Nailed it.
Trump Suggests He Will Be Arrested Tuesday, indicted 30 March
- Thread starter Bigfoot
- Start date
Nailed it.
DoOver
.450/400 Nitro Ex
dean3690
.357 mag
Stephanie (CLASS A MISDEMEANOR for first offense and Future CLASS E FELON for subsequent offense) Clifford (Aka Stormy Daniels) wears an illegal bulletproof vest to court. Governor Hochul and the NY legislature threw a temper tantrum and rammed through the CCIA ("Concealed Carry Improvement Act") in reaction to the US Supreme courts NYSRPA V. Bruen Decision in 2022. Laws have consequences. Under the CCIA law, it is illegal for her to knowingly take possession of body armor in NY (the trial is in Manhattan, NY) per New York State Penal Law Section 270.21: § 270.21 Unlawful purchase of body armor.
A person is guilty of the unlawful purchase of body armor when, not being engaged or employed in an eligible profession, they knowingly purchase or take possession of body armor, as such term is defined in subdivision two of section 270.20 of this article. This section shall not apply to individuals or entities engaged or employed in eligible professions, which shall include police officers as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, peace officers as defined in section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law, persons in military service in the state of New York or military or other service for the United States, and such other professions designated by the department of state (note: that the NY Dept. of State list posted on the state website does not include attorneys or trial participants) in accordance with section one hundred forty-four-a of the executive law. Unlawful purchase of body armor is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
A person is guilty of the unlawful purchase of body armor when, not being engaged or employed in an eligible profession, they knowingly purchase or take possession of body armor, as such term is defined in subdivision two of section 270.20 of this article. This section shall not apply to individuals or entities engaged or employed in eligible professions, which shall include police officers as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, peace officers as defined in section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law, persons in military service in the state of New York or military or other service for the United States, and such other professions designated by the department of state (note: that the NY Dept. of State list posted on the state website does not include attorneys or trial participants) in accordance with section one hundred forty-four-a of the executive law. Unlawful purchase of body armor is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.
Stormy Daniels Wore a Bulletproof Vest to Court in New York - But Made Sure It Didn't Cover Her Cleavage for the Cameras | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
According to her lawyer, Stormy Daniels wore a bulletproof vest to court over fears of what “some nut” might do.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Last edited:
DoOver
.450/400 Nitro Ex
stokes
.338 Win Mag
Except the DA's office can legally put one on witnesses, its done all the time.Stephanie (CLASS A MISDEMEANOR for first offense and Future CLASS E FELON for subsequent offense) Clifford (Aka Stormy Daniels) wears an illegal bulletproof vest to court. Governor Hochul and the NY legislature threw a temper tantrum and rammed through the CCIA ("Concealed Carry Improvement Act") in reaction to the US Supreme courts NYSRPA V. Bruen Decision in 2022. Laws have consequences. Under the CCIA law, it is illegal for her to knowingly take possession of body armor in NY (the trial is in Manhattan, NY) per New York State Penal Law Section 270.21: § 270.21 Unlawful purchase of body armor.
A person is guilty of the unlawful purchase of body armor when, not being engaged or employed in an eligible profession, they knowingly purchase or take possession of body armor, as such term is defined in subdivision two of section 270.20 of this article. This section shall not apply to individuals or entities engaged or employed in eligible professions, which shall include police officers as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, peace officers as defined in section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law, persons in military service in the state of New York or military or other service for the United States, and such other professions designated by the department of state (note: that the NY Dept. of State list posted on the state website does not include attorneys or trial participants) in accordance with section one hundred forty-four-a of the executive law. Unlawful purchase of body armor is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.
Stormy Daniels Wore a Bulletproof Vest to Court in New York - But Made Sure It Didn't Cover Her Cleavage for the Cameras | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
According to her lawyer, Stormy Daniels wore a bulletproof vest to court over fears of what “some nut” might do.
byron
.308 Win
its so nice they have these credible witnesses that won't lie and have nothing against Trump:
www.nbcnews.com
Stormy Daniels must pay $300k to Donald Trump after losing defamation case appeal
“I will go to jail before I pay a penny,” the adult film actor tweeted after an appeals court ruled against her.
www.nbcnews.com
dean3690
.357 mag
If by "legally" you mean no one will sue them (no DA will take up the case), that's fine, but that is not the definition of legal. If it's illegal under the law and there is no exemption for it in the law ("it's done all the time" is not an exemption in the law), then it's illegal. If the powers that be do what they want illegally without consequences, what else is new. Leticia James likes to threaten businesses out of state to not sell legal products in the NYS under color of law (illegal) and the PO-PO likes to disobey traffic laws all day long when not responding to an emergency or engaged in pursuit, etc. All that illustrates is the 2 tiered system we have in practice where those in power are scofflaws and We The Peons are held accountable.
stokes
.338 Win Mag
The DA's office has all the immunity of any other LE agency. The law you posted concerns the purchase of body armor and states this:
The DA's office is a LE agency and would be considered an "eligible profession". And that is why they do it all the time
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
BREAKING NEWS: Weaponization Hearing Stopped After Hageman Takes Direct Aim At Goldman And Plaskett
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Paul Ingrassia
@PaulIngrassia
Anecdotally, Merchan noticeably allows more objections from Prosecution of Blanche's cross-examination. Merchan overruled basically every single objection by the Trump Defense during the questioning of witnesses Pecker, Hicks, and Daniels.
10:01 AM · May 16, 2024
·
805
Views
@PaulIngrassia
Anecdotally, Merchan noticeably allows more objections from Prosecution of Blanche's cross-examination. Merchan overruled basically every single objection by the Trump Defense during the questioning of witnesses Pecker, Hicks, and Daniels.
10:01 AM · May 16, 2024
·
805
Views
dean3690
.357 mag
What did I say?
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Thread by @CommishSmith on Thread Reader App
@CommishSmith: Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. /1 But the...…
threadreaderapp.com
Brad Smith
Excellent thread by former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith @CommishSmith.Relates to the all-important issue of a federal crime as part of the Bragg case against Trump in New York.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Brad Smith: What I would have told the Trump jury
former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith, who is certainly one of the leading authorities in the nation on the application of FECA.
The goal of his hoped-for testimony, Smith said, was “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious.” As an example, Smith cited the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election,” which has been heard during much analysis of the trial. “You read the law and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation — all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”
www.washingtonexaminer.com
former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith, who is certainly one of the leading authorities in the nation on the application of FECA.
The goal of his hoped-for testimony, Smith said, was “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious.” As an example, Smith cited the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election,” which has been heard during much analysis of the trial. “You read the law and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation — all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”
Brad Smith: What I would have told the Trump jury - Washington Examiner
In recent days, it has become clear that the Trump trial will somehow come down to federal campaign finance law.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Yes, Election interference.
Mollie doesn't understand its all for our own good don't ya know.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
"It's done all the time" != "it's legal".
View attachment ny.mp4
NOW — Outside of the New York courthouse for the sham witch hunt trial against President Trump, Sebastian Gorka says, "Why are you hiding this document, Judge Merchan? I’m going to put it on the Internet today!"
NOW — Outside of the New York courthouse for the sham witch hunt trial against President Trump, Sebastian Gorka says, "Why are you hiding this document, Judge Merchan? I’m going to put it on the Internet today!"
byron
.308 Win
stokes
.338 Win Mag
No, its not legal because its done all the time, its done all the time because its legal. As I said earlier:
stokes
.338 Win Mag
What is the document?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So selling cocaine is legal because it's done all the time ?
It's done all the time despite being illegal because the people who are tasked with enforcing that law are the same people who are violating it.
stokes
.338 Win Mag
WTF you talkin bout Willis? Cocaine is illegal, period, no matter how many times it is "done". It is not illegal for LE agencies to possess, buy or use body armor. The DA's office is a LE agency, it is not illegal for them to use it.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Nobody is suggesting the DA's office be prosecuted.
The police possess cocaine all the time too.
Would it be legal for them to sell it ?
stokes
.338 Win Mag
How in the fuck are you comparing cocaine to body armor?
That is perhaps the dumbest statement I've seen around here.
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
spat
.700 Nitro Express
NY has decided to prohibit commoners from possessing both cocaine and body armor, and many guns, etc...
They have of course decided that they can ignore those prohibitions for themselves.
"Rules for thee and not for me" is basically their mantra.
If you can't see the obvious parallel there, I can't help you.
If you are blinded by your personal bias about which of these should be prohibited, you really need to think about why mere possession of anything should be prohibited.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
stokes
.338 Win Mag
Ok, I see you think everything should be legal and we should have no laws. You want legal cocaine etc? Go to Portland and Seattle, frisco , they decriminalized hard drugs. Didnt work out too well for them.