@very-rusty said
moon,
I am trying to mellow out, now don't get me stirred up! 😛 🙂

-VR

OK, Rusty. Now mellow out, or I'll break your arm !

@Phranny

The unspoken part of the plan, of course, is that he would instigate some sort of national-crisis-excuse to set the constitution aside, declare martial law and himself president for life. His unfettered admiration for Putin should be warning enough.

@very-rusty said
I have bias when it comes to the OP of this thread, so would be wise to keep my comments to myself, in the Public Forum. 🙂

-VR

Oh the irony. When have you ever played your cards close to your chest ?

@the-gravedigger said
I disagreed with my shooter and he shot me.

Well, if you go picking a fight with someone packing a Smith & Wesson, you should expect that.

@AverageJoe1

Each can have his own opinion and his own dream, but not his own facts, and that is where the shoe is pinching right now.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/28/politics/election-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-what-matters/index.html

@greenpawn34 said
HI moonbus

One thing I remember was two strong players going over a game. The most common
phrase was 'centralise' and 'centralise' and 'centralise'.... I was thinking big deal but
what are you threatening. (then I was at the stage you must be either threatening or
defending with every move....preferably threatening something.)

It took a while to sink in and even ...[text shortened]... approach but
at least now I knew why my attacks were getting knocked back. I ignored centalisation.

Centralising is great for chess, but lousy for the economy.


😆

@divegeester said
Leave the dogs alone Sir… dogs represent the pinnacle of evolution

Negative. It's cats. Cats, I tell you. We domesticated dogs, but cats domesticated us. They took one look around at all the animals in Eden and asked themselves, 'which one is most likely to invent tin openers if we rub ourselves against their legs and purr?' Yup, we're it.

@kellyjay said
The point of acknowledging design doesn't prove God, it proves design over a mindless process nothing more. God can only be known when we seek God and God calls, but even there we can suppress God's call, just as we can suppress evidence by refusing to acknowledge what we see to avoid philosophical ramifications evidence points to.

The fundamental logical error you and Creationists generally are making is this: you confuse intelligibilty with intelligence. A thing can be intelligible (to us) without being intelligent (in-itself). You are merely projecting your own designs and metaphors (error-checking, start-stop mechanisms, etc.) into nature.

@torunn said
I think it's all about disagreeing and arguing - a lot of posts saying nothing really.

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should say nothing really."


Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Bombasticus

@the-gravedigger said
I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement.


Disagreeable people should be lined up and shot.


Their dogs should be shot, too. Twice.

@averagejoe1 said
Juror: “There has been no crime established. When you are presenting a case in the opening days, you should be trying to get our attention. I will submit to you that we do not ‘see where the crime is at.’ Where is the evidence of President Trump doing wrong?”

You fellers are getting ahead of your skis. There is no crime being shown. Think deep. You will see. Do you see ‘the crime’? You are all thinking like sonnyhouse.

See previous post.

@mott-the-hoople said
when was Trump convicted of violating Fed election law?

It is not necessary to show a prior conviction. What the prosecution has to show is intent to commit a further crime (such as tax fraud &/or campaign finance fraud) in having committed the first one (paying hush money and pretending it was a) a tax-deductible business expense and b) a campaign 'donation' ).

@greenpawn34 said
I'm with you mchill regarding these new fangled clocks. I get one of the kids
to set them at league matches etc and I have the instructions.
(you should be able to get a copy on the net )

The change in atmosphere at tournaments from the late 60's to early 2020's
(when I played) to today is very different.

In the olden days we would gather around a board in the ...[text shortened]... T.D. to organise,
they can do the draw at random because nobody can remember who they have played.

Speaking of the analysis room ...

I took part in the U.S. Open in Atlantic City during the Fischer-Spassky match. The two top seeds in the U.S. Open that year were Walter Browne (the ultimate victor) and Bent Larsen. After the day's games had finished in Atlantic City, Larsen would give a short presentation with commentary on whatever game was currently running in Iceland (moves relayed via fax). Browne would relax playing blitz backgammon with someone. The rest of the boards were full up with people analyzing and chattering away, often with four players playing blitz bug-house. Watching the good players analyze was an education in itself.

@averagejoe1 said
@AverageJoe1
THE crime.

Again, not ALL of alleged crimes of All cases. Obviously not my OP.

What's the crime in the so-called hush-money case? Falsifying financial records. Here's a summary from the indictment:

1. violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and individual contributions.

2. violated FECA through unlawful individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, Pecker, and AMI; and...by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes.

3. violated New York tax law.

@averagejoe1 said
@kmax87
But, What is This crime? Should I rephrase?

Falsifying financial records. It’s a felony.

EDIT: copy-pasted from Marauder's thread on the case:


<<
NY Penal Law "§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

As to the object crimes, Bragg is basing the "intent to commit another crime" which elevates the charge from a misdemeanor 2nd Degree to a felony First Degree Falsifying business records, Bragg uses three theories any one of which the Judge found adequate to sustain the charges at this point (a fourth was rejected):

"(1) The People allege that Defendant "violated federal election laws because the payoffs to both McDougal and Daniels violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and individual contributions." People's (Apposition pg. 24 The People presented evidence to the Grand Jury that Cohen pled guilty in the Southern District of New York to violating FECA for engaging in the very acts which are at issue here, i.e. making unlawful campaign contributions and that he did so at the direction of, and in coordination with, "a candidate for federal office," later identified as Donald J. Trump - the Defendant herein.
(2) Under the second theory, the People allege that Defendant intended to violate N.Y. Election Law § 17 152 by conspiring to "promote the election of any person to a public office...by entering a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that they did so by 'unlawfull means,' including by violating FECA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen. Pecker, and AMI; and...by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the. nature of the repayment for tax purposes." People's Opposition at pg. 25.
(3) Under die [sic] third theory, the People allege that the Defendant intended to violate New York fax [sic] Law §§ 1801(a)(3) and 1802. this theory is premised on evidence introduced to the Grand Jury that when Cohen was reimbursed for the $1.30,000 payment he made to Daniels, the amount he received was "grossed up" to compensate him for taxes he would have to pay on the reimbursement."

"The Court has considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury for the first three theories was legally sufficient to support the intent to commit the "other crime" element of falsifying Business Records in the first Degree."

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 pp. 13-14

>>


Now, what part of "felony" do you not understand? Two too many syllables?