squistion

Which is what the prosecution alleges (although I know it has to used be in commission of another crime, I do not know if that crime has to be a felony).

jonny, falsifying business records is a crime in New York, although by itself it is just a misdemeanor. To elevate it to a felony, it must be combined with another crime, which the prosecution will try to prove here.

https://twitter.com/NotHoodlum/status/1781384734121054673 JUST IN: Judge Juan Merchan doubles his gag order. “While it is Mr. Trump’s right to sleep through his trial, his snoring and farting will not be tolerated. Jurors and court personnel have the right to a noxious-free environment.”

Yes, the smell was so bad that Judge Merchan declared a 15 minute recess to restore odor.

Well, yeah since he reimbursed Michael Cohen for the hush money payments (which he wouldnt logically do if he hadn't ordered it).

First-degree falsifying business records (34 counts). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records[clarification needed] in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[7] 11 for invoices from Michael Cohen 9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump 3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 8 for checks from Donald J. Trump 2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust The allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[91][92] Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[7][91][92] In later filings, Bragg listed three such crimes that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.[93] Trump can move to allow the jury the option to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but is not required to do so.[94]

Dude, it doesn't matter that it didn't happen. That is not what this trial is about. He is not on trial for having sexual relations with her or paying her hush money to keep quiet about it.

The trial is not about him having sexual relations with Stormy or him paying her hush money to keep quiet about it (that is legal as it would be considered a Non-Disclosure Agreement).

Couldn't he just dress a little warmer?

If SAS is a big time Democrat, I'm Prince Harry.

He means criminal trial.

Of course. Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election. Anyone one else who had done that would have been similarly charged.

And Ukraine attacked Russia, right? Oh, wait...

You have yet to back up your claim that SCOTUS has ruled that Trump can have no speech restrictions by the Judge during this trial (I refer everyone to the link I posted above which proves again why you got the wrong_mx nickname at that other place).

A thread to cheer all the innocent civilians killed by Putin's invasion. SMH.

Or trying to, anyway.

It doesn't back up your claim. Sorry.

Along with whoever it was here that stands guard in front of the women's bathroom when his wife or daughter are in there so that some "pedocrat tranny killer" doesn't go in there.

Once again what you have said nothing that has to do with Trump and possible sanctions and or penalties against him that might be taken in this case.

That case is not on point. It has to do with an attorney making out of court statements, not the criminal defendant during a trial. And SCOTUS declined to hear the case and let the lower court's verdict stand. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-oct-03-na-scotus3-story.html It is absurd to contend that a criminal defendant has an unlimited right of speech during their trial and SCOTUS has never ruled that they do.

Link to where SCOTUS has said that the conduct or speech of criminal defendants in a trial cannot be limited?