It’s Moving, It’s Alive! Alvin Bragg Prepares the Ultimate Frankenstein Indictment

Below is my column in the New York Post on the expected indictment against former President Donald Trump. It is an effort to reanimate a long dead legal claim against Trump, but could reanimate his presidential campaign.

Here is the column:

“It’s moving. It’s alive. It’s alive . . . it’s moving . . . IT’S ALIVE!”

The scene from the 1931 movie “Frankenstein” came to mind this week as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prepared an indictment of former President Donald Trump.

It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life.

Of course, like the good doctor, Bragg shows little concern over what he has created in his Frankenstein indictment.

Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes.

He is reportedly going to convert a misdemeanor for falsifying financial records into a prosecution of a federal crime.

The federal crime is reportedly the failure to report a payment of $130,000 to former porn star Stormy Daniels to hush up an affair.

That was just before the presidential election and Bragg is alleging that it was an effective campaign donation.

Bragg is attempting something that many lawyers think is as improbable as the reanimation of the dead.

The Justice Department itself declined this prosecution and both the former chair of the Federal Election Commission and various election law experts have thrown shade on the theory.

Not only did Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, not bring this case, but Bragg himself stopped the prosecution.

It was after one of Bragg’s lead prosecutors resigned and wrote a book on prosecuting Trump that pressure became too much for the district attorney, who grabbed his shovel and went to work.

There are serious challenges to this prosecution, including an argument that time has expired under the statute of limitations.

The limit is two years for a misdemeanor and, even if he can convert this into a felony, it is not clear if he can meet the longer five-year limitation.

Bragg will have to convince a court that Trump paid the hush money for the sole purpose of the election.

As a married man and television celebrity, Trump had other reasons to try to avoid a scandal.

That is precisely why such cases (like one against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards) failed in prior prosecutions.

However, the greater danger may come if he succeeds in moving this case to trial.

Locals in New York will be thrilled, but will the rest of the country join the pitchfork carrying mob?

This is a patently political prosecution.

Indeed, of all of the potential charges that Trump is facing in Washington, Atlanta and New York, this is one that he must have hoped would come first.

The investigation into Trump’s actions at Mar-a-Lago by the Justice Department could raise well-established crimes and an array of evidence.

While a possible charge in Georgia over election violations is weaker, it is also based on a stronger legal foundation.If Trump were seeking a way to prove the political weaponization of the criminal justice system, Bragg just fulfilled that narrative.

Now, if these other cases result in charges, it will look like Democrats are piling on to knock Trump out of the race for 2024.

They will be tainted by this transparently political prosecution.

Indeed, voters could well view the election as a vote against the establishment and the media — the very thing that got Trump elected in 2016.

A prosecution is likely to extend beyond the election.

However, if it is thrown out before that date, it will again reinforce Trump’s claims of political targeting.

The prosecution could add a truly wicked dimension to the election.

While Biden is accused of illegally possessing an array of classified material in various locations, the Justice Department has long (in my view, wrongly) followed a policy that it cannot prosecute a sitting president.

However, would it indict Trump but not Biden on that basis? Again, the public is unlikely to stand for an apparent double standard.

Then there is the question of a self-pardon. I have long maintained that a president can pardon himself.

That would mean that the election could become a vote on who you want protected from prosecution: Biden (under the DOJ rule) or Trump (under a self pardon).

While many celebrate Bragg restoring life to the statutorily deceased, they should consider what he has wrought.

Bragg is releasing this case into a public that is already on edge.

Polls show that a large number of Americans believe that the legal system is being politicized and hold both state and federal government in suspicion.

A fifth of Americans now view the government as the greatest threat facing the nation.  What is truly shocking is that 53% in one poll agreed with the statement that the FBI acts like “Biden’s Gestapo.”

This case could well succeed at trial, but it will come at a great cost even if overturned on appeal. It is inviting other prosecutors to act with the same political abandon.

In the 1931 movie, Dr. Frankenstein was warned, “You have created a monster, and it will destroy you!”

Bragg is risking the reanimation of more than a cadaverous crime. Indeed, he could single-handedly reanimate the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

240 thoughts on “It’s Moving, It’s Alive! Alvin Bragg Prepares the Ultimate Frankenstein Indictment”

  1. Turley nailed it. While Bragg and DeSantis have been stepping out with guns blazing against Trump, the former president’s poll numbers have been skyrocketing. Awesome.

  2. Bragg knows his prosecution is going to fail; he could care less. He is pursuing this for one reason and one reason alone: to obtain a picture of Donald Trump in handcuffs. If he succeeds in that goal, no matter what embarrassment he may suffer as a result of the dismal failure or rejection of the case by the courts, he will be a hero to the Left and that most valuable picture will become the centerpiece of the Democrats 2024 fundraising efforts.

    1. This is the illegitimate Biden regime’s nuclear option.

      Hearing rumblings that Trump will be indicted tomorrow.

      Impeach Biden for treason.

      Arrest DA Bragg.

          1. Sure. But you’ve presented no evidence of it, and you don’t even know whether Trump will be charged, or what the charges would be if he’s charged, or what the evidence would be for those charges, so not only don’t you have evidence, you don’t even have a good foundation for guessing.

            1. Leaked news of Trump’s indictment is for distracting the country from what is really going on:
              Biden bank receipts show CCP bribes
              Big Guy’s lies
              Biden in hiding avoiding press
              Banks failing
              Bond market tanking
              Rates going up
              Central Bank Digital Currency bills quietly being pushed thru legislatures
              Inflation out of control
              Russia and China parterning up
              Border open and out of control
              Vaxx injuries and deaths mounting
              Bragg leaks Indictment news
              Keep the news cycle on Trump and people distracted
              Look! Trump!

                1. ATS, like the Nazis you lie since you don’t know who leaked the information. Certainly, the leak started elsewhere, but that is not important when we listen to a person who acts, in the fashion of a Nazi, blaming the innocent for his crimes.

    2. After this goes down, MAGA nation will quickly be out in force with T-shirts depicting the perp walk and the mugshot, you know, depending on your preference. A badge of honor.

  3. “You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars.”

    “It’s just as easy to buy a journalist, or a scientist, as it is to buy a politician.”

  4. I don’t know how you would prove Trump knew about the falsification in the first place.

    That said, a legal question.

    Given the shoddy work and cavalier attitude legislatures have increasingly shown in churning out the criminal code, do we know what is involved in “showing intent to hide the commission of another crime?” Surely, it’s not a variation of simply establishing motive I would hope. The other crime has to be proven. And to do that you have to use the statute for that other crime.

    That is how a functioning and just judicial system works. But we don’t have one. So, I’m not quite sure what Bragg has to show here.

  5. Ugh. Just, ugh. I read the rest of all of your perfectly well-reasoned comments, and i just end up at, what will it take? I have family members that seem to still think they are ok (memo: they are not, in fact, ok, and time bears this out more and more everyday, and hoo boy, do they complain about it, when it ACTUALLY impacts them). Words no longer suffice for a single bit of this BS. I wish it had not become about the courts, but it has, we are right on the brink. Acknowledging that our dems are fascists would spare us a lot in terms of repeating WWII. Just saying. Some of us are awake enough to not send i\us into a tailspin globally, and currently, nobody is listening. And I mean *nobody*.

  6. Jonathan: As promised here are some more interesting stories in the news: Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. 4,600 US troops were killed–along with 45,000 Iraqi military and 200,00 Iraqi civilians. We now know George W. lied us into that war. There were no “weapons of mass destruction”. We did get rid of Saddam’s regime but at a staggering cost. It resulted in a civil war that is still going on. And the US still has 2,500 troops in Iraq providing training and logistics in the war against the Islamic State. So in a real sense the war never ended. That’s why Congress is finally “woke” and is working on legislation so we never go to war again without a declaration. Something long overdue.

    In other news, Fox is turning on its own. Abby Grossberg, a Tucker Carlson show producer, is a central figure in Dominion’s defamation suit against Fox. Grossberg is threatening a discrimination suit against Fox because she provided testimony about Fox “lies” about Dominion. On Monday, Fox counter-sued Grossberg to prevent her from revealing those “lies” when the case goes to trial. Grossberg’s attorney responded to the Fox lawsuit. He said Fox’s complaint was “another flagrant attempt to chill her from exercising her rights to free herself from the toxic environment at Fox News”. Internecine warfare at Fox is not something new. As a paid legal analyst for Fox you should be concerned because no one at Fox is safe from retribution for crossing Murdock. You probably have nothing to worry about since you have loyally provided an echo chamber for Murdock’s views. Nevertheless, a word to the wise.

    Finally, FL Gov. DeSantis is bragging about people moving to Florida from California’s to escape the “woke” agenda in the Golden State. But in letters to the LA Times it appears many are having second thoughts. In one letter a FL resident says he is moving back to California because of all the “Trump fans driving around with Confederate flags attached to their trucks along with ugly anti-semitic or anti-gay stickers plastered on the windows”. Another writer transplant back to California is leaving Florida to escape the governor’s “woke rhetoric has created a chilly climate for businesses”. Another complains her children can’t get the books they want from the school libraries in her FL school district. It appears “free speech” actually counts in California–and the state also has beautiful beaches.

    Well, that’s all the news that’s fit to print.

  7. With all the other very important issues I see those with TDS can’t move beyond their their Arrested Development Mental conditions of the daily/yearly low IQ news stories about either Black Teats or White Teats.

    I am thinking I’ll just stay on topic & help you better focus your energies with fresh young Teats that are still producing.


    Modern Dairy Farm | Holstein Friesian Farm
    Global Farming
    31.5K subscribers

    1. Understand I only wish to help those with TDS & I know many of you have trouble pleasuring yourselves like a groip of wild monkeys dealing with the same ole teats. With the video below & ones like it they may provide some you with pleasure & a new hobby.

      Now if your good young adults next week I may put up a video tutorial on how to can apricots.


      0:15 / 3:32
      How to milk a goat l Goat milking by Hand l km village tradition
      KM Village Tradition
      8.13K subscribers

  8. All the arguing is a little premature. Bragg has a bigger problem, and that is the Statute of Limitation under New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law – CPL § 30.10 which defines the time limits for filing a criminal action, to wit:

    “…1. A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation prescribed in the ensuing subdivisions of this section…

    2. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three:

    (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof;

    (c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years after the commission thereof;”

    In addition, the statute of limitations time period maybe tolled (extended for the non lawyers) under New York Criminal Procedure Section 30.10 subsection 4.

    Tolling of the statute of limitations New York Criminal Procedure is contained in Section 30.10 subsection 4, as set forth below:

    “… 4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

    (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.  However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.”

    The payment was made in 2016.

    In People v. Lennertz 156 Misc. 2d 88, the issue was the Statute of Limitations and its application was raised in a motion to dismiss the criminal case by the defendant on the grounds that the Statute of Limitations has run. The charge was a misdemeanor. This was a case in which the defendant had been absent from the State of New York for 28 months, but his whereabouts were known to the District Attorney of New York City.

    Under New York Law a motion to dismiss an information as untimely is an appropriate pretrial application under CPL 170.30 (1) (d).

    The Court in Lennertz stated:

    “The analysis here must begin with CPL 30.10 (4) (a) which defines the law governing this motion:

    In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

    (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which * * * (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

    Thus, in resolving this motion, two core questions must be answered regarding the 28-month interval from November 16, 1989 to March 25, 1992 when defendant was arrested: (1) were the whereabouts of defendant continuously unknown? and (2) were they continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence?”

    Trumps whereabouts were never unknown by Bragg and his office. In fact they were in contact with Trump’s lawyers throughout the entire process. Therefore, there is no tolling of the statute. Bragg, and/or the State of New York had 5 years to file the criminal charges, but did not.

    New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law – CPL § 30.10 2.(b) provides as follows:

    “2. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three:

    (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof;….”

    We are now 7 years since the payment and 2 years past the 5 year statute of limitations, supra, People v. Lennertz 156 Misc. 2d 88.

    Whatever Bragg files it will be subject to pretrial motions, a lot of pretrial motions.

    All the comments above, the snide remarks, the conclusions, speculations, the name calling, e.g., “Trump is a liar,”:or he “lies all the time,” without citing the actual “lies,” the virtue signaling “No one is above the Law”:by those who do not know the law or evening have rudimentary understanding of the law, is a waste of time and space.

    Professor Turley pointed this problem out in a prior post. And, huffing and puffing does not change that Bragg will the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Statute of Limitations has been tolled, People v. Kohut, 30 N.Y.2d 183.

    1. Maj:

      Your comment is a dramatic illustration of the divide in this country between those who believe in “a government of laws and not of men,” and those who believe “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”

      You cite the actual law and articulate a “statement of facts.” *That* is the essence of Western jurisprudence.

      Their only question is: Can we get away with it? And *that* is the end of Western jurisprudence.

  9. What defines a good leader, especially for the presidency? Regarding the presidency we could use Theodore Roosevelt’s speech at the Sorbonne, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better” and yet ever president in my lifetime has failed these very tenants, they have been critical bloviators and staged liars. We have chosen a demented stooge, a religious philander, a goober picker, failed actor, war hero, charlatan and a curt New YORKER and have lived another day beyond so many fools we’ve had as president until this most current aberration of a demented stooge. Every time I see or hear him, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry as the direction were heading is VERY FREIGHTFUL, and by all accounts similar to the lead up to the 1930’s depression. We have companies trading in astronomical P.E. ranges, mounting bank failures, the democrat Keynesian ideology of government to the rescue, authorities ignoring the law, pubescent ideas of Utopia and a continued assault on the Constitution. In addition, now it’s tyrannizing your opponent. I am Frightful indeed!

  10. Elmer Fude will be played by Alvin Bragg. And Donald Trump will play the waskally wabbit. That’s all folks.

  11. Why hasn’t Stormy been sent to jail. In New York State, prostitution is considered a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to three months in jail and/or up to a $500 fine. Patronizing a prostitute is a Class A misdemeanor that is punishable by up to one year in prison and/or up to a $1,000 fine. In New York they could even figure out a way to make it a federal crime. She has been doing just fine since the Democrats have been paying her to ply her trade for them against Trump. Once she sold it it’s just a matter of who the highest bidder will be. So far its A toss up between Chukie Shumer and MSNBC. Stormy will go down in history just like Mata Hari.

  12. During his first term in the White House, in the face of constant attacks from the left and his own party, Trump achieved gasoline under $2 a gallon, record low unemployment, inflation under 2%, rising real wages, a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration, new trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, higher tariffs on products from Communist China, lower American tax rates, reduced regulation of American manufacturing and energy production, withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, American energy independence, the rebuilding of the American military, increased military spending by NATO, creation of the United States Space Force, no new wars, reduced missile testing by North Korea, cancellation of the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the brokering of historic trade agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the restoration of quality medical care for veterans at the VA, elimination of the Obamacare mandate to buy health insurance, the right of terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs and treatment, the appointment of more than 230 federal judges who believe in following the Constitution, the appointment of three Supreme Court justices who believe in following the Constitution, and a welcoming environment in the Republican Party for good and decent Americans of all races and classes. Seventeen months after Trump left office, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade with a 6-3 vote. Go Trump.

    1. Nothing you say is either true or arributable to Trump. Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with the price of petrol. When America finally voted out the pig, demand for gas was artifically low because he so badly botched the pandemic–school buses weren’t running, people were working from home, it wasn’t safe to travel for pleasure and businesses were shut down. Some refineries went off line, and airline travel was cut back. When Biden brought back the economy, production lagged, and that’s why the price of fuel is higher–it is Trump’s fault. It is Joe Biden who set a record for unemployment. The pig didn’t “create” the “Space Force”, either. We were energy independent under Obama. There was no ‘historic trade agreement”, either–more lies. The “Abraham Accords” were only between Israel and UAE and Bahrain, who were already trading together. This was formalized and touted as some kind of “accomplishment”–a nothingburger. Trump put the US into a recession due to his cluelessness on handling the pandemic–he didn’t magically control inflation. “Real wages” are higher under Biden. The tariffs caused by Trump’s trade war with China resulted in shortages of computer chips and consumer goods, so when Biden turned around the economy and people had money to spend again, cars, appliances and other consumer goods were higher due to shortages of chips needed for production. High demand with low supply contributes to inflation. Biden’s Chips Act will addres this. Trump kidnapped migrant children, and fear of this happening depressed migration–not some talent on his part. And, Jeff Sessions admitted that children were kidnapped to serve as a deterrent. Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement was a BAD thing, as was cancelling the nuclear arms agreement with Iran–everyone with half a brain knows this. Now, we don’t have oversight and Iran is emboldened. The “federal judges” are not “following the Constitution”–they are right-wing radicals who were first vetted by the radical right-wing Federalist Society–shoved onto the bench specifically because they DON”T support the rule of of law. The Republican Party represents less than 40% of all of America and their outsized influence is due to gerrymandering and suppressing the vote of probable Democrat voters. The Republican party continues to lose support and keeps on losing election after election. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed overturning Roe v. Wade–more proof that the 3 losers appointed by Trump don’t belong on the bench. No prior SCOTUS took away a right found to exist under the Constitution.

  13. Democrats reserve the right to protest for themselves. They protest, riot, loot, commit arson, destroy police precincts, and seize entire city blocks at gunpoint. Prominent Democrat politicians openly egg on riots, over and above protests. (Nancy Pelosi: “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe there will be.” Maxine Waters: “Go out, make a crowd, and let them know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.”) Politicians as high as Biden bailed out rioters and looters so they could go back out and do it again. That’s laudable.

    But a Republican encouraging protests is anarchy and treason, we are to believe.

    One way for thee, another for me.

    1. How much longer can the country hold together? My guess is about a year, but in no case past November 6, 2024.

    2. Karen S please stop lying. It’s not “Democrats” who have protested, looted, etc–and that was after George Floyd’s arrest. The Democrat party did not tell anyone to riot. It is the MAGA losers who invaded and trashed our Capitol based on the Big Lie. Trump wasn’t “ecouraging protests”–he demanded that his fans “take back” America, which, somehow, would get “taken away” if he gets indicted for crimes he committed.

      1. “The Democrat party did not tell anyone to riot.”

        Right-o. Whose behind the riots, disinfo, chaos? Could it be the Intelligence Community? Chuck Schumer told us about the ‘six ways from Sunday’ methods they use to control politicians and media. We all know who is running Washington DC. It’s never been more obvious.

      2. I saw Kamala on TV telling them to keep on “protesting” until the election. Protesting to ANTIFA and BLM is rioting, looting and burning down the cities.

      3. Gigi – Actually it was the Democrats (in the form of the MSM) who “told people to riot”. The constant showing of the picture of Derek Chauvin with his knee on George Floyd’s neck, accompanied by the giving airtime to inflammatory commentators, plus the downplayiing of the resulting violence, plus the underplaying of the fatal amount of fentanyl in George Floyd’s system as shown by the autopsy report – all of these encouraged riots, as the MSM knew that it would. This served worthy goals for the Left: good ratings; money for left-wing groups, like BLM; and discouragement and anger in the national mood during an election season.

  14. While I do not agree with the concept of non disclosure agreements, outside of proprietary information, they are not illegal. Their purpose in such cases is to protect reputations.

    It is nonsensical to criminally prosecute anyone for employing a legal non disclosure agreement. Trump is married, with a history of affairs, which is why he used the NDA. Although a NY jury might not be at all concerned with the law over their political zeal to convict Trump of any crime, a conviction might not be the ultimate goal. As usual, Democrats seek to wound their opponents in a savage abuse of power.

    Stormy Daniels received significant money in exchange for not denigrating Trump’s reputation over their alleged consensual affair. She then turned around and made more money breaking it. If she hasn’t been already, she should be sued for breaking the agreement.

    It is unethical to commit adultery. It is unethical to make a living bashing an ex. Tiger Woods is going through the same thing, where an ex-girlfriend who was perfectly happy living off of Woods’ money now seeks to make more money dishing dirt on him after their breakup.

    Casual and superficial relationships lead to this. It’s really not worth it.

    Don’t sign an NDA for anything other than protecting intellectual property, and don’t put yourself in the position of requesting one.

  15. Turley says: “A fifth of Americans now view the government as the greatest threat facing the nation. What is truly shocking is that 53% in one poll agreed with the statement that the FBI acts like “Biden’s Gestapo”” Uh, Turley, why not disclose that the source for this “statistic” is Rasmussen, widely considered to be unreliable because it does not draw a representative sample of Americans and is very pro right wing? And also, Turley, why not admit that your employer is the one feeding the anti-FBI and DOJ Republican themes, all to pre-defend Trump, with the goal of helping him cheat his way back into power, including pretending that the fake Republican House “weaponization” committee is valid instead of just political BS that has come up with nothing but a waste of taxpayer money? Turley, do you really need money so badly that you use your talents to help undermine the confidence of Americans in their DOJ and FBI?

    1. Right, it is Rasmussen that is unreliable. Trust the media! Trust the science! Trust the government! Trust the FBI! Trust the ‘intelligence censorship apparatus’ imbedded all across the media landscape. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    2. “What is truly shocking is that 53% in one poll agreed with the statement that the FBI acts like “Biden’s Gestapo”

      No, what is truly shocking is that it isn’t closer to 100%.

  16. More of Turley’s BS: “The Justice Department itself declined this prosecution “. Here’s the REASON why, Turley, which you probably know all too well: your pal, Billy Barr, told the DOJ lawyers in NY to back off, not only of this investigation, but other investigations involving Trump and his crooked dealings. Instead of admitting that the DOJ’s reason for backing off was politically-motivated, Turley tries to flip the script and not only cite this as some sort of proof that such charges are improper, but that Bragg himself is politically-motivated. Turley actually has the gall to claim: “.If Trump were seeking a way to prove the political weaponization of the criminal justice system, Bragg just fulfilled that narrative.” “Political weaponization” is an alt-right theme, and is complete BS. Your pal Barr is the one who “weaponized” the DOJ to defend the orange hog by commanding the DOJ prosecutors to stand down. Turley has it exactly backwards.

    What did the Republicans do to Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinski matter, Turley? Remind us, please, of the rhetoric and feigned outrage over his conduct, for which he was impeached. And, this happened AFTER he was in office, not when he was merely a candidate trying to win over the gullible unborn-baby-saving Evangelicals. And, with Bill Clinton, falsification of federal election forms wasn’t involved.

    Turley also is paid to claim: “As a married man and television celebrity, Trump had other reasons to try to avoid a scandal.” This is just an argument because as Turley also knows quite well that the reason for avoiding this scandal was that Republicans were courting Evangelicals who take a dim view of consorting with porn actresses, married or not, but also Playboy bunnies like Karen McDougall with whom Trump has been linked. Trump’s “marriage” means way less to him than forcing his way into the presidency of the United States for the power, glory and adulation that his fragile ego requires.

    Turley also says: “Bragg shows little concern over what he has created in his Frankenstein indictment.” Uh, Turley, WHAT indictment? I haven’t seen one. Nothing Turley says in any manner proves that Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted, that his lying on federal election forms wasn’t illegal, or anything else proving that the as yet-unseen indictment is not legally sound. But, that’s not the point–it’s to stir up the disciples–criticizing an indictment that hasn’t even been filed yet, arguing that it’s not legally sound and can only be politically-motivated. According to his niece, Trump announced his “candidacy” as a hedge against criminal proscution–to create an argument that any prosecution must be ‘politically-motivated”.

    Trump is just using the same playbook he used in 2020, when he said, even before Election Day, that the election was “rigged”, and this is because all polls predicted he would lose, which he did. So he gets his lawyer and Fox gets Turley to pre-defend the charges even before they are filed, to attack Alvin Bragg, who has kept a very low profile, but, most disturbing of all, the veiled threat of violence, exhorting the deplorables to “take back” America because he’s at risk of getting indicted for his illegal and immoral conduct. Turley has nothing to say about the latter, of course, because that’s not on the assignment sheet. It was totally laughable yesterday when only about 24 “young Republicans” showed up to “protest” the as-yet-unfiled indictment. There were about 200 photojournalists, but only about 24 Trump fans.

    1. Billy Barr, told the DOJ lawyers in NY to back off,
      You are great mind reader. Since no evidence exists to support your claim

    2. Uh, Turley, WHAT indictment? I haven’t seen one.

      That’s what grand juries do. Deliver True Bills. If they don’t, its because the prosecutor does not want an indictment. Because you can literally “indict a ham sandwich”.

      If there is no indictment Bragg has been lying to you. But you must like being lied to. You’re a leftist.

    3. Gigi – Who told the DOJ to “back off” from prosecution of the Bill Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, and the Hillary Clinton campaign for election financing violations? Serious violations were simply handled as civil matters.

  17. VBL’s Ghost
    Imagine, @cftc
    , the biggest, most respected bank by the government gets fooled on a bag of rocks.
    Let’s assume that happens. Let’s assume that’s part of the risk in business. What percentage of the nickel was in rocks. 1%? 2%?

    The point is if they’re well run at 2% of their inventory as a bag of rocks. What about the lesser run banks? What percentage of their nickel, silver, gold is fake? We’re witnessing that right now in the financial side of the bank community.

    JPM was better run on the risk side than these regional banks. What makes anyone think these smaller entities are smarter in physical commodities inventory management, then they are in financial inventory management?
    Or should we just look at these contracts for as for Trading, not for eating like the old story goes?

    What price do commodities have to go for the comex to sever deliverability of its contracts? Has that been worked out yet. If it hasn’t been worked out for national security than it should be. And to do that you need to take inventory of your metal directly. .

    And you know what’s going to happen. The big banks will be long physical, they’ll be short futures, deliverability will be severed, and their contracts will be null and void.

    They will have successfully arbitrage government regulations, because custodial integrity was not checked upon.


  18. In a state criminal proceeding, does a state court even have jurisdiction to enforce a federal criminal statute?
    Under 28 USC 1455 a defendant can remove prosecution of a federal offense from state court to federal court. Could Trump invoke this procedure?

    1. I don’t think this involves the prosecution of a federal crime. Under state law it is a felony to produce false business records if the purpose is to conceal another crime. So the charge is that Trump committed a state law felony when he falsified business records to conceal a federal campaign violation.

      1. How far can one take this theory? Are we to believe that Bragg doesn’t have to prove the federal crime? Simply state it for the record and say the violation of the state law was to conceal the violation of the federal law? So, he only has to show evidence for the state law?

        Or does he indeed have to produce evidence to show that the federal law was violated? And say, look I’ve proven the federal law was violated but I’m not using that law nor is the jury considering it.

    2. It’s an interesting question.

      My understanding was that the federal and state law needed to cover what the defendant did. The conduct was illegal under both. For example, employment discrimination. A state can use both the federal and state law for employment discrimination and try it in state court. So, if you had a state and federal campaign violation (which I think is impossible) you could try Trump under both laws in state court.

      But you don’t have that here. You’ve got a state law and a federal law that are unrelated to each other.

  19. Mr. Turley: You seem to be saying that Alvin Bragg is acting unconstitutionally . . . . if that’s the case, then why is Trump duty-bound to accept this treatment? When do people have the right to resist these things? We’d all agree that a woman being sexually assaulted by a cop would have the right to resist. Would Rosa Parks have had the right (not the power) to resist the police officer who was arresting her? Why do people who deal with plain government thuggery have to just take it?

    When you decry the actions of a prosecutor as “politicized justice,” you ignore the implications of that conclusion.

    1. Because all of that has to be done in court. If Trump is indicted, then his attorneys will raise those issue with motions.

Leave a Reply