Even left wing legal experts have issue with this:
" Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Emphasis added.

#67 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

This has been debunked so many times. I'm out of crayons.

Even left wing legal experts have issue with this:
" Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Emphasis added.
#67 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Because Jeff can't do his own legal work...

The "other crime" does not have to be in the indictment or even established by the Prosecution. It can be left up to the Jury. See People v. Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 543 N.E.2d 34, 544 N.Y.S.2d 769 [1989]; People v. Thompson, 206 AD3d 1708, 169 N.Y.S.3d 438 [4th Dept 2022]. These other crimes are ELEMENTS, not charges.

See also NY CLS CPL 200.95.

However, as Judge Manchin noted: The Prosecution WENT BEYOND the legal requirements and established what those other crimes would be in the People's Opposition brief and with a detailed Statement of Facts that accompanied the Indictment at the outset of the case. It was also detailed repeatedly in Discovery.

Now watch Jeff ignore this...again...

#80 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

The Clinton Campaign didn't falsify documents. The Clinton Campaign had no underlying crime. The Clinton Campaign didn't attempt to defraud anyone.

But to get back to your other argument:

"First is it illegal to do a "catch and kill"?
Apparently not."
It can be if its done as an illegal campaign contribution. Ask Michael Cohen.

If not then how are there are false entries?
It's falsification when you purposely falsify payments to cover up the illegal campaign contribution, hide it from your taxes, and the payment would violate state and federal campaign laws.

Where should the entries have been made to be legal?
To start, they shouldn't have been labeled as payments for legal services. In addition, they should not have falsely entered the checks as payment for legal services in their books.

This isn't rocket science.

#74 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Once again, Jeff gets Fact Checked and Jeff runs away.

The Clinton campaign used campaign funds to pay for oppo research and labeled those expenditures as legal expenses. Trump paid out of pocket to Cohen, didn't use campaign funds, and labeled those costs as legal expenses.
#90 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
The Clinton campaign was fined and not chlarged. Trump campaign was not fined and yet charged. For the same damn thing. No amount of spin can change that fact.
Hack.
#95 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

1. You completely have refuse to respond from #74. Pathetic as usual.

2. The Clinton campaign did not falsify documents to cover up a crime. Opposition research is legal. Illegal campaign contributions are NOT legal.

3. The Clinton campaign reported the payments and mislabeled them as legal expenses rather than opposition research. That's not attempt to defraud as required by the statute. Trump called them legal expenses so they could pretend they weren't campaign related and didn't report them. That's an attempt to defraud.

So no, not the "same damn thing."

Now go hide from this as well, you pathetic ignorant hack.

The Clinton campaign's tj colluded with Russian sources, which you clowns dubbed the biggest crime ever when you accused Trump of doing it but could never prove it. They used campaign funds, not personal funds, to pay for this. Those funds were labeled "legal fees" just like Trump's payments to Cohen.
Thee are similar and if anything Clinton's were worse. Yet, here we are. I'll remind you that you condescendingly lectured me about Colorado kicking Trump off the ballot as being one of the most legally sound rulings n the history of law only to be shot down 9-0 by SCOTUS. It was too much even for Sotomayor.

#100 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Lying as usual.

"The Clinton campaign's tj colluded with Russian sources"
Well that never happened. The Clinton Campaign paid a law firm to hire someone to do opposition research. Again you make accusations with NO factual backing. But this is typical you: can't address the facts so you make up a NEW fact-free argument.

"you condescendingly lectured me about Colorado kicking Trump off the ballot as being one of the most legally sound rulings n the history"
Also never happened. Me and many other said Trump legally shouldn't be on the ballot. But the Supreme Court would likely save him on procedural matters. AND GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?! 5 Republican Justices wrote NEW LAW saying it required an act of Congress. Even Justice Barrett couldn't go that far and called them out for it. She and the 3 liberal Justices said it just needed to be brought in Federal Court.

And look at you, STILL hiding #74 and now hiding from virtually everything in #99. Typical Jeff.