advantageous for your long-term development and for you becoming the best version of yourself.

I don't suppose you are ever going to get to the point. What's your definition of a Trumper? Is that anyone who doesn't believe all the deranged nonsense deranged lefties believe?

It was someone interviewed at a Trump rally wearing a hat that looked like Trump merchandise even if it wasn't directly a "Make America Great Again" hat. Might have been inofficial merchandise.

Still not enough hints for you, Ronald, to find the court filing? Ok, then allow me to give you the law blog entry I talked about earlier. Surely with all the things mentioned and clues in there, along with the very many other tips I have given, you will be able to identify the correct court filing document with even your incredibly pedestrian research skills.

https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan-trump-trial/

Surely now...

Don't make me lose my faith in humanity here please.

Though I have to say I am disappointed in your completely lacking resolve and intent to do your own research up to this point. Gotta do better.

Another wild goose chase I suppose. I think you would have produced your evidence by now if you had any.

It's not a wild goose chase. It's a matter of less than five minutes for anyone remotely competent with all the information I have given you now. The information to refute your claim of "prosecutor didn't reveal what crimes Trump was accused of until after the defense had made it's closing arguments" is already in the blog, but....really....do yourself and your abilities a favour and try to find the court filing.

Old Ronald will reflect back on it one day and be very thankful.

But you see, that's so very characteristic of you yet again. I even give you the law blog that contains all the information, but you simply cannot be bothered to read anything that isn't chewed for you. You should know the keywords to look for, but you simply can't be bothered to do research even as simple as that.

It's so very characteristic. Just like with the Hitchens thing where you never read the actual interview with the Ukrainian general.

I am not making any claim about what's in the court filings, you are. If there's no evidence in your next post I will assume it's because there is none. I can't be fairer than that.

Fine, if you insist on really not doing any research at all yourself.....

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/manhattan-district-attorney-bill-of-particulars-response-may-16-2023.pdf

It really would not have been hard, mate. Old Ronald would have been thankful. Instead you will forever and ever after continue to be completely lost when you don't get people pre-chewing everything for you. Your choice, but it is not a good choice.

You will run time and time into situations where you will look like a liar because you just did not do any own research and verification.

Are you referring to request no 2?

That'd be the specification of the unlawful means, yes.

Which you were claiming Trump and his lawyers had not been told about.

That's not quite right.

What's right?

I do not think it means what you think it means.

So what's right?

You pasted, without any attribution like the commie at heart that you are, this in regards to your initial thing about the closing arguments:

Merchan said prosecutors have identified three alleged unlawful means used to influence the election: Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, The falsification of other business records, Violations of tax laws.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/29/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/unlawful-means-00160377

And claimed that Trump had never been told what these e.g. tax laws are that he may have had broken.

The court filings have information for Trump's lawyers on which specific tax laws he may have broken.

And claimed that Trump had never been told what these e.g. tax laws are that he may have had broken.

*until after the closing arguments

May have.

May have what?

What are you trying to say with your latest post?

Laws that may have been broken.

Oh

Can you think of a possible reason why legal documents, pre-trial, use language of "may have" or "is alleged"?

A nice long sentence for the anti semitic vile racist Bannon will bring great joy to decent people everywhere.

Jun 7, 2024 -- 11:21PM, edy wrote:

OhCan you think of a possible reason why legal documents, pre-trial, use language of "may have" or "is alleged"?

No, Ronald?

No ideas at all, Ronald?

I need to get my people to look into this matter.

Why not think real hard and tough for yourself?

What has your team come back with as you are unable to think for yourself, Ronald?

Don't worry edy it's all in hand. I have a large team trawling through piles of legal documents now as we speak and I will get back to you the minute they alert me to any developments.

How large?

I'd still prefer if you were not scared of thinking for yourself really. You can do it! I believe in you!

Very large.

They are taking a very long time. It's terribly hard to find quality personnell these days, is it not?

You will have to bear with me. I am afraid they have a mountain of legal papers to trawl through. Rome wasn't built in a day you know.

What specifically is the thought behind trawling through a mountain of legal papers in regards to the question? Should not be necessary. Some very basic understanding of the legal system and principles should be enough to develop ideas.

Don't worry about it, it's all going to be sorted out once and for all. They have informed me they are making steady progress.

I don't worry about it, but I am very curious about the thought process and reason to do it.

Steady progress they said.

I think they are cheating on you. Should demand to be given some first ideas.

Any results yet from your team, Ronald`?

Your team is totally taking advantage of your naivity, Ronald.

A nice long sentence for the anti semitic vile racist Bannon will bring great joy to decent people everywhere.

bannon has reported to jail - he'll be fine with the protection of the aryan nation

Trump will have to prosecute all the politicians, prosecutors and judges involved in the corrupt weaponisation of the legal system after the election. He will have no choice, if he doesn't they will only do it again.

bannon joins the long list of people jailed for doing the don's bidding

Typical idiotic leftie nonsense. Without executive privilege presidents would be powerless.

bannon says he has a "maga army" to get the don re-elected

Typical idiotic leftie nonsense. Without executive privilege presidents would be powerless.
Incredible trash even by timber’s low standards.
No USA President has been so obviously and actually a criminal before. No President found it difficult to be president without an exemption for criminality before.

It’s only an issue because the odious sex abuser Trump, the orange bozo who boasted on video about his tendency to grab young females by their privates, has already broken the law and plans to do more of it.

No leftie has ever managed to explain to me what's wrong with consensual private grabbing.

The grabbing of young women’s private parts that Trump boasted about was in the context of not just his worrying tendencies, but in the context of his misuse of fame and power.
Were the young women he “grabbed” really in a situation where refusing Trump’s most odious advances would have gone well for them?

Either way Trump is so dishonest and disgusting, such an anti American multiple bankrupt tax dodging oaf, he is clearly unfit for any public function other than occupying a prison cell alongside his antisemitic pal Bannon.

And the fact that timber keeps on giving his support to Trump tells you everything you need to know. If the plank likes you it’s got to be a worry.

In the Access Hollywood leak he said they let you when you are famous. If they decided to let him there's not much you lefties can do about it for all your sanctimonious moralising.
But seriously COT, if you think Trump is beyond being acceptable because he once bragged about consensual private grabbing amongst adults, how do you explain your indifference about this?
https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1262028053162741763
.

Jun 7, 2024 -- 11:21PM, edy wrote:

OhCan you think of a possible reason why legal documents, pre-trial, use language of "may have" or "is alleged"?

How is your team coming along on this, Ronald? It's been almost a month.