OUR SIGNS FOR TOMORROW:
Education by Ponderer     April 18, 2025 5:39 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (6 comments) [88 views]

Trump's egg lie today is ridiculous, but typical.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2025 9:50 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [11 views]

OK, let's go ahead and lose 500 electoral votes
Politics by ROB3RT     April 17, 2025 6:21 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: ROB3RT (8 comments) [132 views]

Letitia James. In her own words.
Crime by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2025 6:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [204 views]

Yes, justice does take time. Signal leakers escorted out of Pentagon
News by oldedude     April 16, 2025 8:54 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [177 views]

Liberals Warn Enforcing Immigration Law Is A Slippery Slope That May Lead To Enforcing Other Laws
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2025 4:22 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [55 views]

An anonymous comment
Religion by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2025 8:36 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [53 views]

After four years of Joe Biden, Freedom of the Press is reinstated
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2025 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [57 views]

SelectSmart.com Members' Resource Page
How-to by Curt_Anderson     February 27, 2020 8:05 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (3 comments) [1721 views]

Riley Gaines. The new face of Old-school feminism
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2025 6:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [34 views]

The People of New York v. Donald J. Trump (documents explained + some helpful hints for understanding legal pundits) By islander April 6, 2023 12:03 pm Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

If you've been following Teri Kanefield with regard to Trump's legal problems you'll know that she has been spot on with her explanations and predictions, and she has been right every time.

Teri's article today will be a great help to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of all of this than whatyou have been getting from the sensationalized mainstream media and their 'political pundits'.

As Teri said, "Because I will be traveling this weekend, I have my blog post ready now.

Here I explain the indictment and statement of facts filed in the case of The People of New York v. Donald J. Trump.

Also, some helpful hints for understanding legal pundits---If you have questions or comments, please leave them in the comment section. "

Click the link to read the rest (don't forget to read the comments).

Cited and related links:

1. terikanefield.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on April 6, 2023 12:17 pm Hmmmm. I got, "This page doesn't seem to exist." by islander on April 6, 2023 12:26 pm Try this link; terikanefield.com by Curt_Anderson on April 6, 2023 12:27 pm Try this link... terikanefield.com by Curt_Anderson on April 6, 2023 12:31 pm Jinx. by islander on April 6, 2023 12:38 pm Odd...the first link I posted didn't work for me either. The second one I posted and Curt's link worked fine. Anyone else having trouble with the last two links? by islander on April 6, 2023 12:42 pm "JUST IN CASE" none of the previous links work it might have something to do with my using Firefox...This is the link using Chrome: terikanefield.com by Curt_Anderson on April 6, 2023 12:46 pm Islander, Your initial link has a bit of extraneous text: https://terikanefield.com/the-people-of-new-york-v-donald-j-trump-documents-explained-and-questions-answered/As%20Teri%20said We both corrected it with: https://terikanefield.com/the-people-of-new-york-v-donald-j-trump-documents-explained-and-questions-answered/ by islander on April 6, 2023 12:55 pm Thanks Curt! Good to know the link is working. Teri does a very good job of answering some of the questions we've been discussing here !! by Curt_Anderson on April 6, 2023 1:14 pm Islander, I found this especially interesting: Can the jury return a verdict for misdemeanors if the prosecution doesn’t prove intent to commit other crimes? Yes. Because the evidence that Trump falsified documents is pretty solid, at the very least we can see 34 misdemeanor convictions for falsifying records and because a misdemeanor, in this case, carries possible jail time, Trump appears to be in deep doo-doo. (Deep doo-doo is a recognized legal term well known to defense lawyers everywhere.) I cannot imagine Trump doing any jailtime. The logistics seem impossible or at least problematic. Maybe an ankle monitor and house arrest. But it sure could put a crimp in his campaigning. by oldedude on April 6, 2023 1:24 pm I still go back to the arraignment referencing it's a "felony" because of some mysterious predicate act that may or may not exist. Without that, it's administrative errors. by HatetheSwamp on April 6, 2023 1:57 pm What the legal eagles I'm seeing and reading say is that the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor crimes has very definitely passed. by Curt_Anderson on April 6, 2023 2:07 pm I've read in various places that the statute of limitations clock stopped for various reasons, including Trump's time residing out of state. It would seem that the DA's office would have made sure first thing that wasn't any issue before proceeding. If Trump's legal team uses that argument, it's a tacit admission of guilt as in ha ha, too late, you can't get me the statute of limitation ran out!. Not the best political move to use that defense. by islander on April 6, 2023 2:19 pm Curt, With regard to, "not proving intent to commit other crimes": Teri answered the question,“Does an initial crime actually have to be proven to be convicted of covering up a crime?” "I would have thought that the other crimes would have been alleged alongside felony falsification of business records to get to a felony, but I found this on the New York state court website. To prove this crime, the prosecution needs to prove that the records were falsified with an “intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission.” In other words, the prosecutor does not have to prove the underlying crime. All the prosecution has to prove the intent to commit a crime. As lawyer Andrew Leahy observed" If I were a juror, the question I'd have to ask myself is why falsify those records if such falsification was not intended to cover up or conceal another crime? by HatetheSwamp on April 6, 2023 2:20 pm If Trump's legal team uses that argument, it's a tacit admission of guilt as in ha ha, too late, you can't get me the statute of limitation ran out!. Not the best political move to use that defense. I'm pretty sure that's not how defense lawyers work. In terms of politics, this is one of the biggest victories...for Trump...in the whole history of the country. by oldedude on April 6, 2023 8:45 pm I agree. No exceptions. Again, what is the use of our court system, is people are too simple to understand simple law? by HatetheSwamp on April 7, 2023 4:14 am OD, I don't know about you but, in my earlier days, when I was a lib, I was a Kennedy/Carter even, apart from the sexual predatory behavior thing, a Clinton lib...even a Biden when he still had a brain, lib... AND,... An Alan Dershowitz lib. Dershowitz is a brilliant legal scholar. Curt and isle scratching and clawing to find legal eagles to justify this indictment is silly. Laughable. My trinity of legal commentators, who have served me well: Turley, McCarthy and Dershowitz all agree. The indictment, as it stands now, is bullfernerner. But, Dershowitz goes a step further than the other two. He predicts that the judge will be too cowardly to dismiss the charges and that a Manhattan jury will convict Trump but all of this fear and derangement will end when the conviction is overturned on appeal. None of us are lawyers. But, I'll take my panel of three legal advisors over Deranged Teri. All this does feed our TDSers disease, though. It's pathetically funny. by oldedude on April 7, 2023 5:22 am In your earlier post, you were talking about Barr and Dershowitz. I like both of them because they will look at the LAW when asked a legal question. Ya may not "like" what they say, but you damm well better listen. I also think it's too bad our system is so broke, judges are actually scared to make the correct legal decision. by HatetheSwamp on April 7, 2023 5:53 am Agreed. As far as I can tell, many on both sides...and our libs here...don't groove on the rule of law. I respect Barr for his experience as a prosecutor and his independence from Trump as AG. He's a bit too much of a SwampGOP for me...but he's got integrity. by islander on April 7, 2023 6:47 am Teri answers more questions regarding eneral Criminal Procedure on her FAQ Page These are the questions we hear over and over and Teri answers them and explains what is wrong with those questions. terikanefield.com by islander on April 7, 2023 6:50 am Typo...that should read questions regarding [g]eneral Criminal Procedure ! by islander on April 7, 2023 7:27 am Another good and informative read from Teri deals with "Rage Inducing Simplifications"... What are "Rage Inducing Simplifications" and why are the dangerous? "A rage-inducing simplification takes a complex situation and boils it down to something that seems true and has some truth in it, but is not true and triggers rage." Teri Kanefield talks about this and answers other important questions regarding misinformation and how it is spread. terikanefield.com by HatetheSwamp on April 7, 2023 7:44 am I imagine that this will be offensive to you but this strikes me as Stage 4 TDS mumbo-jumbo. For the moment, I'll stick with the analysis of Turley, McCarthy and Dershowitz...and Barr. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page