Below is my column in the New York Post on the release of the indictment against former President Donald Trump. Warning: it has no legally nutritional content…
Here is the column:
“We cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said of his indictment of former president Donald Trump.
Yes, the man who has routinely knocked down felony crimes to misdemeanors — or dismissals — actually suggested that he had no alternative but to charge Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records.
He insisted, our “business integrity” is at stake. After all, as Bragg intoned with no sense of self-awareness, he has always believed that “the bedrock of the basis for business integrity and a well-functioning business marketplace is accurate record-keeping.”
It is all about a well-functioning business marketplace — not his campaign pledge to bag Trump on some (unnamed) crime.
When people think Bragg, they think business.
The first indictment of a former American president was a historical moment, and Bragg failed to rise to that moment.
Bragg released an indictment that was so vague on key elements that it is unclear what the grand jury thought it was voting on. He vaguely referenced state and federal election laws and later refused to add any details on how they relate to the prosecution.
The result is an indictment with the substance of a legal Slurpee: it was immediately satisfying for many with virtually no legal substance.
Bragg solved the problem over his uncertain authority by avoiding any specificity on that authority. He could have put “details to follow” in the caption of the indictment.
Legal experts went immediately into a frenzy over what this could mean and exactly what was the crime that Trump was allegedly covering up with payments to cover up alleged affairs with three women.
If these experts were left scratching their heads on such key elements, how did laypersons on a grand jury understand the basis for this indictment?
We may learn more from the bill of particulars, but this indictment is unintelligible from a legal perspective in understanding the basis for the prosecution.
After the arraignment, Bragg made sweeping references to state and federal election laws before saying that he didn’t have to give such details. He just filed the first charges against a former president and refused to specify the basis for the felonies.
He then held a press conference and refused to answer questions about this basis because he “doesn’t have to.”
What is particularly maddening is that, while Bragg refused to explain the basis for the indictment, he did undermine his own case . . . whatever it may prove to be.
He insisted that Trump could not be allowed to use “fictitious legal services” for political purposes. As with his claimed intolerance for criminal conduct, Bragg’s professed outrage was bizarre given analogous conduct by Democrats like Hillary Clinton on campaign-finance allegations.
The Clinton campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget through former Clinton campaign General Counsel Marc Elias.
Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. Those fictitious legal services did not produce the same revulsion in Bragg or other prosecutors.
This is no time for the niceties of reason in an age of rage. Bragg showed that the only important thing was the name on the indictment caption rather than its basis.
That reality was evident in a new CNN poll. Over half (52%) said that politics had played a “major role” in the indictment. Over three-fourths (76%) said that the move was at least somewhat political. More importantly, only one-third (37%) thought that Trump’s alleged payments to Stormy Daniels were illegal. However, 60% said that they still supported charging Trump. So it is a political prosecution and most do not see a crime, but it is still supported by many citizens.
In Manhattan, the basis for charges against Trump is largely irrelevant. This is a thrill kill case and Bragg just delivered on his campaign promise to bag Trump on something . . . anything. We still do not know what that was, but it does not matter.
Bragg knows his audience. The question is whether he knows this judge. Bragg is counting on Judge Juan Merchan being intimidated or distracted by the historical moment. Even if he is right, Merchan will not be the last judge who will have to review this case.
At some point, Bragg will have to state the actual criminal basis for these 34 counts.
Until then, history — and Trump — will simply just have to wait for Alvin Bragg.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
I look forward to watching the downfall, disbarrment and demise of Fat Alvin’s legal career.
I’m not so sure about the State Bar upholding legal ethics. Sure, if an attorney is convicted of a felony, there will be a pro forma disbarment, but other than that, it seems that the State Bars are just as beholden to leftist politics as the mainstream media, unfortunately. Although even with leftist legal scholars condemning this indictment, perhaps the NY Bar will feel pressured to act, in order to maintain any semblance of credibility.
Bragg is so worried about New York’s business reputation, eh?
I guess there’s no chance then that the explosion murders, assaults, rapes subway crimes, homeless, and other serious threats to ordinary working folks could possibly deter business? Right?
Few people outside the business realize this, but New York basically runs on the money of Wall Street, the banking industry, and money management. The minute that these businesses move to Miami or anywhere else out of state, the entire State of New York collapses and turns into Detroit. Just take a look at once-prosperous cities like Buffalo in Upstate New York. They are now largely hellholes.
Go watch a few Louis Rossman videos to get a sense of just how incompetent, uncaring, corrupt, and hostile to business the City of New York has become.
If Bragg really cared about New York’s business climate, he’d have a rich target field in the above. The fact that it goes unmentioned just amplifies his utter lack of interest in the well-being of his state.
Sickening.
Kim G
Roma Sur, Mexico City
“The minute that these businesses move to Miami or anywhere else out of state, the entire State of New York collapses and turns into Detroit.”
Too late:
“Wall Street executives previously relocated thousands of jobs to states outside of New York, in an effort to cut costs. Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, UBS, Citigroup, Alliance Bernstein and an array of other financial institutions have established and aggressively staffed hubs in Florida, North Carolina, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nashville and other less expensive locations compared to New York.” (www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/12/14/wall-street-banks-and-tech-companies-are-fleeing-new-york-and-california/?sh=7a408195661a)
Go woke, with your Soros-backed DAs and politicians, go broke.
It is my opinion that bragg, a soros puppet like most prog/left DA’s across this nation, is just a useful, woefully undereducated tool for those whose greater goal is the destruction of this nation and Western Civilization around the globe. I doubt if he thinks of anything other than the implanted agenda in his noggin and the pumped up feeling of transient power that he holds. He is a disgrace to his profession and his race but he is totally ignorant of this fact.
“[T]his indictment is unintelligible from a legal perspective . . .” (JT)
On purpose.
Tyrants (including mini ones) never make themselves clear, and never, ever explain. They merely decree. Their favorite tool of oppression, of riding themselves of pesky opposition, is vague, arbitrary, capricious “law.” That way, citizens are held by an unspecified terror: Who’s next and what for? It is the unpredictable threat of arrest, jail, the loss of liberty — for doing something they know not what.
I’m curious about why the AMI angle isn’t the whole case. It isn’t even part of the indictment. It’s one thing to pay off an extortionist, another to pay a company not his own to silence stories and pay off another extortionist. The money paid by AMI certainly looks like an illegal campaign donation at best.
Stormy Daniels claimed in 2011, a full 5 years before the election, that she had an affair with Trump.
I’m not a fan of Trump in the least. I am fine if he’s prosecuted for trying to fix the election in several states.
This indictment looks to be a bit of poor judgment, to say the least. It lends credibility to Trump’s claims of the investigations being a witch hunt.
Closer to home, Chirlane McCray, the wife of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, was awarded $900 million to launch a mental health project aimed at assisting the city’s homeless. According to the New York Post, no one seems to know what that money was utilized for after four years.
Except that Trump did what was alleged in the indictment.
I think Barr has it right. This is a short term ploy to energize Trump’s base and control the news cycle narrative. The left would much prefer to keep Trump in the spotlight than deal with real issues, or possibly a DeSantis shift; something recent poll are already showing. Ron needs to figure out how to deal with this nonsense quickly – dispose of it – and get the news cycle refocused on addressing the ills of our country.
Peel away 10,000 years of civilization — and you have the Democrats plunging us back into tribalism and animal instinct. Playing to the lowest emotional responses in humans, this party exposes what many already knew: man is just an ordinary animal, he did not descend from the gods.
I find it poignantly endearing of the Leftists that they keep telling themselves, after seven years of trying without success, that this time they’re going to “get” the indestructible Trump.
I also admire the impenetrable density of those Leftists and Never-Trumpers who want to believe that a Billionaire real estate developer / television personality does his own bookkeeping.
For Bragg, however, nothing admirable there. He is just not an intelligent man, and it shows. Perhaps he could call Congressman Jamaal Bowman to the stand to yell at the jury. That would help his case as much as anything else.
cionnath – Maxine Waters is already on her way.
In The French Connection movie Popeye Doyle threatens to arrest a guy for picking his toes in Poughkipsee or something like that. There is no such crime listed in the official law books of New York, but Doyle didn’t let that stop him; he simply invented an imaginary crime he could use to arrest the guy. DA Bragg may have borrowed a page from Doyle’s playbook by inventing an imaginary Popeye Doyle-style crime for Donald Trump.
FOrget what PROFESSOR Turley says, forget what Andrew McCarthy says, forget what the anti-Trump Bill Barr says, forget what the anti-Trump Andrew McCabe says on CNN, forget what even Ellie Hogan says on CNN. forget what every legitimate legal commentator says on all media and forget that Hilary Clinton paid millions for the Steele Dossier and labeled it “legal expenses, we have Svelaz, a guy that isn’t even a lawyer telling us that the case is strong and that Trump is in legal trouble.
I love trying to understand the legal logic spewed by NON-LAWYERS like Svelaz as he tries in vain to point out to PROFESSOR Turley where he is wrong. What a joke!
Hullbobby, it has been pointed out that Professor Turley was wrong in his analysis yesterday. With proof. So yes non-lawyers can also point out flaws in Turley’s “analyses”.
It’s obvious that you and a few others do have a reading comprehension problem. I can’t fix that. That would be something that you would have to figure out on your own.
Hilarious, even for you.
What has Turley been wrong about ?
Absolutely the law is NOT the domain of legal experts.
In fact NOTHING is the domain of experts.
We are all free to disagree with experts.
What we may NOT do, is use FORCE against another – deprive them of their rights, Without bright line clarity that their actions were WRONG.
Turley, do you actually think Bragg would charge 34 counts of falsifying business records without having the documentation on, well, 34 instances of false business records? Seems the one playing to an ‘audience’ is you with this article.
Sure, Bragg would charge Trump without a sound factual and legal basis. It’s his office that routinely charges people in clear self-defense cases, like Jose Alba and Moussa Diarra, even if those cases are ultimately dropped. Bringing unsupported cases seems to be the thing to do there.
Glad to provide the opportunity for you to sharpen your deflection game.
What deflection? You can’t look past the vague indictment merely to rely on the integrity of a prosecutor to only bring supportable cases when he has a history of bringing unsupportable cases.
“What deflection?”
DT: You are absolutely correct. Showing that Bragg has brought “supportable cases” in the past is evidence that he is capable of doing so now. Don’t mind the deceptive one. It routinely smears others with false claims of committing a fallacy.
Loving how you extend your deflection — but also wondering whether you’re willfully ignorant to the fact you’re doing it or just incapable of seeing it?
“Glad to provide the opportunity for you to sharpen your deflection game.”
That’s hilarious. Using a false claim of “deflection” to deflect from what in fact is an *argument*.
Anonymous, did you actually think that Andrew Weissman, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, Mueller et al would charge without “documentation”, whatever the heck that even means. Where is the “documentation” of actual felonies being committed? Where is the “documentation” of a state having jurisdiction over FEC “crimes”? Where is the “documentation” that the SOL has not run?
Forget Turley, Bill Barr, Andrew McCarthy, Andrew McCabe and all other legal minds, we have Anonymous telling us what the law is.
Gee hullbobby, looks like we both have much to look forward to in the trial. Then again, that’s looking past what trump will actually do…., leave the presidential race and take a plea.
Save your breathe in replying to Anonymous. He’s a lonely old man and this forum is the only recognition he gets.
He’s pathetic. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
Love when my magats spend time concerned for my well being.
What’s next? The “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument?
Aha, now we’re on to something! The primary trump rhetorical tactic. Take what you’re accused of, blame others for it, and then monetize it.
No, pinhead, I meant aren’t you going to use the IRAYG argument. Try to pay attention, numbnuts. Boilerplate will not suffice.
The word you’re looking for is breath, not breathe.
ATS has a meltdown he often switches from commenting on the postings to commenting on spelling or grammar.
Why, yes, yes, I do. Harold Ford, Jr., (Fox finally hired a thinking, classic liberal) pointed out there is no there, there. DA Bragg has not produced the “evidence” substantiating his charges.
Mistress, Ford is a normal and honest Democrat and he is enjoyable and likeable. What I can’t stand is when Bret Baier has on Leslie Marshall or Juan Williams, two partisan hacks that can never admit when a Democrat has erred. Of course whanever Marie Harff is on I simply change the channel because besides being a partisan hack she is a smug, arrogant person.
hullbobby details his non stop schedule of watching fox news.
Of course they do. Prosecutors charge innocent people they don’t like every day. The punishment is the process, not the conviction.
currentsitguy: Agree. Moreover, the punishment is the massive media coverage/publication of the charges. It parallels, e.g., WaPo publishing a small “correction,” nine days later, buried on page 14.
Agreed in some instances where race and financial status are concerned. But do you think a high level prosecutor would charge, for the first time in American history, an ex president with no evidence? I know it’s hard for trump supporters to get their heads around in general, and they tend to watch a frightening amount of propaganda couched as ‘news’ every day, but be serious for a moment.
” But do you think a high level prosecutor would charge, for the first time in American history, an ex president with no evidence?”
Yes. There was no meat in the indictment.
Recognize the fact that his office is political. Also recognize his wealth is estimated at $41 Million. He is 49 years old and has been in public service for 20 years. I couldn’t find big cases with big awards, nor could I find an inheritance. Maybe you can do better. I looked enough and felt a lot of answers should have been easier to get.
There was a time when this country admired defense attorneys. Perry Mason, Judd for the Defense, etc. starred fictional attorneys who defended the wrongfully accused from over zealous and/or corrupt prosecutors. That all changed with the rise in street crime and prosecutors, along with shows like Law and Order became big hits. Every news program now has a “former Federal prosecutor” as a host or regular guest. I can’t remember ever seeing a “former Federal public defender” on there. Hopefully Alvin Bragg’s actions will usher in a recognition that we need a balance; that yes, sometimes prosecutors have corrupt motives and need to be held in check by the legal system, as very few of us have the resources of Trump and most of us would be crushed by a false or politically motivated indictment- just look at all those Jan. 6 defendants forced to accept four years in prison for attending a demonstration that the DOJ didn’t like.
Turley, do you actually think Bragg would charge 34 counts of falsifying business records without having the documentation on, well, 34 instances of false business records?
Go back and have someone read you Turleys post, and explain all the words with more than one syllable.
He vaguely referenced state and federal election laws and later refused to add any details on how they relate to the prosecution.
Turlely never disputed the business records charges, did he? Pay attention. Those are Class E Misdemeanors.
To me Bragg has shown you don’t need any facts to get a grand jury to indict anyone. The grand jury never considered this formless crime Trump was covering up, in order to deliver a True Bill for a felony indictment.
State election law applies to ONLY persons running to serve at the State or Local level.
Federal Election Law is outside DA Bragg’s jurisdiction.
You keep digging in that pile of horse manure, Bragg gave you, there has to be a pony in there, if you dig hard and BELIEVE!
Always appreciate the deluded moron point of view, Iowan!! Thanks!
“Always appreciate the deluded moron point of view,”
ATS, we already knew that based on your moronic postings.
Always appreciate the deluded moron point of view, Iowan!!
The Grand Jury failed to deliver a True Bill covering a felony.
The answer is yes because that is how Bragg got his position in the first place.
A second thought is how he accumulated $41 million in wealth when at 49 he spent 20 years in public service. I don’t know of any huge settlements he had before that time.
Ask ATS because I don’t think even he would make such a comment.
The choice is clear: do we choose the path of vengeance or do we choose the MLK/Ghandhi approach? Each has its pluses and minuses, for sure. The initial visceral response to this outrage is for vengeance but that may accomplish a brief respite, followed by another term of lunacy. I think in the long run, history will record that the American people put up with this to a point and then used the only weapon it had, the vote, and that remedied the situation. I’m pleasantly surprised to see so many liberals and orthodox democrats joining with their conservative kin to decry this rape of the American rule of law tradition. Like many in my party, I was ready to move on from the Trump era but this episode in NYC has revitalized the role and value of another Trump administration that will restore our values and ethics once and for all. Just in the past week Trump has raised $12 million from this train wreck and the biggest surprise is that one-third of all donations have come from first-time contributors, including some liberals and democrats.
“another Trump administration that will restore our values and ethics once and for all.”
This may be the funniest thing I read all week. Another Trump administration will restore values and ethics. Have you been paying any attention at all? His current mess is because he cheated on his wife who was still nursing a baby, with a porn star, without a condom. Then he paid her not to talk, trying his best to string out the payment until after the election and then renege on the promise to pay. Values and ethics shouldn’t be used in the same universe as Trump, let alone the same sentence.
We all know that Bill Clinton didn’t use a condom.
Did it matter orally. It’s been a few years (70) since my sex education classes so just wondering if that all works differently now
His current mess is because Stormy hired a scumbag lawyer to help her extort Trump. She lost her lawsuit against Trump.
Stormy’s scumbag lawyer is now in prison for lying, extortion and fraud.
And Stormy has been ordered by appeals court to pay Trump hundreds of thousands in fees and penalties.
Bragg’s political hit job on Trump is an even bigger pile of steaming bullsh*t than what Avenatti tried to do.
No, the current mess is due to Trump’s incompetence. He chose to make an illegal action when he could have done it legally.
Bragg said these are “felony crimes in NY no matter who you are.”
That is a flatout lie.
Hillary Clinton herself was simply fined for misrepresentation about legal fees and was not prosecuted in this way.
This is a clear instance of someone named Trump, not being treated “similarly” — he is being targeted.
Explain what Trump did that was an “illegal action.” A felony.
He intended to hide the source of the money to pay off Stormy Daniels. He didn’t have to do that. There was a legal way to that, but he being the stupid idiot he is. Chose to do it illegally by falsifying business records. He didn’t want it to be known before he got elected. He wanted to hide it until after the election.
What was the ‘legal way’?
What Hillary did?
Pure foolishness. It was his money.
Right, Trump’s crime is NOT using campaign funds to settle a nuisance.
Stormy’s scumbag lawyer is in prison for fraud and extortion.
Stormy lost her suit against Trump.
Courts ordered Stormy to pay Trump something like $500k in fees and penalties.
But sure, Trump is the criminal being indicted 34 times for the same transaction.
“He intended to hide the source of the money to pay off Stormy Daniels.”
Possibly. Still, not a crime.
“He didn’t have to do that.”
So ?
Regardless, are you telepathic ? How is it that you know what Trump intended ?
Crimes are illegal ACTS.
A legal act with an allegedly illegal intent is still legal.
“There was a legal way to that”
What YOU claim is the Legal way resulted in Edwards getting Prosecuted and Clinton paying large Fines.
“but he being the stupid idiot he is. ”
He chose to do it the one way that is ACTUALLY legal.
“Chose to do it illegally by falsifying business records.”
Except that he did not.
Payments to Cohen are legal expenses. Just as Clintons payments to Perkins Coi for the steele Dossier were.
Clinton did not get fined for calling her payments to Perkins Coi legal expenses.
She got fined because they were not legitimat Campaign expenses.
Just as the Daniels NDA is a legitimate LEGAL EXPENSE.
But it probably is NOT a legitimate campaign expense.
It is however a legitimate business expense.
It is also a legitimate personal expenses.
Businesses pay for NDA’s to settle sexual harrassment claims all the time.
And record them as legal expenses.
You and Bragg are little-rally arguing that Trump’s actions which would have been legal but for the campaign.
And would NOT have been legal through the campaign. Were only illegal Because of the campaign.
“He didn’t want it to be known before he got elected. He wanted to hide it until after the election.”
That is YOUR claim.
It may be true. But it is not a proven or even proveable fact.
it is also NOT a crime regardless.
Whether you like it or not people are entitled to their privacy.
That is the stupidest thing I think you have ever said.
Is there anyone here that doubts that ANY Way that Trump secured Daniels silence – you WOULD HAVE CALLED A CRIME.
You just said Trump should have run it through the campaign.
Hillary was Fined for doing exactly that with the Stelle Dossier and just as easily could have been criminally prosecuted.
Edwards was crimminally prosecuted.
You are actually argunign that Trump could have avoided legal trouble by doing this in a way that is MORE likly to be prosecuted, rather than less.
The only outcome YOU would have sought to not criminalize would have been Daniels on National TV throughout october regaling her sexual exploits with Trump.
“Jesse Jackson Admits Affair, Illegitimate Child”
Jan. 18, 2001 — Moving to pre-empt a tabloid newspaper report, the Rev. Jesse Jackson this morning released a statement admitting he had an extramarital affair that resulted in a daughter who is now 20 months old.
“This is no time for evasions, denials or alibis,” said the Baptist minister and former aide to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions.”
Had Affair as He Counseled Clinton
The age of the daughter indicates Jackson, 59, was likely having the affair with Karin Stanford, a 39-year-old worker at his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition office in Washington, even as he counseled President Clinton after public revelations of an affair with Monica Lewinsky, an intern at the White House.
“He was really one of President Clinton’s closest spiritual advisers and really friends through this whole ordeal,” says ABCNEWS political analyst George Stephanopoulos. “He went to the White House and prayed with President Clinton. They got down on their knees, we heard, in the residence. He counseled Chelsea and Mrs. Clinton — really became a close friend to the family and they really bonded through this whole ordeal.”
– ABC News
JFK, Monster
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
“Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”
Associated Press
Wed 13 Jan 1999 13.15 EST
“WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
“FDR and His Women”
“… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton
_______________________________
1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault
What a ——- racist!
That George is calling anyone else a racist is the joke of the day.
Turley sure seems impatient with Bragg. There’s a reason why Bragg is not being very clear about the details on the indictment. He doesn’t want to give away any advantage or further evidence he could use later in court.
The crime according to NY state law is not about the crime itself, it’s about the intent to commit one and there is plenty of evidence that occurred. It has been pointed out that Trump could have avoided this by simply stating on his forms that he did pay off stormy Daniels with campaign money. Amazingly that would have made it legal, but he chose to “launder” the money thru a shell company and conceal the source of the money. It’s that action that is criminal according to NY state law. Bragg has a good chance to prove his case in court. Just because it seems impossible or far fetched doesn’t mean he can’t try. Trump and his supporters are worried that it just might work.
Bragg’s case is the weakest of all the pending cases against Trump. It may be weak, but it can still cause damage and that’s what Trump and his supporters are worried about.
RE: ” but it can still cause damage” Well that’s the true intent of the pursuit, isn’t it. . Democrats should be careful what they wish for, particularly the down ballot contenders in 2024, local, state, and federal.
Svelez: I’m not sure “worried” is the correct word. They seem elated. Trump has taken in $12 million in campaign contributions in just the past week and one-third of this is from new contributors, including some liberals and democrats. The GA case fell apart when that goofy forewoman of the grand jury giggled her way through several TV spots that belied her biases. When your key defense witness is the forewoman of the grand jury that indicted you, the prosecutor has a problem. The Washington case is fraught with political traps because Biden is caught up in pretty much the same “crime.” All in all, this has been a good week for Trump whose campaign for POTUS just got a big bump from his opponents. Thanks and best wishes. We’re here if and when you need us and we’ll keep the light on for you!
The GA case didn’t fall apart. It’s still very much in play. It’s still has to be tried in court. That’s where we find out whether Trump did indeed tried to influence election officials to change the vote. That’s a crime in Georgia.
It’s still very much in play. It’s still has to be tried in court
You still need a True Bill. When is an Actual, legal Grand Jury going to be impaneled?
No it is not a crime. Not in GA not anywhere.
More of your typical word manglining.
“Influence” is not a crime.
Crimes are ACTS.
Speach can be a crime when it is an ORDER, and when the person giving the Order has the power to do so.
The president can not give orders to GA election officials.
Speech can also be an Act when it is a THREAT – but the criteria for Criminally threatening speech is even stricter.
The threat must be IMMEDIATE, CLEAR, and CREDIBLE.
Trump could have said to Raffensburger – “Find me10K votes or I will politically ruin you” – and that would be legal.
Further your bat schiff crazy jury foreperson ranting idiotically on national TV tanked that.
Which BTW was also a crime. GJ’s are secret. Witnesses can speak, the prosecutor and GJ members can not.
Not during, not after.
It is my understanding the GJ has been release – some time ago.
There was been no indictment.
If they were going to they would have.
No one wants to look like Bragg.
No judge wants to look like Merchan.
While Trump will likely benefit if you get further indictments – that will look even more political.
The FACT is it is unlikely. The case sucks.
You major problem is YOURSELF and your party.
You promised real criminal conduct.
You promised russian collusion.
You have told everyone for 6 years that Trump is a dangerous criminal.
He has been investigated more than any man in history. and all you manage to come up with is this nonsense ?
You promised you were bringing a mafia boss to justice,
and you do not even have tax evasion.
The core of your claim is Trump did not do something legal a specific way.
And Contra your claim – there is no actual basis to beleive that had it done as you claim to prefer you would not still be prosecuting and instead claiming he should have done it as you know claim is illegal.
You are trying to make crimes out of how he actually acted – regardless of how he acted.
It is not obvious to anyone that the way he chose to pay Cohen was illegal, and the way you say he should is not.
What is more clear is that you were going to find the way to prosecute him – no matter what.
“When your key defense witness is the forewoman of the grand jury that indicted you, the prosecutor has a problem.”
The forewoman is not a witness. Her actions don’t change the facts of the case.
“The Washington case is fraught with political traps because Biden is caught up in pretty much the same “crime.”
Nope. Biden didn’t spend 18 months hiding and refusing to turn over government documents and told his lawyers to lie. Trump did. That’s why he’s in trouble. Biden turned over documents he found immediately, so did pence. Trump refused which would constitute theft and obstruction of Justice.
The forewoman is not a witness. Her actions don’t change the facts of the case.
Again, Getting this in front of a judge, suddenly reveals all the facts, not just the cherry picked ones the prosecutors are using.
President Trump did nothing but suggest Georgia officials look at ballots that did not meet the legal standard to be counted. In Trial, all the flaws of Georgia election will be put on display. All the lack of chain of custody evidence, all the signature envelopes that are required by law to be saved, but have been destroyed. Lot of irregularities that will be the basis for a very legal request.
E – For many years, Biden recklessly handled classified documents. There was just an article this week in the Daily Mail about classified documents being held in an unlocked closet in the Penn Biden Center. We already know that Biden had documents in his garage at a time that his wastrel, drug-using, frequenlty unconscious, Russian prostitute-favoring son, was in the house. Trump’s documents, with rare exceptions, were held in a secure storage room, inspected by the FBI. Since you mentioned “government documents”, I will remind you that Barack Obama has refused to turn over ANY of his Presidential Records to NARA, and NARA is fine with that.
“Trump’s documents, with rare exceptions, were held in a secure storage room, inspected by the FBI. Since you mentioned “government documents”, I will remind you that Barack Obama has refused to turn over ANY of his Presidential Records to NARA, and NARA is fine with that.”
No, they were not secure. They were only secured AFTER being told by the FBI to secure them. The FBI was not allowed to inspect the documents and Trump constantly refused to turn them over to NARA.
Obama did no refuse to turn over any of his presidential records. NARA was in possession of them all the time. That claim is false.
Trump was deliberately hiding documents from authorities. Biden never did that and NARA was not aware of any documetns missing until Biden’s lawyers contacted them after finding them and they promptly turned them over which is a far cry from Hiding and refusing to turn them over. Trump is still in bigger trouble than biden. It is reported that Trump may still have more documents stashed on his other properties.
Svelaz, you should have been a lawyer. They all seem to work in gray areas. Most of your stuff seems to be extremely gray.
Independent Bob, Turley does the same thing. You didn’t notice that?
No I did not notice that – because it is False.
Turley pretty close to universally argues – When in doubt – it is not a crime.
Grey areas do not belong in criminal law.
That is litterally the rule of man not law.
The Tinkerbell effect is strong with this one.
“. . . the intent to commit one . . .”
Bragg did not name what that “one” is, i.e., that “crime” that Trump allegedly intended to commit. But, somehow, you apparently know what it is.
So what is that “crime” that Trump intended to commit? The intent to gawk? The intent to mope?
He doesn’t want to give away any advantage or further evidence he could use later in court.
Thats exactly what the Grand Jury is suppose to prevent. The govt abusing its power, to go after innocent citizens. According the Grand Jury, the ONLY thing the delivered a True Bill on, is a Class E misdemeanor.
Svelaz – what evidence do you have that “campaign money” was used to pay Cohen? Hillary Clinton used campaign money, but Trump did not.
Svelaz – Amendment VI to the Constitution says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Edward, thats’ correct. A speedy trial. One which has not been set yet. This is pre-trial.
Svelaz: there are at least three provisions under NY law providing for the filing of motions for speedy trial during the pretrial stage. each premised upon the reason for the motion .
A speedy trial. One which has not been set yet.
What a dolt. Speedy trial means the time from arrest, to sentencing.
I would think a legal hot shot like you would understand a simple constitutional protection included in the Bill of Rights..
Its almost like you have no understanding of the law or constitution.
Under a Felony charge, the prosecution must establish its readiness within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, i.e., the arraignment. New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30,(see e.g. People v Cox, 161 AD3d 1100, 1100).
The clock starts with arraignment. Please read NY law.
The clock is already running. Bragg has 6 months.
That is October not December.
Bragg has no choice in providing all evidence he has, including exculpatory evidence. When a person is charged with a crime, the prosecution is bound by law to provide all the evidence supporting the charge or charges, including evidence that might exonerate the defendant, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
This is a basic Constitutional right of every defendant. Bragg cannot withhold any evidence for any reason, tactical, or not. Brady, supra
If Bragg withholds any evidence, that is prosecutorial misconduct and subjects him to discipline.
He’s also, upon request by the defense, to provide a Bill of Particulars within 15 days of service of the request.
“N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 Indictment; bill of particular
…Bill of particulars upon request. Upon a timely request for a bill of particulars by a defendant against whom an indictment is pending, the prosecutor shall within fifteen days of the service of the request or as soon thereafter as is practicable, serve upon the defendant or his attorney, and file with the court, the bill of particulars…”
Criminal prosecutions are not games.
Bragg is not free to hide the ball. Not from the defendant, not from the public.
It is hard for most people – including prosecutors and jhudges to understand – but the duty of prosecutors and the courts is to Justice – not to Winning. Conversely the duty of the Defense is to the interests of their clients – not to justice.
A civil proceeding is adversarial. With each side free to serve their interests.
A criminal proceeding REQUIRES the state to seek justice – not victory.
This case is posing all kinds of problems for democrats.
The house has now issued subpeona’s There will be a protracted fight. That will make democrats look bad.
We have now learned that the Judge made political contributions to Biden, and to “Stop Republicans”. And that his daughter is very active in democratic politics.
The political contributions though small violate NY State bar ethics rules. Merchan will likely survive – as they contributions are diminimus – though this is a diminimus prosecution and this just highlights that more.
Regardless, while Merchan will survive – he will have to be more careful and he will be under more scrutiny.
Further though small, it is now established that Merchan is not ethical, and that he too has violated NY rules on campaign finance.
This will not result in his removal. The courts protect their own.
But it will further undermine the claims Trump is getting a fair trial.
It will further amplify the public percption this is all biased.
It will also amplify the perception of democrats as lawless, petty, unethical and vindictive.
And we are barely started.
Let me REPEAT, I hope this goes badly for Trump.
I hope he loses over and over motions he should win.
The actual risk to Trump in this is negliable.
Even the worst case outcome for Trump – A conviction and Merchan sentencing him to 136 years in prison.
Which will not happen. Will still redound to the benefit of Republicans and possibly Trump.
This proceding will put Bragg and The NY Courts on Trial – not Trump.
And if you win, you lose.
There is no such thing in the law anywhere ever of a crime of PURE intent,
All Crimes REQUIRE criminal ACTS.
A Legal Act does not become a crime because of YOUR guess as to the actors intent.
Further your argument that
What you claim was pointed out is WRONG.
Paying Daniels with Campaign money is what Edwards got in trouble for.
You are either lying or stupid – and obviously so.
Is there someone here who doubts that if Trump had recorded this as a campaign contribution – he would be prosecuted for illegal campaign contributions ?
The ACTUAL FACT that is obvious to most and a major part of your problem is that there is no way for Trump to have acted without left wing nuts trying to make it into a crime.
You are literally – and openly channeling Levanti Beria “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime”
I noted that Marchan has made campaign donations to Bidne and to “stop Republicans”.
Those are ethics violations for Judges in NY.
Using the same logic that is being used against Trump – those can easily be reframed as a crime.
Possibly even the same crime.
If Merchan did not claim them as a political contribution on his taxes – he is as gulty as Trump for trying to hide his ethics violation.
In fact that would be a variation on thew same campaign finance violation. It can be argued that he failed to discolse for fraudulent political reasons.
If he reported the contributions nut not specifically what they were for – he has again the same problem as Trump.
If he listed tham as charitable contributions – that implies they were to the homeless, not political campaigns.
If he identified them as ActBlue – but not he Biden campaign – that is still falsifying business records.
The point is that Anyone can apply the law stupidly, broadly, vaguely to go after anyone.
Merchan will survive this. But he will be further damaged politically.
I would note that not only is your argument that Trump could have easily avoided this a Lie and obviously so,
But it reveals the weakness of your case.
If you have multiple means to reach the same end. None of which causes Actual Harm to anyone,
One way can not be a crime while the other is not.
I would further note that your purported solution is WORSE than what Trump did. Because it is more similar to what Edwards did that resulted in prosecution.
One of the current FEC commissioners actually spoke on this.
The FEC has never – and can not ever without constitutional problems treat a private expenditure as an illegal campaign contribution where there are multiple possible motives or purposes and only one of those is political.
Money laundering requires the money to be the proceeds of illegal activity.
I know this is hard for you left wing nuts, but just as the Government can not demand to know what you do in your bedroom,
It is not entitled to demand to know how you spend your own money.
Trump could have legally paid Cohen from a numbered swiss bank account – it would not change anything.
Or shell companies in the Cayman Islands.
You can not “launder” legally obtained money.
Doing something legal in a way you do not like, does not make it illegal.
The constitutional right to privacy means that you can not make a crime out of failing to tell you or govenrment something you wish to know.
Actually the fact that it seems impossible of Far fetched is precisely why he can not try.
Most people grasp that Bragg could not get a conviction anywhere in this country but Manhattan or DC.
Many people are pointing out that Bragg likely could not get a conviction in most of the rest of NYC.
While NYC is overwhelmingly Democratic – it is nto 85% democratic anywhere but Manhattan and it is not Bat Schiff crazy anywhere but Manhattan.
Several have noted that Bragg could not convict in Staten Island, and certainly not upstate NY.
When the politics of a venue for a criminal trial determines the outcome – then you by definition have a politically corrupt prosecution.
Do you want A Wyoming DA to prosecute Bragg ? Or Biden ?
Actually Bragg’s case is likely the Strongest of the outstanding cases.
Railing about an election is just about the most protected form of free speech there is.
It is highly unlikely the Atlanta DA is going forward – Atlanta may be deep blue but GA is not, and GA recently passed laws that subject DA’s to oversight and disciplinary measures for pursuing political cases.
Further GA has conservative appeals courts and a conservative federal district court.
The Classified records case is DOA. Biden wrecked that all by himslef.
But more recently that has gotten worse. Recent Testimoney of Biden’s personal secretary reveals that the Classified Docs went to MULTIPLE insecure locations in 2017, and that they were NOT in a locked closet at Penn Biden Center, but accessible to anyone who could get into the building, including Janitors and the Chinese building owners.
And Finally the docs were NOT oricianlly discovered in Nov. 2022, but in March 2022.
Before the MAL raid. So now you have actual obstruction and coverup on the part of Joe Biden.
All of these cases have multiple very serious political and legal problems.
This is the actual blueprint of how a true democracy operates. If the mob calls for someone’s head, the leaders must respond regardless of a lawful basis. The exact reason that the Founders formed a constitutional republic.
God bless Alvin Bragg! I mean, do you know how many children are killed or maimed each year by document falsification? I can see why he ditched all those murder and assault cases. This is serious stuff.
Perhaps Bragg figures that if Andrew Weissman can pull it off, so can he.
sounds like Democrats have started the Great Purge, Stalin or Mao Style
Mr. Bragg achieved his singular objective of indicting President Trump. Nothing else matters. The legal deficiencies of the indictment or the ultimate outcome is irrelevant really. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Democrat Fascists are fighting a civil war… Republicans need to fight back…by TAKING AWAY THEIR MONEY…and FIXING Voter Fraud
-Cut 50% of Fed gov
-Move 75% of DC to Heartland
-Remove entire leadership of DOJ, IRS and FBI
-5% tax Gross wall street trans & money goes offshore
-Tax all non-profits anyone gets $100k…colleges, hospitals, sham non-profits, etc
-Ban fed aid/loans cities & college, make them fund themselves
-Jail Russian Hoax, COVID liars & Biden protectors, etc
-Ban public unions $ politics, only voters can fund politics
-Remove tax credits renewables, affordable housing, etc
-voting 1 day, in person, with ID, I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
So if it is indeed the stuff of banana republics and ending democracies to jail one’s political opponents, let’s all be clear about which political party is dragging the nation down that route. And let all in authority who care about equal justice under the law begin fiercely applying Democrats’ standards to them until they stop perverting justice to destroy our country.
Full article:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/03/trump-refused-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-democrats-have-no-such-restraint/
RE: “let all in authority who care about equal justice under the law..” Wishful thinking I fear. The braindead conversations and arguments set forth by retired Democrat supporters in my community in South Florida bear witness to this as do election results in Chicago and Wisconsin.