Below is my column in Fox.com on the indictment of former President Donald Trump and how this case is a test not just for Trump but the New York legal system.
Here is the column:
Oscar Wilde once said “The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.”
With the release of the indictment of former President Donald Trump, Manhattan District Alvin Bragg has revealed himself as a follower of the Wilde school of legal thought. Bragg knew that he had no criminal case against Trump. However, after running on bagging Trump for some crime (any crime), Bragg knew that many would not care if he had a basis for a criminal charge. He would be lionized to be the first person to ever indict a former president in the blind rage against Trump.
After charging Trump with 34 counts, Bragg insisted that he will convict Trump of the “crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.” He insists that he will prove “attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”
For months, many have raised objections to the effort of the Manhattan District Attorney to use a flawed legal theory to essentially litigate a federal election violation that the Justice Department opted not to charge. This bootstrap theory has been widely criticized, but many in the media sought to cut off that debate by suggesting that Bragg might be basing his prosecution on some unknown crime. Last week, Michael Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis went as far to “warn all the pundits and everyone speculating…that there are lots of facts, lots of documents, lots of evidence of multiple crimes.”
We now have the indictment, and it is basically what many of us anticipated. It is a series of stacked counts of falsifying business records for the purpose of influencing the election. The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying “secondary” felony. Bragg has done nothing more than replicate the same flawed theory dozens of times. This is where math and the law meet. If you multiply any number by zero, it is still zero.
If the New York bench retains any integrity, this case will be thrown out as legally improper with an admonition to Bragg and his office for politicizing the criminal justice process. That, however, may be asking a lot of state judges who are elected on both the trial and appellate levels. They also may prove to be lawyers on the Wilde side.
The cost, however, to the legal system will be immense. In a single indictment, Alvin Bragg bulldozed any high ground that the Democrats had after January 6th. He has fulfilled the narrative of the Trump campaign by supplying a raw and undeniable example of the politicization of the legal system. What is most shocking is that this attack on the rule of law was met with the rapturous applause of many, including lawyers and legal pundits. They not only will ignore the affront to the integrity of our legal system, but celebrate its demise.
Bragg himself threw a flag on the effort to indict Trump being pushed by a lawyer brought in as a special assistant district attorney for that purpose. Mark F. Pomerantz and his colleague Carey R. Dunne resigned — and their resignation letter was then leaked to an eager media. Pomerantz then took a step that floored many of us: he wrote a tell-all book based on the still ongoing investigation. However, Pomerantz admits that career prosecutors balked at his radical proposals to find a crime — any crime — to nail Trump. That included an entirely bonkers money laundering charge against Trump where he would be the victim of an extortion effort. In his book, Pomerantz admits that “many of the lawyers were relentlessly negative.” Some prosecutors were clearly so upset by his efforts that they “defected” from the team. He also admitted that Bragg told him “that the consensus among the group of prosecutors with whom he had been speaking was not to go forward.”
Despite objections from his colleagues who said he was undermining their efforts, Pomerantz published a book making the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted. It was a grossly unprofessional and improper act. It also worked. Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed. If figures like Pomerantz was going to yield to temptation, why shouldn’t he? After all, no one wants to be the last ethical lawyer when everyone else is cashing in.
I remain hopeful that there is still a modicum of judicial integrity in New York to stand against this effort. However, this is a defining moment for many who have rationalized this abuse of the criminal justice system. For those attorneys, they have reached the point described by Robert Oppenheimer after the development of the atomic bomb. He stated “In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humour, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”
The same is true for many in our profession. While some of us have warned that Mar-a-Lago could present a serious threat to Trump, we have warned that the Bragg prosecution is the denial of the core legal principle of blind justice. This expensive, drawn out effort would not have occurred for anyone other than Donald Trump. It is not just selective prosecution, it is exclusive prosecution for Trump and Trump alone.
There is a good-faith debate over whether the President should be charged over conduct related to Mar-a-Lago and possible obstruction of justice. This is not that case. For those lawyers applauding this ignoble moment, this is our sin as a profession, and it is “knowledge which they cannot lose” in the years to come.
After Trump arraignment and speech, campaign to legally undermine charges begins in earnest
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/trump-says-case-against-him-should-be-dropped-immediately
Washington Post columnist calls Bragg’s Trump case as ‘dangerous leap on the highest of wires’
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/washington-post-columnist-derides-braggs-trump-case-dangerous-leap
From the statement of “facts:”
“The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct.”
So in Bragg’s world, what would have made those records *not* “falsified?”
That Trump report the payments as a campaign expense, and pay out of campaign funds? That surely would have triggered a FEC prosecution.
Or is his theory that Daniels should not have received the money, and that Trump in exchange should not have received a NDA? If so, then bye bye NDA’s.
Always ask what a folly is meant to accomplish. This one’s obvious: Drain Trump financially and spiritually. Make him toxic with swing voters. Encourage Leftist tyrants to smile at Bragg during cocktail parties.
“That Trump report the payments as a campaign expense, and pay out of campaign funds? That surely would have triggered a FEC prosecution.”
Nope. That would have been legal, no FEC prosecution.
“Or is his theory that Daniels should not have received the money…?”
Nope. Again, Trump could have paid the hush money legally, using campaign funds. But he didn’t.
What this “is meant to accomplish” is holding someone accountable for the crimes he committed.
The man had a wife at home. Do you think Melania would appreciate it if she found out that while she was defiling her supermodel figure by being pregnant with that giant baby Baron, that he was out and about cavorting with porn stars with inflated bosoms? He could have paid Stormy at least partially to keep Melania from attacking him with a rolling pin. BOOM you lose. It was a personal expense, not a campaign expense.
He was a celebrity business man with contracts that contained morality clauses. The story of the affair could have been seen as a breach of contract and lost him money. BOOM you lose. It was a business expense, not a campaign expense.
The Edwards case taught us that you cannot get a conviction when the purpose of the expenditure is mixed like this. Ah, but Bragg has a NYC jury and as you know, Orange Man Bad. So, anything is possible.
The cheated on his first wife with his second wife, cheated on his second wife, and bragged about all the other women whose ******* he’d grabbed. If Melania expected him to be faithful, she’s stupider than I assume. The SoF also says “The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible.”
” defiling her supermodel figure”
THAT is what you call “defiling.” Trump defiled their marriage.
Trump can make your argument in court, and we’ll see what witnesses say about it.
From JTN
—
If you want to talk about hush money for sexual indiscretions by politicians,” he tweeted Friday, “consider this: in the past 25 years, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights has paid a staggering $18.2 million of *taxpayer dollars* to settle 291 cases of sexual harassment & other misconduct committed by members of Congress.
“The public shouldn’t be paying for this nonsense. We’re fixing corruption. No one will be spared.”
—
Trump paid for his own indiscretion out of his own money. Stormy with the aid of a lawyer who was a talked about potential Democrat nominee, tried to scam Trump. Avenatti is now in jail for real crimes, but I bet the Dems would be happy with him as President. He is as corrupt as the Democrats.
Let me guess… Lawyer A, the witness with the oh too convenient testimony about the instruction from Trump about the intent of the delay, is who exactly? Disgraced perjurer Michael Cohen, right? Note: the “emails and text messages” only evidence the delay, not the intent for the delay. No, the only evidence of that intent is going to be Cohen’s unsupported testimony, which I bet you dollars to doughnuts flip flopped all over the place before he settled on the current “story.”
But, I understand, Orange Man Bad. A NYC jury has a non-trivial chance of buying this BS.
That’s how it works: the prosecution presents its witnesses / evidence / questions / arguments, and so does the defense, and the jury gets to decide which witnesses they trust more and what evidence / whose arguments are more compelling. And neither one of us knows the contents of the emails and texts.
Tommy, ATS plays the same game. You never have enough information, so you can never make a decision contrary to what he wishes you to believe.
Anonymous the Stupid is a deceiver and a liar. It is up to the prosecutor to provide his evidence. In this case, the evidence is abysmal, and Bragg should be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct.
—
No One But Donald Trump Would Be Charged With These Fake ‘Crimes’ | Opinion
Bragg’s indictment and accompanying statement of facts produced 34 absolutely ridiculous charges based on bookkeeping and record entries that don’t even amount to a prosecutable misdemeanor—certainly not the felony with which former President Trump was charged.
Alan Dershowitz
https://dersh.substack.com/p/no-one-but-donald-trump-would-be?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=373575&post_id=112857262&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
—
Everyone should stop dealing with ATS as if he has something significant to say. It is almost always cr-p, almost always wrong, and almost always contrived.
No, it is you, holding your leg up and doing what dogs do without concern for the destruction they might create.
Someone needs to put a leash on you.
Nope. Again, Trump could have paid the hush money legally, using campaign funds
I have signed NDA’s and private funds were used. Why can’t Trump use his own money? AND if you can use campaign funds, why did Edwards get dragged into court?
He could have used his own money donated to his campaign. What he cannot do is falsify business records.
What he cannot do is falsify business records.
Interesting fun fact. falsifying business records is a Class E Misdemeanor. (not a felony)
No, 175.10 — what Trump was charged with violating — is a felony, not a misdemeanor.
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
There is nothing more than a misdemeanor. You have been proven wrong by almost everyone.
Andrew McCarthy reacted to the official indictment by saying,
“I think this is important. I don’t think it’s getting enough attention, but it’s a tactic by abuse of prosecutors who have weak cases to load up on quantity, what they lack in quality, to try to signal the jury that this guy must be a really bad guy, otherwise the state wouldn’t have charged so many crimes against it. In fact, there’s Justice Department guidance that tells federal prosecutors not to do this sort of thing, and that in most indictments, even with multiple defendants, you can get by with 15 counts and no more. So I just think this is terribly abusive.”
And what was this other crime?
ATS=TDS
“Nope. That would have been legal, no FEC prosecution.”
BS.
The “Get Trump” hooligans would have interpreted that as a “personal expense.” And then, like I said: Hello FEC.
It’s not BS. The payoff was done to benefit the campaign. The FEC already determined his actual act to have been illegal but then the Republican majority on the FEC refused to charge or fine his campaign. You’re not even paying attention to the composition of the FEC.
“The payoff was done to benefit the campaign.”
Pick your poison. You are either dumb or a liar.
Repeatedly the law has been explained. If there is an alternate reason for the payment, the assumption is the alternate reason. Trump’s reason: He didn’t want Melania to find out.
Case closed except for people with trouble in the upstairs department.
It’s interesting too that the alleged “false records” were made in February of 2017, after the 2016 election took place.
There is a catheter, a tube, named after the invented, Dr. Swan”. We use his name as a verb. We say we are going to. “Swan” the patient, meaning we are going to put that catheter in. Mr. Brag’s name just became a verb meaning a bad legal action.
Turley is lying to his readers again.
After charging Trump with 34 counts, Bragg insisted that he will convict Trump of the “crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.”
There’s a reason that he cut off the beginning of the quote and replaces it with his own words. That’s because Bragg did NOT say that he will CONVICT Trump of that. He said “The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means, the $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap, and the false statements in AMI’s books violated New York law.” and “Trump then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.” Bragg has not charged Trump with this, and by NY law, he does not need to charge this, so there’s no attempt to convict Trump of this. NY law only requires that the charged felonies have been carried out in with an intent of committing another crime: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” The law does not require that the other crime have even been committed, only that the intent was there. The law does not require that the state prove the other crime.
“The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent”
There’s plenty of precedent for NY convicting people of felony falsification of business records.
“Pomerantz published a book …. Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed [Pomerantz’s book].”
The grand jury preceded the publication of Pomerantz’s book.
Lying to his readers serves them poorly, and it’s a bad model for his law students.
Oops. Looks like Turley is being…disingenuous…again. Nice catch.
Are you admitting that if Trump did include the payment in election reports, there would be no crime?
I’ve pointed out multiple times that it would have been legal for Trump to pay off McDougal and Daniels using campaign funds and including the payments in his FEC filings.
You keep telling us alternate bookkeeping methods to produce the same exact financial results. That tells us there was no intention to defraud anyone. Don’t you know intent is significant? Did you skip that chapter in doggy law school?
Now that you have informed us there was no fraud, can you tell us what makes the bookkeeper’s entry criminal? You keep dancing around criminality and doggedly pursue it, but you can’t seem to lay your sticky paws on anything.
I don’t do my books, my bookkeeper does, and he places the entry in the right spots while writing out the check to whomever it goes to. Later when preparing my taxes, the accountant checks the books making sure all entries were legal. If there is an error, the IRS sends a letter requesting payment, possibly including a fine. Where is Trump’s responsibility for any felony?
You haven’t shown a felony, nor has Bragg, You are dogged in your pursuit of Trump, so dogged that you have pawed through all his records and IRS forms yet found nothing.
Dogs will be dogs.
Are you asking if he didn’t commit a crime there would be no crime? I’ll admit that.
Same stupid pedantry because the facts have you lost for a cogent response.
That’s because Bragg did NOT say that he will CONVICT Trump of that
You mean to tell us Bragg has no intention of convicting Trump? Is he going to drop the charge, or like the rest of us, he knows the charge will not make if past the first filings to dismiss?
The grand jury preceded the publication of Pomerantz’s book.
A fact. Meaningless, but is is a fact. More pedantry to bury Bragg’s legal hackery.
No, idiot, I’m saying that Bragg intends to CONVICT Trump of the crimes he charged Trump with. He didn’t CHARGE Trump with election crimes, and therefore he has no intention of CONVICTING Trump of election crimes. He CHARGED Trump with falsifying business records, and that’s what he intends to CONVICT Trump for.
“A fact.”
Yes! A fact *relevant* to JT’s false claim that “Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed [Pomerantz’s book].” It is impossible for action A to be caving to action B given that A *preceded* B.
You have no crime.
“He CHARGED Trump with falsifying business records, and that’s what he intends to CONVICT Trump for.”
Firstly Trump didn’t make the entries.
Secondly, at best, it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony.
Third, no one was swindled out of any money.
Fourth, it didn’t affect the amount of taxes paid.
In your first comment, I let go, it showed a liar accusing an honest man of being a liar. That type of garbage should lead to your removal from the blog, but it won’t because Turley is open to honest debate even letting it fall into your type of dishonest debate.
“Bragg insisted that he will convict Trump of the “crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.”
That isn’t in the indictment and demonstrates malice. If Bragg has proof of unlawful means, he can put it in the indictment.
Your type of politics and discussion is disgusting.
S. Meyer,
“NY law only requires that the charged felonies have been carried out in with an intent of committing another crime: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” The law does not require that the other crime have even been committed, only that the intent was there. The law does not require that the state prove the other crime.”
It’s a felony. If Bragg has evidence proving that the above description occurred he can certainly charge them as felonies. Bragg will show proof during trial. He doesn’t have to show it now.
How do you prove intent? Or does he merely have to assert intent? If the latter, then God help us.
“Intent” is proven with circumstantial evidence, which raises one of the many problems Bragg will have if this case ever gets to trial.
New York jury instruction provides, in pertinent part, “ Because circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of inferences, I will explain the process involved in analyzing that evidence and what you must do before you may return a verdict of guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence…
If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts consistent with the defendant’s innocence, then you must find the defendant not guilty….”
There are plenty of other reasonable inferences in this matter which would support a finding on innocence.
Intent can be proved with witness testimony, emails, texts, etc.
Right, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there will be defense circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Which gives rise to the jury instruction on circumstance evidence, supra.
You’re arguing as if all the facts have been proven, and that the indictment contains facts, which it doesn’t. It only contains unproven allegations.
Even many of the MSM commentators, who are not fans of Trump and would love to see him convicted, have stated that the “indictment” was disappointing and is on shaky ground.
You were dumb enough to print this twice. Do you think he sent Melania an email documenting what happened?
LOL
“The law does not require that the other crime have even been committed, only that the intent was there. “
Dumber than a pile of bricks.
He CHARGED Trump with falsifying business records, and that’s what he intends to CONVICT Trump for.
A class E misdomeanor. Not a felony.
It is impossible for action A to be caving to action B given that A *preceded* B
Book publish date is not the same as knowledge of the Book date. All the pressure was behind the scenes in orbits NYC and DC political power elite.
You’re hanging raw supposition on a meaningless date.
Anonymous – you state:
” ‘A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” The law does not require that the other crime have even been committed, only that the intent was there. The law does not require that the state prove the other crime.”
Obviously, it will be necessary to prove that the failure to report the hush payment as a campaign expenditure is a crime in order to prove that there was an intent to commit a crime. Intent to commit an act that is not a crime would not satisfy the statute. There are at least two levels of proof: failure to comply with federal campaign law: and use of bookeeping entries to further the former. Even if Trump would not be “convicted” of the campaign finance offense, it would need to proven as though he were being convicted.
No, it only need be proven that he had the intent, not that he actually committed the other crime. Intent can be shown with things like first person witness testimony about what he told them, texts, emails, etc.
” Intent can be shown with things like first person witness testimony “
What a foolish remark, divorced from reality.
You are continuously striking out. You need to be benched, but you aren’t smart enough to realize that.
“Turley is . . .”
It’s always nice to hear from the blog’s Lilliputians.
It’s interesting, when others insult you, you respond with things like “When you can’t pound the facts, pound the witness — a sure sign of a losing case and of a vacuous mind.” Yet it doesn’t keep you from doing what you criticize others for.
“Yet it doesn’t keep you from doing what you criticize others for.”
Gimme a break (and develop some self-awareness). You and your ilk smear Turley relentlessly. Then you whine when someone calls you what you are: Pathetic and malicious.
“Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed.”
Alvin Bragg: The Tonya Harding of prosecutors.
Except we won’t ever see Margot Robbie playing Alvin Bragg.
The GOP just lost the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It’s abortion, I promise you ☹
Everything we write here is becoming irrelevant. Free speech. The Constitution. All of it. If the Democrats turn the federal government into a one-party dictatorship because of abortion, it’s game over. They’ll pack the Court, etc.
And for what? Up until 15 weeks, they’re just a clump of cells. After that, 90% are future angry, useless Democrats. What are we saving, people?
Thomas Sowell said, “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” Well, if the Democrats get a one-party dictatorship at the federal level, this won’t even be a tradeoff. The Constitution will be aborted and all the babies will be, too.
You can save some of the babies or you can save none of them. That’s the choice. I know abortion is an ugly business, but so is war. You do what you must to survive.
The Democrats don’t want you to read this comment because they know Ron DeSantis signed a 15-week abortion law in Florida, and Florida is now solid red for the Constitution.
Sometimes you have to make a stand. I get that, but dying on a hill for a cause still needs to make sense. As I said, 90% would be future angry, useless Democrats, and you won’t save them anyway.
God knows I hate the human condition, but it is what it is.
Diogenes, how quickly you turn into snowflakes. It’s a setback, not the end of the world. Geez, you guys are such drama queens. You’re acting like a democrat, it’s embarrassing.
Nice sarcasm, there, Svelaz.
The problem will become even more apparent in presidential-election years, but I’m sure you don’t mind.
Baby sacrifices are what keeps the Progressives fat and happy. They crave dead babies. Surprised they haven’t started eating them instead of bugs.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/election-machines-stopped-working-in-green-bay-wisconsin-officials-had-to-borrow-from-another-county/
DeSantis is about to sign a 6-week abortion law in Florida. What’s next, 2-weeks?
DeSantis is about to sign a 6-week abortion law in Florida,
Its a beautiful thing isn’t it? Our Representative government in action. The People, through their elected Representatives, creating the rules they agree to live under.
Is it really the will of most of the people? Did the people agree?
Yes the people did agree to it. They voted in DeSantis and the legislature in Florida. That is the definition of democracy. If you don’t like what they did, then you, and everyone who agrees with you, who is a Florida resident, can vote them out.
Democracy in action.
Agreement requires the voters knew of the plan and consented. Neither is true. Given the way district maps are drawn in Florida (where I live) the will of the people has been further subverted. This is far from Democracy.
“Agreement requires the voters knew of the plan and consented. Neither is true.”
Enigma, where you live, in your head, is always a problem. You look through a rear-view mirror.
“This is far from Democracy.”
You don’t know what democracy means.The Florida Senate passed the bill, 26 to 13. That sounds like a public mandate, no matter what I believe.
The Florida Senate isn’t the people. Because this Bill came out of the blue, no polling ever took place. The majority of Floridians didn’t want Roe V. Wade gone and I’m sure even more are against this Bill.
Enigma, 26 to 13 should tell you something, but you continue to act with a closed mind, ” I’m sure even more are against this Bill.” (“I’m sure”: How can you be sure without any facts?)
You base all your conclusions on a distortion of history and a present based on feelings rather than fact.
Allan, it showed how a gerrymandered political body functions. It wasn’t a ballot initiative put up to a public vote as other states have done. In fact, Ballot initiatives have all gone pro choice in recent elections, which of course DeSantis knows, so that’s why he gignapped the process.
“Allan, it showed how a gerrymandered political body functions. It wasn’t a ballot initiative put up to a public vote as other states have done. In fact, Ballot initiatives have all gone pro choice in recent elections, which of course DeSantis knows, so that’s why he gignapped the process.”
Do the math 26 to 13 is a wide span. Gerrymandering is based on fractional changes. The 2:1 difference is too great for such a thing to be the major cause. That is your problem. You don’t think, Gerrymandering is done by both sides, and let us not forget there are reasons for gerrymandering whether I support it or not. Such a decision is not firm because the next Senate can come in and change the number of weeks. You think in the narrowest of ways.
I’m sure because of polling on related subjects. If the people favor legal abortion and were opposed to a 15-week ban (according to polling). I can be sure they would be more opposed to a 6-week ban. 26-13 tells me something but not what you want it to mean.
“I’m sure because of polling on related subjects. If the people favor legal abortion and were opposed to a 15-week ban (according to polling). I can be sure they would be more opposed to a 6-week ban. 26-13 tells me something but not what you want it to mean.”
Enigma, I am not by necessity in agreement with the bill for a wide number of reasons. You can see that in my responses above.
You place too much reliance on polls that support your views and generally you don’t seem to understand the wording of the questions and what came before the person being polled before the question was asked. Produce both sets of polls and we can look at them to see where the truth might lie. You always end up off the rails because you don’t look at both sides with the same eyes.
Show me any poll saying a majority of Floridians, or Americans, support a 15-week ban, a 6-week ban, or the reversal of Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t exist yet you claim a vote by a Republican-controlled Senate in Florida represents a mandate of the people. It does not. It does show the impact of partisan redistricting in a state where Republicans don’t have that kind of majority. It also shows a legislature fearful of the Governor who retaliates against anyone who doesn’t bend to his whims.
As I said above, you are enamored with polls but not so much with how the poll is taken. If you think a valid poll has more weight than 26:13 in the Florida Senate, let’s hear it along with all the data and circumstances. Presently, you are not being rational, and letting your emotions guide your thinking.
” impact of partisan redistricting “
Also as I said before, the redistricting involved a fraction of the people. That makes it very unlikely for it to be the reason for the 26:13.
You are free to move about the country. They just elected a far-left lunatic mayor in Chicago whose policies you might prefer to live under….
Diogenes, you got it. Tradeoffs, pragmatism, and compromise are needed when governing a free people. Some don’t recognize that, but you do. Non-leftists might be able to deal with these three things individually but seem unable to do so when acting together. That is the strength of leftist authoritarianism.
Thanks, Allan. I’m sure I disappointed a lot of people today. I feel bad about it, but I feel worse about losing more and more ground. I found out after I posted that Ann Coulter had this to say about it:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/ann-coulter-begs-conservatives-to-stop-pushing-strict-limits-on-abortion/
On this issue, Ann Coulter is right.
Mr. Turley: Trump himself has been a test for the legal system all along. You speak of the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago as if you had seen your parents putting presents under the Christmas tree but still hope against hope that there is a Santa Claus. Every former president has classified documents in his possession. This only became an issue “because Trump.” The Russia hoax, the sham impeachments, and every other bogus charge leveled at Trump have been tolerated by you personally and by your side “because Trump.” Because you have tolerated, and even applauded, the efforts to “get Trump,” you failed to see that this was the only possible destination this particular train could ever arrive at, a destination where your side is covered in shame and ignominy. There is no going back from this, for your party or our country. Maybe the case won’t get to trial but the precedent has been set. Yes we have no banana republic oh wait a minute. We do. We do have a banana republic. Thanks, Democrats. You speak of moral highground so dear to the hearts of your side and yet so illusory. Whether the Democrats ever actually had the right to claim any kind of highground is debatable. But if you did, you lost it long ago. Certainly the 2020 election, where we saw videos of women pulling suitcases full of ballots out from under the tables late at night and processing them and where nobody in the Uniparty wanted to know, in itself was a Rubicon that was crossed and cannot be uncrossed. So many abuses against Donald Trump were tolerated and celebrated that this fake and shameful prosecution can only be the penultimate step in the crucifixion of Donald J. Trump. Don’t point fingers. You did this. And you continue to do it by pretending that the Mar-a-Lago “case” is anything but another trumped up sham. Go to Obama’s house. Go to W’s house. Actually, send the FBI there at 6 am with guns drawn. I’m pretty sure you’ll find something. And if you want to prosecute a former president, I personally would start with Bill Clinton, who was accused, credibly, of rape. Since statutes of limitations apparently have no value, since the clock is only running when the “perp” is actually in state, Joanna Broaddrick has plenty of time to see justice. What Trump’s supporters have been saying for seven years, i.e. that there is a different standard for Trump and for everybody else, you have finally acknowledged. Better late than never, I suppose. But the real purpose of this shameful prosecution, i.e. election interference, will have been, and already has been, achieved. It’s just a matter of to what extent.
The Biden Family, Bill, Hillary, Obama, and their ilk are all in their mansions with a little smirk on their ugly faces. They were allowed to blatantly lie, cheat and steal (notice there is no Clinton hospital in Haiti) while protected by the shield of being Democrats. That is the definition of a corrupt government.
It’s the Democrat way. Lie, cheat, steal, and get filthy rich cashing in on “public service.”
Then yell Climate Change! rising Oceans! Carbon footprint! As Obama builds himself a custom multi-million dollar ocean-front estate on Oahu, Hawaii….to use part time….
Obama also owns a $14 million ocean-front estate on Martha’s Vineyard they use part time….
Obama’s still own their $12 million mansion in Kalorama section of DC….they use part time….
And then there’s the Obama’s Hyde Parke $multi-million mansion in Chicago…
Any other million dollar part-time homes? NYC? Los Angeles, where their daughters currently live?
How many mansions….and multi-million-dollar ocean-front estates….do former presidents typically own? One? Maybe two?
For the Obamas it is now at least 5 mega part-time mansions….
Disgusting hypocrisy.
The Ball is now in Donald Trumps Court. 🇺🇸
His Defense Team now has the ability ‘to draw out’* any: Persons, Arrangements, or Similar Situations as specified in the Act.
The Team has the opportunity to build an Argument that not only includes Trump but would apply to all Politicians (Particularly; Presidential, Congressional, State and Local) [e.g.: Is this Action the ‘standard’ within the norms of the field].
Did the ‘Catch & Kill of Damaging Information’ successfully effect the perception and hence “deceive” the Voting Constituency[?]
That opens a Big-Big Can-of-Worms for a lot of Politicians. Especially the; Biden’s, Bill Clinton, Democrats & Republican et.al. There’s a lot of ‘dirty laundry’ available out there to air and bring it to Trial.Take no DNC Prisoners (-It’s Open Season-).
If the Defense plays this right, it could really impact “The Politicians of the Swamp”.
It also may squelch the Judicial Weaponization & Mud Slinging that has gotten way out-of-hand in Our Elections.
The outcome will have impact one-way or another. This is an Opportunity.
-Think Positive Impact –
* To draw out – Put on the Trial Stand, Subpoena Witnesses, Cite, Reference Examples, and ‘State the Facts’ of Other’s Infidelities and Cover-Ups.
Expose the ‘S͟u͟b͟m͟a͟r͟i͟n͟i͟n͟g͟’ of Other’s “Catch-and-Kill” Facts.
Did the ‘Catch & Kill of Damaging Information’ successfully effect the perception and hence “deceive” the Voting Constituency[?]
A point of law.
IF, focus on the IF. Trump would have done this act as Bragg claims it should have been done (I am not conceding Trump broke any laws). Trump would be required by law to report the “campaiagn donation” to the applicable local, state and federal agencies, in the next reporting period. That next reporting deadline was AFTER all the people cast their ballot.
In Braggs time line, Bragg admitts, the voters could not have been defrauded.
No, Bragg does not “admitts, the voters could not have been defrauded.”
“IF. Trump would have done this act as Bragg claims it should have been done …” for McDougal AND Daniels, THEN it would have been legal. But Trump did not choose the legal option. Trump chose an illegal option.
. Trump chose an illegal option.
It is personal money, not campaign money. Voters were not defauded, because required reporting was after the election took place. You have at most a campaign finance violation. Like Hillary Clinton paid
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.
Civil, not criminal.
As I pointed out to you previously, the FEC Office of General Counsel already determined it to have been illegal.
“required reporting was after the election took place”
Only for Daniels, not for McDougal. And the reporting you’re referring to is had he done it legally, which he didn’t. He broke the law.
“Civil, not criminal.”
Had it simply been a repayment to Cohen, it would have been a matter of civil law. But in his attempt to hide all of this, Trump falsified his business records over 2 dozen times, which is criminal.
“Trump falsified his business records over 2 dozen times, which is criminal.”
Logic is not your strong suit. The number of times doesn’t make it a felony. Stop hopping and running after birds instead of showing us the proof.
As I pointed out to you previously, the FEC Office of General Counsel already determined it to have been illegal.
When was date of that legal filing? Did Trump respond? I never saw that?
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_19.pdf
LOL that you ask yourself “I never saw that?” I doubt you looked for it or paid attention when I raised it previously.
Thanks iowan2
This question needs to be established/answered in and by the Court.
‘Is it today’s NORM that Political Figures (including: Judges, Candidates, Seated Politicians and the like), that Submarining by methods of: Catch and Kill, Paying-Off: Witnesses, Testimony, and Media of Negative exposure or disclose, by various means of Compensation or Non Disclosure Agreements and the like[?]’
Is it an established NORM in today’s Society ???
IMHO: I believe it has been so established for a long time,so as to be a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the Political and Media Fields.
It is part & parcel of Mud-Slinging and Political destruction that underwrites the necessity of “Editing” Ones political career.
I find the timing of this case slightly bizarre from an historical perspective.
This is the time of year (to the week) that people of the world celebrate Passover and Easter. District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a modern-day Pontius Pilate, who responded to the rallying cries of the crowd to prosecute Jesus of Nazareth, rather than Barabbas.
Before you become repulsed by that statement, please understand that I am NOT making a statement of moral equivalence; I am only presenting an allegory about Jesus’ end days on Earth.
Who, then, would be the stand-in for Barabbas? Possibly Hunter Biden, although I could also choose some other alleged criminals whose names I would insert here. Mark Zuckerberg or Dr Anthony Fauci come to mind as other possibilities, but that’s not the point of this message.
One major difference between Pilate and Bragg is that Pilate did not necessarily want to prosecute Jesus, while Bragg set out to do exactly that. But in each case, they ended up following the will of the mob.
The symbolism you describe is not lost on many Christians who are dismayed by the government’s decision to ignore hate crimes directed at them.
Certainly takes the focus off of the Biden Cartel’s legal problems though, doesn’t it?
Good observation. That or something else that needs a diversion.
The indictment has one purpose….to prevent Trump’s eligibility to run for President in 2024. As is so often the case with unconstitutional laws, or false stories in the press, by the time the are tossed by the courts or acknowledged by the press, they have done their damage. If Trump is convicted, or if the trial drags on long enough to interfere with the election, it will have achieved its purpose — to interfere with the election, polarize the country, and hopefully create enough anti-Trump hysteria to assure that he cannot be re-elected. Of course it is a risky strategy, but the hope of the Democratic Republican deep state apparatus is that the anti-Trump hysteria will be enough to conceal their role and purpose from the public view. I this sense, Trump, the man, is not important, so much as a symbol for whether democracy will be tolerated by the US oligarchy.
The Oppenheimer quote is cute but he was wrong about the atom bomb: It has done more to prevent total wars, such as the two of the twentieth century, than any other factor. So what that Oppenheimer had misgivings? He led a valiant effort to develop the bomb and its use on Japan by a courageous president not only ended the second of those wars, the example it set deterred its future use. One thing Oppenheimer would not have said about Bragg’s indictment, as he did about Edward Teller’s later conception of the successor hydrogen bomb: that it was “technically sweet.”
In his press conference, Bragg referred to two criminal violations:
1. NY state law against conspiring to promote a candidate unlawfully; and
2. Federal law limiting the size of campaign contributions.
Presumably, this will be spelled out in the Bill of Particulars.
Does anyone know:
A. When is the Bill of Particulars required to be submitted?
B. Does the NY state law even apply to Presidential elections?
C. If so, what was unlawful about paying to dismiss nuisance suits?
The Edwards case makes it very doubtful that there was a campaign contribution here under Federal law.
He seems to have also included false statements: “Let me say as an initial matter that the indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require. In my remarks, I mentioned a couple of laws which I will highlight again now. The first is New York state election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. I further indicated a number of unlawful means, including additional false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities. I also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits.”
Re: “what was unlawful about paying to dismiss nuisance suits?,” what “nuisance suits” are you referring to? Trump didn’t pay to dismiss suits, he paid hush money, and he could have done it legally, with campaign funds, but instead he did it illegally. The Edwards case is sufficiently different that it’s not a great comparison (it was a love affair and they had a baby together; Trump had a one night stand with a adult film actress he couldn’t care less about, and there are witnesses that he tried to postpone the payment til after the election so he could renege on it entirely).
Presumably Trump will now challenge this in federal court because of the federal election law involvement. So it’s not going to be resolved any time soon.
Trump had a one night stand with a adult film actress he couldn’t care less about, and there are witnesses that he tried to postpone the payment til after the election so he could renege on it entirely).
Some fancy mind reading, with the added zing of ZERO factual evidence. My dreams are on a more sound factual footing.
Not mind reading at all. Testimony from others he discussed it with. Apparently you haven’t bothered to read the indictment and statement of facts; it’s discussed there.
Are you a Russian Pointer? You raise your leg over everything and then pretend not to know you did it.
“The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible.”
Where’s the crime?
“He seems to have also included false statements”
‘Seemed to’ is not proof. Do you understand what proof is?
“to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. “
What was unlawful? That question dogs you. There had to be a criminal act to convict Trump of a crime. Your quotes hop around the question, but your responses are bark, not bite.
” but instead he did it illegally. “
Sniff out the felony and then bring it back to us.
“Edwards case is sufficiently different”
Did spots on the case make it different? It was a dog of a case. That is why it failed.
“had a baby together; Trump had a one night stand”
You are going off the walls. Having a baby would make Trump’s actions legal? Are you nuts?
” he tried to postpone the payment til after the election so he could renege on it entirely).”
Next, you mind-read and want to convict Trump for thoughts you have conjured up, demonstrating the dishonesty of all your statements. Then you tell us your real purpose, “So it’s not going to be resolved any time soon.”
What a world you search for. It’s a world where rabid dogs run loose.
It is not illegal to pay hush money to dismiss nuisance allegations.
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 Requires the bill of particulars to be filed within 15 days after service.
“Bragg knew that he had no criminal case against Trump. However, after running on bagging Trump for some crime (any crime), Bragg knew that many would not care if he had a basis for a criminal charge.”
Turley has no idea what Bragg has in evidence against Trump. Not even Trump’s lawyers have any idea. Turley is assuming that Bragg is relying on a slogan as the basis for pursuing the case. Bragg is being smart by keeping details of the evidence against Trump hidden until he can show them later in court. Turley is left with assumptions and insinuations about the case. Keep in mind that it was widely believed that there was only going to be one or two felonies. Instead we got 34. Bragg is not showing all his cards and that’s smart strategy. If Turley can’t make a proper analysis, neither can Trump’s lawyers.
The bigger problem is Trump’s penchant for attacking judges and prosecutors. He’s already been warned to his face by the judge that any incitement or threats to the court, witnesses, and prosecutors would result in a gag order. Knowing Trump it’s certain he will end up getting one.
Discovery. It’s a thing.
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
I’m watching all of this from Australia, in shock but not surprise. The same race to jettison long established principles is occurring throughout the west. It is almost a willing destruction of the future, as these norms enable social functioning at the most crude, mechanistic level. They were created to enable different folks to get along in spite of our many differences and sometimes fraught relations. The people doing this must know the result of their current actions, so one might conclude destruction of the system is the desired goal, for whatever reason–my hunch is nefarious; bring the current system into such crisis that the general public would be grateful to accept any restriction to freedom in leu of protection against a perceived (created) threat. But that’s only because I have an over active imagination.
Thank you for the clarity of your analysis over the years sir. Your voice, and the few precious others who offer some allegiance to reason and sanity in the public sphere, give me some hope that I haven’t slipped into a, dystopian, alternate reality.
Terrance, you haven’t slipped into that alternate, dystopian reality. It’s our full reality now. And the United States just flattened whatever moral high ground we had left regarding democracy, justice, rule of law and the rights of man. The comment from the El Salvadorian President should be front page news:
Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted,” tweeted Bukele. “But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate. The United States ability to use ‘democracy’ as foreign policy is gone.
I love that quote of Sir Thomas More that outonpluto cited. It sets up and validates the concern from you:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
bring the current system into such crisis that the general public would be grateful to accept any restriction to freedom in leu of protection against a perceived (created) threat.
There is a quote by G. Michael Hopf that describes the circumstances we are now in and where this always leads:
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
We are in this latter phase. We’ve been there before, but still with a functioning civil society with the rule of law. But now that all the laws have been flattened, the people that the law was meant to protect are fully exposed to the inevitable crime and chaos. They’ll be begging for a “strong” man that promises to protect them once again. And just like the Mafia or Mexican cartels, that protection will come at a price.
Bragg is a shrewd lawyer and Turley knows it. It’s notable that Bragg’s indictment is bare bones and is devoid of any exacting details which is why Turley isn’t able to analyze the case against a Trump. It keeps Trump’s lawyers and Turley guessing as what is Bragg’s real legal strategy.
Presenting such a bare-bones indictment makes it very hard to determine how strong a case Bragg plans to mount, including what evidence investigators might use to support turning the charges into felonies.
Turley says, “The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying “secondary” felony. Bragg has done nothing more than replicated the same flawed theory dozens of times.”. This may just be a legal “distraction” to keep Trump’s lawyers and others off balance and may be hiding a much stronger case than Turley thinks it is.
We will find out a stone goes by more details that can change the current course of the case to something more concrete.
It’s telling that Turley really isn’t able to make a cogent analysis because there are no details and he’s left rambling on about Bragg’s ‘bootstrapping’ strategy, a strategy that may not be the one Turley thinks is being employed.
Because somehow when something is so destabilizing as indicting a former president, shattering all precedent, it is the time to be opaque and tactical but not clarion about what should justify such an enormity. If “what he really has” is to be deferred, that itself is an insult to this Republic, given the stakes for our system of government of an action so wildly inflammatory. That such a 2×4 of the basic case can’t be laid now in plain view is not a promising sign — either for Bragg’s case or the future of our nation.
Excellent.
I am not personally that concerned about the historic nature of this.
Nor the unusual nature.
I have no problem indicting an ex-president for a clear actual crime – suing the same standards I would apply to ordinary people.
But that is not the case here.
I would disagree with you only in so far as Bragg has not laid out the entire case – because there is no case.
Lots of people are dwelling on the statute of limitations issue.
That may have a great deal of legal merit. Whether Trump did anything wrong or not,
we should not be prosecuting ANYONE for trivialities many years later.
But this is more than a legal battle – it is a moral one and a political one.
If Trump wins the legal battle – but democrats succeed in establishing that Trump is an actual crook – Trump ultimately loses.
We are not going to elect an actual criminal – which is also why the Biden syndicates conduct MUST come out.
Morally and politically what is important is “Is there an actual crime here”
That is a far more dangerous question.
If the answer is NO – and that is the actual case.
It is the prosecution that is the crime.
And that is why this is very dangerous.
Either Trump is a criminal – or Bragg and democrats are.
THEY choose this framing.
Only it is worse than that.
It is also possible that Trump is a minor criminal and THEY are more serious ones.
When government prosecutes the innocent – GOVERNMENT is corrupt, criminal.
It keeps Trump’s lawyers and Turley guessing as what is Bragg’s real legal strategy.
Good to see you readily admit, Bragg is taking actions to prevent defense lawyers from representing their client.
Iowan2,
That’s just good legal strategy. It gives him the upper hand. It can also mean that Bragg has a stronger case than initially believed. It’s telling that Turley can’t make a good analysis of the case. He’s a defense attorney. If he can’t provide a good analysis, neither can Trump’s lawyers.
It’s telling that Turley can’t make a good analysis of the case
There are no facts to analyze yet. This is a nothing case, universally panned by all person of legal education, training and experience.
Across the political spectrum, serious legal minds that value there reputations, all agree this is nothing. The filing of particulars must exceed all of their expectations, for this to survive the first motion to dismiss, even getting a conviction, will not survive appeal.
Iowan2: I believe you know that Svelaz is not a lawyer and does not understand the implications of his pseudo-authoritative nothings. Your comment is (at least at this point) correct. I would prefer to engage with you, therefore.
I note that Braggs made the comment that the indictment is premised on “new” information/evidence, which makes your comment even more correct.
It would be a “good legal strategy” if Bragg never had to put some meat to the bare bones indictment. But he does have to put meat to it. The defense will a request under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 for a “Bill of particulars,” which is written statement by the prosecutor “specifying items of factual information which are not recited in the indictment and which pertain to the offense charged and including the substance of each defendant’s conduct encompassed by the charge.”
Bragg has 15 days from the date of service to comply. He will have to lay out the law and the allegations that support it.
“Give me a man and I will find the crime” Andrew Vyshinsky
Don’t voluntarily surrender your guns you’re going to need them.
What conduct over Mar-a-largo was an obstruction of justice? How is Trump having documents there under guard of the secret service any different from Biden moving thousands of documents from place to place and no one seems to want to take any action against that terribly corrupt crime family. Nor does anyone care that Obama has been reported to have stashed millions of pages of documents in a Chicago warehouse. Or what about tapes in Clinton’s underwear drawer? (How appropriate for Bill). And can you imagine if it was Trump who deleted 30,000 emails, destroyed the laptop, and allowed American citizens to die in Benghazi when there was plenty of warning to keep them safe? Or if he actually paid millions to come up with a complete lie about his opponent, conducted a 2 and a half year case against them, and found out the FBI knew all along it was all made up? There is No justice in America at all any more.
The secret service is not there to guard documents. It’s job is to protect the president. Trump had illegal possession of presidential documents and was actively hiding government documents from the national archives and the FBI. That’s obstruction of Justice. Especially when he was subpoenaed for the documents. It’s a crime of theft and obstruction.
Then why not the same treatment for Biden, Clinton, Obama etc?
Because Biden was not refusing to turn over documents for nearly 18 months. Biden immediately turned over documents. Trump actively sought to keep them and hide them from authorities. That’s the distinction.
He had them for years and the archives didn’t know he had them?? How did they know TRUMP did. WHY only Trump?? Why not Mike Pence? Why not Hillary?? Everything is ONLY about Trump. Trump was the only one who could DECLASSIFY. NONE of the others could. The corrupt can continue to do what they do, lie to us. But TRUMMMMPPPPP…upset the apple cart, so he must be thrown in prison?? Nuts.
“How did they know TRUMP did. WHY only Trump??”
Because Trump’s term was fresh off a defeat and NARA was already aware that trump had a habit of tearing up papers which is a big No-no according to the presidential records act.
They were keeping tabs on Trump. Biden was already out of the White House for years. Nara most likely wasn’t aware until Biden’s lawyers contacted them about the documents found and promptly returned them which is what you’re supposed to do. Trump didn’t. He deliberately hid documents from them and the FBI.
What was godenbough forAl Capone is good enough for Donald Trump.
18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)(1) only requires gross negligence.
Cooperation with the FBI is not a defense. Biden only cooperated after the classified documents had been discovered. He didn’t voluntarily look for the documents before their discovery and turn them over. The statute is strict liability. Cooperation does not mitigate the crime of violating section 793(f)(1). It would only mitigate the sentence upon conviction.
What you claim was done (“possession of presidential documents” outside the archives process) may or may not be a crime. Too many variables to know (What is presidential? Were they copies? Who handled? When? Etc.). All of this is a civil matter as with Clinton/Berger etc.
The crime alleged is obstruction of justice by the Trump lawyers on the orders of Trump (that is. obstructing the investigation of the civil matter noted above). I guarantee you Trump did not put any such order in writing so some lawyer will have to flip on him like Cohen is allegedly doing and that flipper will have to be a lot more credible than Cohen
“What you claim was done (“possession of presidential documents” outside the archives process) may or may not be a crime.”
It is a crime when you refuse to turn over documents that don’t belong to you. That’s called theft. Obviously theft is a crime.
“ I guarantee you Trump did not put any such order in writing so some lawyer will have to flip on him like Cohen is allegedly doing and that flipper will have to be a lot more credible than Cohen”
But there are allegedly phone calls between Trump and his lawyers and just recently a judge ordered Trump attorney Evan Corcoran to provide testimony and documentation under the crime/fraud exception. Meaning there is evidence of obstruction that’s significant enough to pierce attorney client privilege. That’s not good for Trump.
Which is what I wrote. So your point is?
. Trump had illegal possession of presidential documents
Trump claimed them all as personal papers. They were negotiating to sort out what personal papers Trump would agree to loan to the NA for historic purposes. Like every single President.