Manifest Destiny: Alvin Bragg Searches for His Criminal Kailasa

Below is my column in the New York Post on the continued drama in Manhattan over the possible Trump indictment. Alvin Bragg may still secure an indictment, but the reports of divisions on the grand jury have captivated the press. Donald Trump remains Bragg’s political manifest destiny even if there is no legal landfall in sight.

Here is the column:

It appears that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will go another week in the legal effort to locate the nation of Kailasa on a map.

Recently, Mayor Ras Baraka and the city of Newark held a formal ceremony signing a partnership with the nation of Kailasa that pledged mutual cultural, social and political development.

After all of the fanfare, pomp and circumstance subsided, a small problem emerged.

Kailasa does not exist.

One can certainly wonder why no one in Newark has access to Google or bothered to ask how a Hindu nation was founded by an accused con man formed on an island off the coast of Ecuador.

However, to their credit, they did not continue to try to prove that Kailasa actually did exist under some creative geographical and political interpretation.

Despite similar widespread doubts over the existence of a viable state crime, Alvin Bragg continues a quest for his legal Kailasa.

While an indictment was expected this week, the grand jury looking into former President Donald Trump will go another week amid reports of opposition in the grand jury over what is viewed as a “weak” case.

The problem is that Bragg has long been searching for a crime in the criminal code to fulfill his pitch during his campaign that he was the man for voters who wanted to bag Trump.

The falsification of business records in reference to the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels might have been a possibility, but it lacked two things.

First, it expired as a chargeable misdemeanor after two years — and that was roughly five years ago.

Second, it was a mere misdemeanor that could be brushed off by Trump even if they succeeded.

Prosecutors then created a Rube Goldberg approach and suggested that the misdemeanor was committed to conceal a federal election law violation — a crime that the Justice Department declined to charge.

That theory has been widely ridiculed, even by many on the left. The bootstrapping of a federal crime under this statute appears unprecedented and likely unsustainable.

The reason that the Justice Department likely declined the case was that it had previously tried to show that hush money paid to bury an affair was a federal campaign expense.

It failed in the case of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

There are a host of reasons why a married celebrity like Trump might pay hush money separate from a presidential run.

Bragg himself scoffed at the theory and stopped the investigation when he came into power.

Two prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, then resigned and Pomerantz took what some of us view as a highly unprofessional and improper act of publishing a book on the case against Trump — a person who was still under investigation and not charged, let alone convicted, of any crime.

The pressure campaign worked and Bragg pushed the dubious theory to a grand jury.

Like Kailasa, the Bragg indictment has an established con man who insisted it exists.

Bragg has Michael Cohen, the former lawyer to Trump. A disbarred lawyer, Cohen is a convicted felon and one of the most repellent figures with a long history of false statements.

Then things got even worse when the lawyer for his star witness came forward with more than 300 emails contradicting his testimony.

Another letter on behalf of Cohen to the Federal Election Commission also surfaced that expressly contradicted his claims.

Finally, and probably most significantly for Bragg, the politics may have turned.

Even Democrats are hard pressed to defend the reported basis for the indictment and Sen. Chuck Schumer declined to express his support for the effort.

The media and pundits have warned that Bragg could be undermining other efforts to indict Trump before the election with this weak case.

Trump has said for years that Democrats have weaponized the criminal justice system against him and Bragg just gave him proof positive to support that claim.

With this raw political prosecution, Bragg fulfilled the narrative of Trump, who is rising in the polls at the very time that Biden is plunging.

The expectation is still that Bragg can get an indictment even out of a skeptical grand jury. He could then bank on a favorable and motivated judge and jury.

Moreover, even if the case ultimately fails on appeal, many in New York will still praise Bragg.

This is a thrill kill case and the prospect for many Democrats of Trump in handcuffs is exhilarating to the point of being indecent.

For some voters, it may be commendable that Bragg would prosecute Trump on a trumped-up case. After all, any prosecutor can bring a real case. It takes a true believer to prosecute when there is no viable crime.

So Bragg continues to stare at the map to find his Kailasa. He just needs to convince a grand jury that they see it, too.

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

216 thoughts on “Manifest Destiny: Alvin Bragg Searches for His Criminal Kailasa”

  1. Bragg is a bush leaguer trying to play in the majors. He should try again in 5 or 10 years after he gets a couple more elections under his belt. Rookie!

  2. If the real reason for Bragg’s misguided prosecution is to eliminate Trump from the 2024 election, securing a conviction is really only background noise. To the Woke Left, “The end justifies the means” if it involves Donald Trump. Anything. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

  3. As I posted previously about that Dean at Stanford, Bragg has nowhere else to go with this. To admit he was wrong would be to undermine all the phoney baloney that the prog/left woke has been peddling since obama was a pup. Be prepared for the left to take to the trenches as they have nothing to gain at this point by admitting that their agenda-driven obsession with Trump, who exposed the idiocy of their ideology, is all that truly remains of their failed attempts to “fundamentally transform” America. America is now “on to them” and what ruin they have already achieved. They are no longer leading the charge but are regrouping and licking their wounds.

  4. “After all, any prosecutor can bring a real case. It takes a true believer to prosecute when there is no viable crime.”
    Well said professor, well said.

  5. Rules for thee, not for me.

    Republican Rep. asks ATF if lying on their federal Background check is illegal.

    ATF: “Yes. 15 years in jail if you do that.”

    Republican Rep. Tiffany: “So why is Hunter Biden not in Prison?”

    ***All Hell Breaks Loose***

  6. There’s so much other Trump legal news that JT is silent about.

    Trump’s lawyer, Evan Corcoran, is testifying to the Special Counsel’s grand jury today in the classified documents investigation under a crime-fraud exception. Another Trump attorney, Jennifer Little, will also be testifying under a crime-fraud exception, though I don’t know when.

    According to ABC News (abcnews.go.com/US/sources-special-counsel-claims-trump-deliberately-misled-attorneys/story?id=98024191), there are six things Corcoran has been ordered to testify about:
    1. “[T]he steps [Corcoran] took to determine where documents responsive to DOJ’s May subpoena may have been located”
    2. Why Corcoran “believed all documents with classification markings were held in Mar-a-Lago’s storage room.”
    3. “[T]he people involved in choosing Bobb as the designated custodian of records for documents that Trump took with him after leaving the White House, and any communications he exchanged with Bobb in connection with her selection.”
    4. “[W]hether Trump or anyone else in his employ was aware of the signed certification that was drafted by Corcoran and signed by Trump attorney Christina Bobb then submitted in response to the May 11 subpoena from the DOJ seeking all remaining documents with classified markings in Trump’s possession.”
    5. “[W]hether Trump was aware of the statements in the certification, which claimed a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago had been conducted, and if Trump approved of it being provided to the government.”
    6. What Corcoran “discussed with Trump in a June 24 phone call on the same day that the Trump Organization received a second grand jury subpoena demanding surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago that would show whether anyone moved boxes in and out of the storage room.”

    Yesterday, Trump called for the outright removal of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Fulton County DA Fani Willis and NY AG Letitia James. He should not be above the law. The 3 who are considering criminal charges should be allowed to continue presenting evidence to their grand juries, and James’s civil trial against Trump will start in the fall. He’s also facing the start of a civil rape and defamation trial in April, and there are other civil suits progressing.

    Yesterday, Trump referred to Bragg as a “Soros backed animal,” a nice racist two-fer. Then he posted two photos, one of Bragg and one of himself with a baseball bat held up as if to hit someone. Today, Trump said that if Bragg charged him, there would be “potential death & destruction.” These are “nice DA you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to him” calls to violence.

    The judge in E. Jean Carroll’s civil rape case and defamation case against Trump ruled yesterday that the jury would remain anonymous, noting in part that “it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.” (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/94/carroll-v-trump/)

    Yesterday, Pence’s and Trump’s lawyers were at court arguing against having Pence testify before the grand jury in the January 6 case.

    And this is only a partial list.

    1. But at least we could afford to live under the bad orange man who sent mean tweets. You can indict anyone and you can use the corrupt media to paint any picture you want but I can say that I would rather have a slightly tainted but effective president than a grifting old man who is being led around by unwholesome agenda-pushers who have virtually destroyed our economy and our way of life. Argue techinal points all you want – NO president was ever perfect, but at least we could feed our families and keep our children safe from groomers and illegals pushing fentanyl under Trump.

      1. whimsicalmama,
        Thing about the “mean” tweets, sometimes Trump tweeted what the rest of us were thinking.
        Of course leftists would rather have high inflation, an un-secure Southern border, bailouts for ESG banks, and playing WWIII/nuclear Armageddon, biological men dominating women sports, censorship, etc. than . . . “mean” tweets.

        1. I said almost the same thing earlier today, that Trump had the platform and cajones to say what millions were and ARE thinking.We outnumber the progs at this point (but not for much longer) and we could use this strength in numbers to: first remove the rinos where ever they are, and show up at town halls, school boards, any platforms where we can assert our voices loud enough to show the progs that they DO NOT represent America and we are on to them.

      2. whimsicalmama: haven’t you figured out that it’s the failures of the pig that put us into recession–starting with the massive tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and continuing with the trade war he started with China, and his utter incompetency in handling COVID, causing the US to fare much worse than other countries because the hog couldn’t defer to scientists and kept lying about the seriousness of the pandemic and pushing fake cures? The pig was never an “effective president”–he never even got a 50% approval rating here in the US, and the rest of the world saw how ignorant, egotistical and incompetent he really is. Most Americans never voted for him–in 2016 or in 2020.

        It’s hilarious to see how the alt-right tries to spin away Trump’s narcissistic inability to keep his mouth shut, his childish and petty insults and his incompetence and to deflect blame for the economy to Biden. Compare the starting points: Trump inherited a booming economy that started going downhill almost immediately. The tax breaks to the ultra wealthy drove our national debt to record levels, and interest on this debt helps drive inflation. The trade war with China resulted in shortages of computer chips and consumer goods, so when Biden got us back up and running again and schools and businesses started reopening, the shortages drove up the cost of things–this is Trump’s fault, not Biden’s. Biden inherited a country in recession, with schools and businesses closed, people couldn’t travel for leisure because it wasn’t safe, and turned all of this around. The only legislation Trump got passed was the tax breaks. Biden got more bills passed in 2 years than Trump did in 4 years. Biden mended the rifts with our EU and NATO allies that Trump insulted. Biden got passed the CHIPS Act, the COVID Relief Act, an historic infrastructure act that will create thousands of good-paying jobs, and relief for veterans. Trump didn’t and couldn’t do any of this. Where are all of the “groomers”? This isn’t “technical points”–it’s factual. The latest is that the pig is threatening “death and destruction” to a lawfully-elected (something Trump can’t claim) District Attorney if he gets indicted. He called this man, who is black, an “animal” and, just this morning, posted a split-screen threat in which your fat hero is weilding a baseball bat at the DA. This is not “mean tweets”–it’s mental illness, and desperation, and you are blind if you aren’t alarmed by this conduct or would even consider voting for someone as the leader of this country with his track record and demonstrable emotional problems.

        1. “causing the US to fare much worse than other countries because the hog couldn’t defer to scientists”
          ———————–
          The US fared much worse than other countries precisely BECAUSE Trump defered to “scientists” named Fauci and Birx.

    2. If only you worked the boards more aggressively and kept us informed. If only!

      / sarc

      Meanwhile, a FL NAACP dude who speaks unintelligibly calls for all blacks to avoid visiting Florida because… you know the drill

      1. The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.

        Compassionate repatriation was required by law.

        Immigration was limited and restricted by specific criteria.

        Immigration law must be strictly enforced retroactively by 150 years.

        Roe v. Wade was recently struck down and corrected retroactively by 50 years.
        ______________________________________________________________

        Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four confirming iterations)

        United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

    3. Anonymous: Why not write your own column — because most people on this blog can smell a cheap deflection a mile away.

    4. “There’s so much other Trump legal news . . .”

      Aggressively changing the topic, SOP for the Left, is a symptom of dishonesty and deception.

      If you want a textbook case, watch a few minutes of TikTok CEO, Shou Zi Chew, testifying to Congress.

      1. I said a civil rape case, not a civil rape. Rape is always uncivil, wouldn’t you agree? E. Jean Carroll’s rape and defamation suit against Trump is a civil suit. I’m simply trying to make it clear that it’s not a criminal case, even though many rape cases are criminal cases. The rape portion of the suit was filed using NY’s Adult Survivors Act (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-york-adult-survivors-act).

        1. Anonymous – you are rather loosely using the term “rape”.
          New York state lists three types of rape: first, second, and third. All of them require sexual intercourse, 130.25 – Rape in the third degree. 2016 New York Laws PEN Article 130 – (130.00 – 130.96) SEX OFFENSES, https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2016/pen/part-3/title-h/article-130/130.35/
          According to Jean Carrol herself, there was no sexual intercourse:
          “Ms Carroll, the Elle columnist, said in the same podcast she had called Ms Birnbach straight after the alleged assault, telling her that Mr Trump had forced had forced himself on her.
          Ms Birnbach responded by saying she thought it was rape, urging Ms Carroll to call the police.
          “Let’s go to the police. I’ll take you to the police” Ms Birnbach said, but added that her friend refused.
          Ms Carroll described what had happened between her and Mr Trump as a “fight”, not “a crime”.
          She also told the podcast she felt that she had encouraged Mr Trump’s behaviour. Asked whether she felt responsibility for what happened, she said: “One hundred percent.”
          . . .
          E. Jean Carroll said it happened at a Bergdorf Goodman store in New York’s Manhattan in late 1995 or early 1996, when the pair bumped into each other while shopping.
          The former Apprentice star and real estate magnate allegedly asked her for advice when buying lingerie for another woman and jokingly asked her to model it for him.
          In the changing rooms, she said Mr Trump lunged at her, pinned her against a wall and forced himself on her.
          Ms Carroll, whose “Ask E. Jean” advice column has appeared in Elle magazine since 1993, claims she managed to push him off after a “colossal struggle”.
          https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48790071
          So, it was a “fight” which she won by pushing him off after a “collossal struggle” (lasting 3 minutes, according to another recorded remark by her).
          This is not “rape” under New York law.
          New York does have other sexual misconduct offenses:
          Criminal sexual act in the third degree. 130.45 – Criminal sexual act in the second degree. 130.50 – Criminal sexual act in the first degree. 130.52 – Forcible touching. 130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse. 130.55 – Sexual abuse in the third degree. 130.60 – Sexual abuse in the second degree. 130.65 – Sexual abuse in the first degree. 130.65-A – Aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth degree. 130.66 – Aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree. 130.67 – Aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree. 130.70 – Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree. some kind of sexual contact.
          All of these require sexual contact of some kind.
          What Carrol described in 2019 as happening 24 years earlier does not qualify as a sexual crime of any kind in New York State.
          In case you’re interested, Joe Biden’s assault on Tara Reade would qualify under New York law as Aggravated Sexual Abuse in the third degree.

          1. “What Carrol described in 2019 as happening 24 years earlier does not qualify as a sexual crime of any kind in New York State.”

            BS. Nowhere in what you quoted does it say that there was no penetration. Moreover, it’s strange that you rely solely on media reports instead of going directly to the statements in the suit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/1/carroll-v-trump/ See paragraph 36, for example.

            1. The BBC quotes what she said in 2019 before she met a lawyer. Therefore it is much likelier to be true. If there had been penetration, she would not have said “I fought him off.”

              1. It’s your opinion that that’s likelier, and it’s my opinion that you haven’t spoken to enough women who’ve been raped to judge that accurately. The case hinges on whether she can convince a jury about what she alleges in the suit when testifying under oath, not on some random media interview. Trump’s lawyers can explicitly ask her about it under oath. We’ll see whether Trump takes the stand. If not, since it’s a civil case, the jury can consider his refusal.

            2. I read the complaint and it does allege a penetration. You’re both a little off base. It’s not a criminal complaint, but a civil complaint that alleges two counts: Count 1 Battery; Count 2 Defamation.

              Even though the underlying act for the battery, if proved in a criminal case, would be “rape,” the criminal statute of limitation is long gone.

              A battery is any unconsented to touching, from a kiss to actual physical beating. If a person dies because of the beating, the battery merges into murder or manslaughter. Defamation is either slander (the spoken word) or libel (the printed word, which today covers any media).

              The Complaint is unverified. Attorneys may file a verified or unverified complaint. The difference being that a verified complaint is signed by the client under penalty of perjury stating that all the allegations are true and correct.

              It is rare to see an attorney file a verified complaint because at trial the defense may cross-exam the plaintiff on the allegations, and may be able to impeach the plaintiff with prior inconsistent statements.

              At the beginning of any case no attorney can be 100% positive their client is 100% percent correct with their memory. Thus, unverified complaints.

              The point I’m making is the complaint states the plaintiff “Alleges.” Which means the complaint doesn’t prove anything. It simply initiates the civil lawsuit. The complaint is not proof of anything, nor can it be argued that it is.

              That’s why we have trials.

              1. Yes, as I said, he’s facing the start of a trial in April in a civil suit for rape and defamation (the rape portion of the suit deriving from NY’s Adult Survivors Act, which is specific to sexual assaults, not battery in general), and there are several other civil suits progressing against him. Hopefully they, too, will lead to trials.

    5. Your entire post concerning the special counsel is to be sealed information…
      Why isn’t the person that leaked this being arrested. The Specail Counsels legal footing is so bad, he is forced to try this in the court of public opinion, because he knows he will loss in front of a judge.

      1. Who “leaked” it?

        Corcoran is testifying today because Smith won in front of a judge, and also in front of a DCCA panel.

  7. I’m starting to think the Four prosecutors are working together to overload the media with 4 non cases. Brag, a case we here have proven is a lie. Georgia, where Trump ,if the Georgia officials would look, surely they would find more that enough mail in ballots that failed to meet the required statutory, standard to be eligible to count. Not a crime to ask. The MAL PRA civil disagreement, that no judge was ever asked to adjudicate., and finally the fever dream of convicting a President for his speech. Encourage protestors to peacefully seek redress from their Government.

    Democrat Judges and Prosecutors are sure the sheer volume, will distract the people from realizing, NOTHING being investigated is a real crime.

    1. We don’t know whether he’ll be indicted, and if so, for what crimes and what evidence will be presented for them. Don’t pretend to know things you don’t know. Learn some patience.

      Only in banana republics are the rich and powerful immune from prosecution. No one should be above the law.

        1. I didn’t object to her being investigated. I have no way of determining whether they came to the right decision, as I didn’t see all of the evidence. If all of the Trump investigations result in no indictment, I’ll accept that too.

          1. I think we have seen enough of the evidence in both cases to determine whether a charge should be brought. Convictions or acquittals are another thing.

            1. I’m not sure what you mean by “both” cases, which suggests only 2 cases. Trump is being investigated in connection with at least 4 criminal issues (Bragg, Willis, 2 Smith investigations) and is facing multiple civil cases (rape, more than 1 defamation case, more than 1 fraud case, more than 1 incitement case, perhaps there are others that I’m unaware of). For the criminal cases, I don’t see how we’d know whether or not we’re aware of most of the evidence presented to the grand juries.

              Did you mean both people (Clinton and Trump) rather than both cases?

              Either way, I don’t share your opinion, and our opinions don’t determine charges. We have a legal system for that.

              1. Yet another civil suit to add: the wrongful termination suits brought by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In news tonight, President Biden released a statement that he will NOT assert privilege to stop the depositions of Trump and Wray in those suits.

          2. Anonymous @10:19 am “I have no way of determining whether they came to the right decision . . .. ”
            It’s quite clear they did not come to the right decision, unless you believe that Democrats really are “above the law.” Although we all remember some of the facts about Hillary’s behavior, let’s refresh our memories:
            “On September 20, 2012, just nine days after the deadly Islamic-terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security sent then–secretary of state Clinton a request for any records relevant to the assault, its precursors, and its aftermath.
            Clinton received additional document requests in August 2013 and May 2014.
            On March 2, 2015, news erupted about the existence of Clinton’s secret, unsecured, do-it-yourself private server. The next day, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent now–former secretary Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, a letter requesting that he and Clinton “Preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009” and in Clinton’s control.
            As if foreshadowing Team Clinton’s actions, the letter asked Kendall to “prevent the partial or full destruction, alteration, testing, deletion, shredding, incineration, wiping, relocation, migration, theft, or mutation of electronic records.”
            On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee sent Clinton a subpoena for “all records in unredacted form” related to Benghazi for all of 2011 and 2012.
            Then, on March 25, 2015, according to the FBI, employees at Colorado-based Platte River Networks, which managed Clinton’s server after it was removed from her basement, “held a conference call with President Clinton’s staff.” The FBI reports that a PRN staffer “sometime between March 25–31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server” with BleachBit, the digital equivalent of Ajax and Brillo pads.
            The FBI further explained that “at the time [the PNR staffer] made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s e-mail data on the [PRN] server.” PRN staffers held a March 31, 2015, conference call with David Kendall and Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s State Department chief of staff. PRN’s attorney instructed its employee “not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege.”
            Atop this corruption, Clinton and her top aides prove that amnesia is contagious.
            Republican National Committee researchers analyzed the E-mailgate-related FBI statements, depositions, and other testimony by Clinton, Mills, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and State Department official Patrick Kennedy.
            Among them, they said things such as “I don’t recall” or “I don’t know” 327 times.
            Is this a crime?
            ‘Even a single instance of claiming lack of memory when it’s clear that the person has distinct memory would be culpable,” former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy tells me. He adds, “327 times would be overwhelming.’
            https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/hillary-clinton-obstruction-of-justice-email-server-deletion-was-crime/
            Do you see anything wrong in the destruction of evidence subject to a Congressional subpoena? What evidence has Trump destroyed?

            1. Yes, I think it’s wrong to destroy evidence. Whether it’s criminal is a separate matter. I don’t know what evidence, if any, Trump has destroyed. Certainly there are reports of him ripping up and flushing or burning evidence. Did he actually do it? Hard to know without access to testimony under oath.

              As for your opinion that “It’s quite clear they did not come to the right decision,” again, this is opinion, not fact, and our opinions don’t determine charges. We have a legal system for that.

              1. Anonymous – How can the destruction of evidence under subpoena not qualify as “obstruction of justice”? You constantly insist Trump committed a crime by merely contesting a subpeona, while protecting the documents, Clinton DESTROYED the documents and the system that held them. As for your paean to our legal system, I can only say you must be blind not to see the favorable treatment to Democrats and allied groups: e.g., Lyndon Johnson (gross corruption); Ted Kennedy (homicide by automobile); Hillary Clinton; Jeffry Epstein and his powerful clients (human traffiking) ; Antifi rioters; BLM rioters; Eric Holder (contempt of Congress); Barack Obama (illegal campaign contributions); Hunter Biden (cocaine use and false gun application, et al.); and Joe Biden.

                1. “You constantly insist Trump committed a crime by merely contesting a subpeona”

                  BS. I’ve never said that and don’t believe that.

                  “How can the destruction of evidence under subpoena not qualify as “obstruction of justice”?”

                  Link to the statute you have in mind. For example, if you’re referring to this one — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 — then you have to show that it was done “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication.” Destruction alone is insufficient to prove obstruction.

                2. In a recent federal case in TX, a defendant who failed to comply with a Subpeona was ordered by the court to comply or risk asset forfeiture (it was a bankruptcy court).

                  This is how Subpeona’s are supposed to work.

                  Subpeona’s are issued by LAWYERS – not the Court. They are NOT directly enforceable. While they are not something that one should just ignore.
                  There is no enforceable legal requirement to comply with a subpeona.

                  When one party fails to comply with a subpeona – the other does not call the marshalls and have them arrested.
                  They go to COURT, where both sides have the oportunity to present their arguments.
                  The court then issues an order – which can quash the subpeona, narrow it or rarely even broaden it.
                  That Court Order is actually enforceable. Failure to comply with that can result in sanctions, and in very rare cases criminal contempt.

                  Or atleast that WAS the case until Judge Carter decided that failing to comply with a J6 committee was on its face a crime – something that Had never occured before.

                  Throughout my lifetime Congress has subpeona’d people and reocrds, those subpoenas have been ignored and congress has had to decide whether to go to court to get an order.

                  During Trump’s presidency Rosenstein ignored Congressional subpeona’s Ignored Trump orders to declassify and release Collusion Delusion material to congress, and pushed congress toward finding him in contempt of congress – which never would have been prosecuted either.

                  My point is that subpoenas are fundamentally a demand, that is NOT enforceable, until a Court – with both sides having the opportunity to make their case, makes a determination.

              2. It’s criminal. Here’s three statutes that make it so. Under “U.S. Code § 793(f)(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

                This section has been used before to obtain conviction of a sailor for taking a selfie aboard a nuclear submarine to send to his girlfriend with a classified sonar screen in the background. The sailors actions were considered gross negligence because he held a security clearance and had been briefed on security of classified documents.

                Clinton also received a brief in the handling of classified documents, just like the sailor.

                Comedy found classified documents on her home brewed server, that was probably breached by foreign actors according to the FBI. His stated that no prosecution under Section 793(f)(1) had ever been taken was false. You can ask the sailor about that.

                “18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

                (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

                (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
                Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

                “18 U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

                (a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

                “U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

                (f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

                (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

                (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
                Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

          3. ” If all of the Trump investigations result in no indictment, I’ll accept that too.”

            Just like ATS accepted the tow impeachments where Trump was found innocent and the multiple phony charges.

            ATS is a phony. He will accept the decision and then seek to charge Trump again. What a liar.

      1. “No one should be above the law.”

        I don’t think it counts as a principle, when it’s invoked for the nonce.

      2. “No one should be above the law.”

        ATS has changed his tune. The House is in Republican Control. Suddenly he wants to change his tune and make everyone believe he is in favor of the law.

        He isn’t. He is a Stalinist type where the law is a tool used against one’s enemies.

  8. What I hope to see, is the leakers to the press, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. But alas, this movie cast are all kangaroos, just like the J6 show, starring schifty and cheney. Then perhaps a few in the FBI/FIB get prosecuted for manipulating the twitterverse, to cover for the biden crime family. :End rant.

  9. Naw. Bragg is looking for El Dorado and the gold mine of a conviction that will bring him in as blessed in the eyes of the left. The only thing that will truly calm the left is the orange head on a wall. I suspect that if this all fails then this will send a cautionary flag down to the grand jury in Fulton County, Ga, which has its own problems dealing with real criminals. Lastly this might even dissuade the DOJ so they can go back to the real threats to American Society like school board protesters, and parents who don’t like seeing their daughters mugged on basketball courts and accosted in bathrooms by strange looking “women”.
    When you go by the “take no prisoners’ approach then the other side, should they win, might respond in kind or worse.

  10. Bragg should resign or be FIRED, he is a radical Soros funded DA who is ruining New York. NY is not SAFE due to Bragg policies and RISING RISING CRIME. His agenda is only to get TRUMP makes no difference what the laws are, he will make them up. Bragg please GO AWAY – to be replaced by a Real DA who will in force the laws, LAW and ORDER

  11. The Left keeps wailing: The rules apply to Trump. While leaving out their notion of the “rules:”

    `I’m not a mile high,’ said Alice.

    `You are,’ said the King.

    `Nearly two miles high,’ added the Queen.

    `Well, I shan’t go, at any rate,’ said Alice: `besides, that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now.’ (_Alice In Wonderland_)

  12. As much as democrats and never-Trumpers would love to convict Trump of a crime, the pragmatic purpose of this scurrilous exercise is to damage Trump’s chances at 2024 reelection. Democrats would love injuring Trump’s reelection chances almost as much as Murdoch puppet / globalist fraud Jeb DeSantis would love it.

    That’s why comment sections at the Fox and NY Post websites related to a potential indictment of Trump are overloaded with Anti-Trump trolls cheerleading for Murdoch fraud Jeb DeSantis.

    That’s the real goal — to illegitimately influence the 2024 election. This has ZERO to do with reporting legitimate news, and you can bet that there’s a ton of behind-the-scenes polling going on daily — perhaps hourly — to see whether proceeding with the planned baseless indictment will succeed with respect to the ulitmate goal of injuring Trump’s reelection plans, regardless of the negligible chances related to criminal conviction, since the case would almost certainly be thrown out — even by a crooked NY judge — before it ever gets to a crooked NY jury.

    Democrats and Never-Trumpers aren’t worried about losing the bogus criminal case against Trump — they’re just worried about indirectly making Trump even stronger.

      1. Turley’s perpetually-defective website won’t recognize me in order to allow me to upvote your comment. That’s been a problem for YEARS at this website. Sorry. There’s no reasonable explanation I can think of for this defectifve website to allow me to post comments and then not recognize me to let me upvote someone else.
        If it will allow me to upvote later, I will.

          1. Yes, but this site HAS allowed me to upvote comments in the past. This is an on-again-off-again problem, and to the best of my knowledge, I’m the ONLY one that suffers from it.

        1. It won’t let me ‘like’ comments either, but I don’t have a WordPress account. Instead, I’ll reply with ‘like’ or 👍 since there’s no desire to ‘sign-up’ for another online account on my part.

      1. Like. (as explained to others here, for some reason the site won’t recognize me to register a simple Like in the normal fashion).

    1. The Democrat-Never Trumpers will never get their great white whale. ,, if the election were held today, Moby Dick would win in a landslide.

      – Ishmael, Chapter 68, DNC headquarters:

      “Let faith oust fact; let fancy oust memory; I look deep down and do believe.”

  13. RE:”So Bragg continues to stare at the map to find his Kailasa..” Bragg, Ahab, and Khan Noonien Singh. Melville’s novel must be sitting prominently on his desk.

Leave a Reply