Below is my column in The Hill on last week’s cases and the sharp contrast to the handling of the Trump case in Manhattan. Two of these cases hold particular resonance with some of us who criticized Bragg’s prosecution.
Here is the column:
In 1976, Saul Steinburg’s hilarious “View of the World from 9th Avenue” was published on the cover of the New Yorker. The map showed Manhattan occupying most of the known world with wilderness on the other side of the Hudson River between New York and San Francisco. The cartoon captured the distorted view New Yorkers have of the rest of the country.
Roughly 50 years later, the image has flipped for many. With the Trump trial, Manhattan has become a type of legal wilderness where prosecutors use the legal system to hunt down political rivals and thrill their own supporters. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) ran on a pledge to bag former president Donald Trump. (She also sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association.)
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also pledged to get Trump. Neither specified how they would do it, but both were elected and both were lionized for bringing controversial cases against Trump.
Just beyond the Hudson River, the response to these cases has been far less positive. James secured an obscene civil penalty of almost half a billion dollars without having to show there was a single victim or dollar lost from alleged overvaluation of assets.
Through various contortions, Bragg converted a dead misdemeanor case into 34 felonies in an unprecedented prosecution. New Yorkers and the media insisted that such selective prosecution was in defense of the “rule of law.”
This week in the Supreme Court, a glimpse of the legal landscape outside of Manhattan came more sharply into view. It looked very different as the Supreme Court, with a strong conservative majority, defended the rights of defendants and upheld core principles that are being systematically gutted in New York.
In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the court held in favor of Sylvia Gonzalez, who had been arrested in Castle Hills, Texas in 2019 on a trumped-up charge of tampering with government records. She had briefly misplaced a petition on a table at a public meeting.
This was a blatant case of selective prosecution by officials whom Gonzalez had criticized. She was the only person charged in the last 10 years under the state’s records laws for temporarily misplacing a document. She argued that virtually every one of the prior 215 felony indictments involved the use or creation of fake government IDs.
Although the charges were later dropped, the case reeked of political retaliation and selective prosecution. There is no evidence that anyone else has faced such a charge in similar circumstances. Yet when she sued, the appellate court threw her case out, requiring Gonzales to shoulder an overwhelming burden of proof to establish selective prosecution for her political speech. The justices, on the other hand, reduced that burden, allowing Gonzalez to go back and make the case for selective prosecution.
Unlike the Trump case, the criminal charges against Gonzales were thrown out before trial. For Trump, selective prosecution claims were summarily dismissed, even though no case like Bragg’s appears to have ever been brought before.
The Bragg case is raw political prosecution. No one seriously argues that Bragg would have brought this case against anyone other than Trump. Indeed, his predecessor rejected the case. Yet people were literally dancing in the streets when I came out of the courthouse after the verdict against Trump. In fact, the selectivity of the prosecution was precisely why it was so thrilling for New Yorkers.
Another case decided this week was Erlinger v. United States. The justices ruled 6-3 (and not along the standard ideological lines) to send back a case in which Paul Erlinger had been convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. He was given an enhanced sentence for having three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. However, the court denied him the right to have a jury rule on the key issue of whether these prior offenses occurred on different occasions.
The court ruled that a jury had to decide this issue unanimously under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is in contrast to how the Trump case was handled, in which jurors could disagree on key aspects of the crime yet still convict the defendant.
In Trump’s trial, Judge Juan Merchan effectively guaranteed a conviction by telling jurors that they did not have to agree with specificity on what had occurred in the case to convict Trump. The only way to get beyond the passage of the statute of limitations on the dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records had been to allege that the bookkeeping violation in question occurred to conceal another crime. Bragg did not bother to state clearly what that crime was, originally alluding to four different crimes.
It was not until the end of the case that Merchan would lay out three possible crimes for the jury. All the way up to the final instructions in the case, legal analysts on CNN and other outlets expressed doubt about what the actual theory of the criminal conduct was in the case.
Despite spending little time on these secondary crimes at trial, Merchan told the jury that they could convict if they believed that invoices and other documents had been falsified to hide federal election violations, other falsification violations or a tax violation.
Those are very different theories of a criminal conspiracy. Under one theory, Trump was hiding an affair with a porn actress with the payment of hush money before the election. Under another theory, he was trying to reduce a tax burden for someone else (that part was left hazy). As a third alternative, he might have falsified the documents to hide the falsification of other documents, a perfectly spellbinding circular theory.
If those sound like they could be three different cases, then you are right. Yet Merchan told the jurors that they did not have to agree on which fact-pattern or conspiracy had occurred. They could split 4-4-4 on the secondary crime motivating the misdemeanors and just declare that some secondary crime was involved.
That was all that is required in New York when in pursuit of Trump.
Neither of these two cases is controlling in the Trump case, although there are two others pending on the use of obstruction (Fischer v. United States) and presidential immunity (Trump v. United States) that could affect some of the cases against Trump. But Gonzales and Erlinger demonstrate the high level of protections that we normally afford criminal defendants. A court with a 6-3 conservative majority just ruled for the rights of all defendants in defense of the rule of law.
That is not how the law is seen from 9th Avenue.
It all comes down to the legal map. As even CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig observed, this case of contorting the law for a selective prosecution would not have succeeded outside of an anti-Trump district.
On the New Yorker map circa 2024, once you cross the Hudson River eastward, you enter a legal wilderness.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
In the spirit of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a presidential candidate should not be treated less favorably just because of his age.
https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
True
Instead it should be based solely on whether he can remember the name of his cabinet members or how many times he needs the Easter Bunny’s guidance on where to go.
In 2019,
“ 3. “A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account — after he became president — to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign.”
Bragg started investigating after that.
Here, our friend Svelaz-George demonstrates his ignorance again. First of all, he claims that Fat Albert started the investigation. We all know that the investigation started before Bragg came into office, and that Bragg campaigned on being the best suited to continue that investigation until they got him. In fact, Fat Albert dropped it and picked it back ul after Colangelo arrived. Of course, we are all to believe that it was just a coincidence that he was involved with Luh-teesh-uh’s persecution as well.
More importantly, what exactly in that statement is Svelaz alleging is unlawful, or indicative of a crime? There is no law against, nor has anyone argued that, paying hush money to promote a campaign is illegal.
Was it a campaign contribution crime? No, because that testimony indicates that Trump paid it himself, and there are no limitations to that.
Was it a failure to properly report a campaign contribution? Not according to the FEC. Why? Because if you’re not limited in how much you spend on your own campaign, whats the point in the feds tracking it? Certainly not so they can prosecute you. Its a non sequitor.
Unless you’re Trump.
The Manhattan DA went digging BECAUSE it was Trump. Period.
This is the FIRST TIME that the Manhattan DA office has EVER prosecuted someone for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree without also charging the underlying crime.
The first.
Trump didn’t falsify records. His bookkeeper legally recorded the transaction as legal fees since the money went to Cohen, and his CPA certified it. This charge is made up and could be directed at a large percentage of taxpayers.
A businessman might want to entertain clients and have his lawyer take them to a strip joint he doesn’t want to be associated with. He might record this transaction in his leger as business expenses or legal fees, depending on the circumstances. However, there is no column in the computer register for stripper fees.
Another first for tRump that’s why he is the best.s/
Yea, the dems have succeeded in gaslighting gullible people like George into thinking that hush money payments during an election are somehow a crime.
No, gullible people think it was about paying Daniels.
The crime was trying to hide the nature of the payments by calling them “legal expenses” when they were not. If Trump categorized them as reimbursements for paying off a porn star he would have been in the clear. He didn’t want to leave a trail of evidence that he paid off a porn star to keep quiet. So he chose to lie on his business records which is a crime in NY.
Blah blah blah. You said he investigated based on Cohens statement. You made that up. It’s another of your “research” snafu’s.
YOU literally said it was about paying Daniels. Gullible.
A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account — after he became president — to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign.”
You said this was why Bragg started investigating. No crime. Just a payment to Daniels.
Regurgitating what we already understand isn’t going to deflect from your ignorant statements, Svelaz. “which is a crime in NY” [in a mocking voice]
Research = makin’ shit up—Svelaz
Isn’t Legal Expenses what Hillary called her payments to Perkins Coie for the Steele Dossier?
Paying a lawyer is a legal expense. It was an internal ledger of his personal checkbook.
And it wasn’t a business record, it was the equivalent of his check book
And every one of those 700+ cases included charges for the underlying crime not as a standalone crime
Waters,
Here is what I replied to Sammy, below,
Sammy, normal, sane Democrats much smarter than you even think the NY case was a sham.
Former NY Gov. Cuomo says Trump’s hush money case should not have been brought forward
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/former-ny-gov-cuomo-says-trumps-hush-money-case-should-not-have-been-brought
“As a person who owns property in Manhattan I would be happier if Alvin Bragg took care of criminals who make it impossible to ride the subway or walk the streets, than spending $10 million of taxpayer money trying Donald Trump on nonsense.”
“I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,”
“You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was, he [Bragg] doesn’t like [Trump].”
— Judge Judy Sheindlin
Just replace Sammy with Sleezve.
Waters,
“ First of all, he claims that Fat Albert started the investigation.”
No, that’s not what I claimed. You’re deliberately misconstruing what I said. I said he started investigating Trump. Not that initiated the investigation. I thought you were smarter than that.
“ There is no law against, nor has anyone argued that, paying hush money to promote a campaign is illegal.”
That was not the crime. You’ve been told multiple times what he was charged with. Being a “nuclear engineer” would infer you’re smarter than that. Apparently not.
“ The Manhattan DA went digging BECAUSE it was Trump. Period.”
Nope. Cohen provided the means to investigate further. Falsifying business records is a crime in NY. Trump was found guilty. Cohen was charged with the same crime. How come Turley didn’t defend cohen against the same charge if it was not a crime?
No, that’s not what I claimed. You’re deliberately misconstruing what I said. I said he started investigating Trump.
Jeezus, you are dense. HE didn’t start investigating Trump. The Manhattan DA’s office was ALREADY investigating Trump when Fat Albert was campaigning.
You are making it about who started it or when, not me. Try to keep up. I claimed that Cohens testimony was NOT the impetus for Bragg, or at least not a legitimate one. You cite the timing as proof that it was. That’s ridiculous. Of course Bragg got involved in the investigation AFTER 2019, because he WASN’T THE DA until AFTER 2019.
LMAO keep digging that hole, bruh
“ There is no law against, nor has anyone argued that, paying hush money to promote a campaign is illegal.”
That was not the crime.
Yet, that is precisely what you cited as the reason for Braggs investigation.
Make up your mind. LMAO Round and round we go.
“Nope. Cohen provided the means to investigate further.”
That is demonstrably a lie. The Manhattan DA’s investigation, that was dropped, was AFTER Cohens testimony in 2019.
You need to review the timeline and come back with a better understanding.
Just makin’ shit up.
Not gonna lie, I love it when Waters goads New George into digging the hole even deeper.
Put down the shovel, George! You can’t dig your way out!
You’ve been told multiple times what he was charged with. Being a “nuclear engineer” would infer you’re smarter than that. Apparently not.
LOL like any of us need a dimwit like you to tell us what the charge was for the 86th time. We have read the indictment, dum dum. And we all understand it. Your 8th grade attempt to gaslight won’t fly this time either, sorry. Do better.
As for my background, you got schooled pretty bad on this already. I have often demonstrated that my intellect is superior to yours. But that seems like a really low bar, I must say.
What he was charged with was not the point of this particular discussion. Red herring much? Fat Albert didn’t stumble onto a questionable business ledger entry while he was taking his Sunday morning crap. Get a grip, man. This is getting boring.
To spice it up, why don’t you tell us about your background, so we can all have a good laugh. Not that we will believe you.
What exactly was falsified? Cohen submitted an invoice and Trump paid him
His staff testified that they assumed a check to a lawyer is for legal expenses so that is how it was recorded,
34 counts is also borderline harassment
If you robbed someone of 20 $5 bills, you don’t get charged with 20 counts of robbery
Mr. Turley, you are correct in your assessment, now, just what will the lame-*ss citizens of the greater NYC area do – dance in the street over the dead body of justice. As a resident of Norther NY I do wish the entire 5 boroughs would just float away into the Atlantic and allow the rest of the state to regain its reputation as level-headed republicans without the yoke of woke maniacs from the cesspool of greater NYC.
Mr. Turley, you are correct in your assessment, now, just what will the lame-*ss citizens of the greater NYC area do – dance in the street over the dead body of justice. As a resident of Norther NY I do wish the entire 5 boroughs would just float away into the Atlantic and allow the rest of the state to regain its reputation as level-headed republicans without the yoke of woke maniacs from the cesspool of greater NYC.
On the New Yorker map circa 2024, once you cross the Hudson River eastward, you enter a legal wilderness.
Sir Thomas More’s point (A Man For All Seasons) to Roper was absolutely spot on. That legal wilderness is a lawfare desert.
OLLY,
Well said.
It is telling when even former NY governor and a former AG of NYC, Andrew Cuomo says this case should of never been brought forward.
And then Judge Judy says, “You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was, he [Bragg] doesn’t like [Trump].”
She summed up the entire case with that comment, they dont like Trump. That was the basis of the whole case.
She summed up the entire case with that comment, they dont like Trump. That was the basis of the whole case.
Yes sir. That is the poisonous tree feeding their lawfare, that we can all see. The question that needs to be answered is, what is at the root of this “dislike”, that we don’t see?
My opinion is that root is very deep, going back at least 60 years, when it became “acceptable” for the Regime to assassinate a sitting president. “6 ways to Sunday” from the Senate Majority Leader and these are just two of them. Trump is a threat to the Regime…period!
OLLY,
What I find most concerning is how some of these extremists think this kind of behavior, lawfare, is acceptable. They cannot or will not see the how dangerous this is. And some seem willing to go to any lengths to “Get Trump!”
Only one lesson from history to realize and act upon, New York:
What decision by citizens of any domain was/is typically made when a state becomes corrupt and intrusive? LEAVE or STAY and prostrate yourself. Either way, you then have the rest of your life to contemplate ‘what might have been’.
I like to write about my medical experience because the practice of medicine is extremely close, in so many ways, to the practice of law. Although Attorneys and Physicians will deny that, my observations say it’s true. Very individualistic but with groups that work together or pull apart on basic issues. Much of what I saw in medicine is mirrored in the law. I have been fortunate to have many close friends in both professions and it’s fun to see both take the measure of the other profession especially in a social setting and I find both professions fascinating. Nearly every time the professor points out a judge or judges or attorney, I see a medical professions doing the same thing in the context of the medical profession. We could learn a lot from each other.
Very much agree with you GEB. One of my closest friends, a “brother of another mother” type scenario, was my personal lawyer for decades then I later campaigned for him to get elected Circuit Judge. He reads my research papers and I read his court orders. The similarities between medicine and law are many. Like the recent trend in court opinions, medical opinions have lost their grounding in evidenced based data. e.g. SCOTUS Roe v Wade was an egregious ruling. On the academic medical research side, I relish understanding and proposing, after doing much scientific investigation, molecular mechanisms of pathologies with one caveat: future research can revise once embraced paradigms or outright reject them, just like law. People, especially atheists, hide behind their dogma that unequivocal scientific facts rule our rational world. If only that were true. Recall the fallacy you probably learned in medical school, like me, that most of our genome is made of “junk DNA”. Looking back on that now rejected paradigm, given what we are learning today in epigenetics, that was truly an embarrassing fiat. Nothing is certain. Everything changes. Today Im at John Hopkins for this very reason: scientific meeting to discuss evolving paradigms on Virology, Cardiology and Immunology
Cheers!
“Nothing is certain.”
Including that?
Although I frequently agree with the Professor, I have to disagree to a degree today. The divide was very apparent long before 1976. The wilderness west of the Hudson even included California periodically . The only real blip otherwise was the Fort at the south end of Lake Michigan. Raised in an Army Family, I had lived in Yokohama, Japan; San Luis Obispo, Ca; Mannheim , Germany, Atlanta, Ga; and been visiting other cities all around Europe. Crossed the Pacific twice and the Atlantic twice, 3 times by ship and once by a prop driven medical evacuation plane. By the age of 8. Remember them all except Japan. So that gives me a wide base of experience.
When I left Georgia after medical school in 1974 to go to the Texas Medical Center in Houston for 5 years, I met an even a wider group of people from everywhere in the world
All these people except one group had an incredible grasp of the world in general. The most parochial group I ever met were the from New York City and its environs. First, most were learning to drive for the first time, had no concept of how life flowed and moved through the world except for the concrete canyons of New York. No knowledge at all of the rest of the country or even what went on there day in and day out.
We even used to joke in medical school about our brother students who were from small towns in South Georgia who were not as worldly as those of us from Macon, Savannah, Columbus or “gasp” Atlanta. Yet even so those humble classmates knew more about the world than fellow medical trainees from the northeast.
It was disconcerting that people from a large metropolitan area were so ignorant. Their medical training in the northeast was supposed to set the standard but, in fact, was very deficient compared to many of us from the southeast, midwest and west. We were trained with the same books but then had a heavy emphasis on direct patient care (you know those people that are the whole focus of our being) but so many of our northeast brothers had rudimentary patient care experience in medical school. This was a severe handicap starting an internship and residency. The individuals from the “lessor schools” were up to speed and managing patients whereas the Northeastern trainees were still learning fundamentals. Many never caught up and what you did as an intern and resident had a direct bearing of who got the big time fellowships of cardiology, critical care, cardiac surgery and specialties like that. It was not by the book, it was what your attending physician saw you do day by day with your patients that determined who won or was offered the fellowships.
It was unfortunate because many of those young people were bright but were trapped and hindered by the parochialism of the area and their medical schools. More about reputation than fundamentals.
Even in the 2000’s the medical board and legislature in Indiana had stronger monitoring of opiates dispensing than the programs in Massachusetts. When I was at Harvard for CME almost every year, many of the practitioners were astounded with the opiate monitoring program in Indiana. Not perfect but you had to watch the doctors, the pharmacies, the pharmacists and the customers in the pharmacy and monitor the nurses and anesthesiologists all with the same degree of scrutiny. I was surprised with what the Massachusetts did not have. Being home to the New England Journal of Medicine and all that.
I don’t think “lessor” means what you think it means.
Peter Zeihan predicts that Biden will win the election:
Anyone else wonder why none of the jurors have been given interviews? Almost immediate were jurors coming to the press after the conviction of Hunter Biden. Do the jurors also have a gag order?
“Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is
impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn’t. There are values higher
than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren’t.
“While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of
independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem—I beat you to it, I reached them
first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral
code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them
the way to live by another morality—mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.
“All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who
have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be
found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do
not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own
us. You don’t. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.
“We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of
unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that
the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is
guilt.
“I told them the nature of the game you were playing . . .”
Sometimes it takes longer than it should to say “No” to that game.
Thanks for posting that passage.
who are you quoting?
Also, I am not a legal scholar but I’ve never heard of long past alleged misdemeanor violations being resurrected then turned into felonies without any victims! And no unanimous verdict? Pick one? Where are we in a banana republic?
“ Also, I am not a legal scholar”
You’re also not an expert on NY law. If you’ve never heard of “ misdemeanor violations being resurrected then turned into felonies without any victims! And no unanimous verdict” then how would know that’s not possible?
You have never heard of it because you don’t practice law in NY. So how would you know it’s not a thing?
Is this the best you can do, George? Write disparaging replies to and individual that admits ignorance while posing a question? And then follow that up with the non-statement “So how would you know it’s not a thing?”
Such an approach suggests a high degree of immaturity or an old dude that wishes to do nothing more than inject and participate only for the sake of participation.
It’s not a disparaging remark. It’s an observation of fact.
No, there is no “observation of fact’. The commenter stated no knowledge and only posed questions. You responded by NOT answering the question and adding NO facts.
To repeat, your “approach suggests a high degree of immaturity or an old dude that wishes to do nothing more than inject and participate only for the sake of participation.”. Your subsequent response only underscores that observation.
Do you just feel a need to reply to everyone, douche.
What the fvck was the point of your post?
You’ve zero experience at law in NY either, but here you are, explaining to turley what NY law is and how its “different”.
I don’t have experience, but I do understand it after researching it. Which is more than most do here.
But you’ve been proven wrong time and time again, George.
No I haven’t. Hurling insults and whining is not proving one wrong.
Dude, waters has proven you wrong so many times we have lost count.
the insults were just icing on the cake LMAO
You’re research is shit, frankly. You’ve proven it time and again. You claimed that the SOL could be tolled for a golf trip without the state showing cause. You wanted to remove a basic due process right just because there is a statute that allows it, with zero reason for it. You were shown both case law and a NY State judge’s legal opinion and you still didn’t own your ignorance.
Your research is flawed because you start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. Just like this case.
“ You claimed that the SOL could be tolled for a golf trip without the state showing cause.”
LOL!!!
Staying in Florida and DC tolled the SOL. PLUS an additional year was added due to Covid. It applied to all SOL’s at the time.
If it really was an issue Trump’s team failed to make a case about it. The SOL was irrelevant.
The SOL is irrelevant. Not because of Trump’s team, idiot, because he was charged with a felony. Your ignorance and now doubling down on the stupidity is relevant.
Staying in Florida and DC tolled the SOL.
Double down on stupid. No, it didn’t. Because the State must show how that hindered their investigation or prosecution of the case. COVID did precisely that. Thanks for proving my point.
You were shown the case law AND the judge’s ruling AFTER YOU said it could be tolled for a golf trip. YOU said that. Own it.
Do you enjoy acting stupid?
How can you tell when Svelaz is finally embarrassed by his own stupidity, and is about to start deflecting and obfuscating?
When his response starts with “LOL!!”
George says “I don’t have experience”. Then, to quote you George, by definition, “You’re also not an expert on NY law.”
And without citing your ‘research’ sources, how do we know that you do “more than most do here.”?
As stated previously to you, George: Your “approach suggests a high degree of immaturity or an old dude that wishes to do nothing more than inject and participate only for the sake of participation.”
I was born and raised in NYS but that’s not the issue. No one does this unless you’re an angry passed over AG who is Hell bent on revenge against Trump because he didn’t get his SCOTUS appointment and thank God he didn’t.
So, you’re implying the People’s Republic of NY practices law this way? No, they do not. At least that was never the case until Trump decided to run again for POTUS. I laugh at you that you think a non unanimous jury is OK in NYS. It’s not “a thing” anywhere in these 50 states and that’s why I would like to hear from some of these dolts who sat through this trial. Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or are you among those who are oppressed? In that same vein, arresting someone and not telling them the specific nature of their alleged crimes until jury instructions is also not part of this Constitution. Those charges weren’t spelled out until the “elections expert” dummy, leftist, judge who parenthetically, wouldn’t allow a REAL expert witness testify to the issues on behalf of the defense and gave the jury his own made up bilge. The fix was in before the jury was ever seated and everyone except those who are among the brain dead left knew it. Then the moron Biden (redundant) contributor told the jury pick one or more and you don’t need to be unanimous on any one. This goes beyond convoluted to the real whacko Irwin Corey diatribes.
Only someone bereft of brain matter would assume that’s the way they do things in NY or any other state. Unless, of course, you happen to be Trump or his associates. You leftist wing nuts no longer hide it like your ilk latrashy james and bimbo braggg. You have a nice day.
Even so, you have identified some of the most egregious aspects of this case. It does have the appearance of a banana republic to many of us who are admitted to the New York bar. It’s also extremely frightening.
Catherine Cassidy,
Thank you for your legal input and insight.
I think the banana republic aspect of this whole thing is the reason why Democrat former NY governor and NYC AG Andrew Cuomo has spoken out about the case and Judge Judy’s comments. They see the lawfare and how dangerous it is to our judicial system.
Well, the word “contrived” doesn’t begin to explain it. And now the conviction will be the centerpiece of the Dem’s campaign.
Catherine,
Well said.
They sure are trying to use the conviction as their centerpiece. But I think it is backfiring on them as more and more lawyers, judges, legal scholars are coming out and saying what we have seen with our own eyes; it was a Stalinesque show trial.
The US criminal justice system sucks. It is common for innocent people to get convicted, people to get draconian sentencing, and there be all types of due process violations. In comparison Trump was treated with kid gloves. Republicans never cared one lick till Trump was in the hot seat.
Sammy. Seriously dude. Do you have a single intelligent thought in that head??
You’re a douche.
Sammy,
Thanks for another astounding post making unsubstantiated claims!
By the way, Sammy, have you had a chance to read the Espionage Act yet? You were tossing it around a few months ago BEFORE it was revealed that pre-POTUS Joe Biden intentionally provided classified information to a writer and publisher for a few million bucks. Any great insights on the application of the Espionage Act under those circumstances, Sammy? Show us you really care and explain your duplicity, Sammy!
Sammy, normal, sane Democrats much smarter than you even think the NY case was a sham.
Former NY Gov. Cuomo says Trump’s hush money case should not have been brought forward
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/former-ny-gov-cuomo-says-trumps-hush-money-case-should-not-have-been-brought
“As a person who owns property in Manhattan I would be happier if Alvin Bragg took care of criminals who make it impossible to ride the subway or walk the streets, than spending $10 million of taxpayer money trying Donald Trump on nonsense.”
“I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,”
“You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was, he [Bragg] doesn’t like [Trump].”
— Judge Judy Sheindlin
NY STATE, DEM’s Leadership, AG’s and Left wing Radical DEM’s have ruined NY State. High Taxes, Crime, KANGROO COURTS etc. Perhaps the rest of NY State excluding NY City can form their own state without the Radical DEM Leadership.
Bragg didn’t target Trump because he is Trump. Remember, it was Cohen who shined a spot light on Trump’s unlawful actions. The charge of falsifying business records has been brought by the Manhattan DA 755 times since 2020, with three involving campaign finance violations. Clearly Bragg was not just targeting Trump. Because NYC is a major financial hub they have specific laws regarding the falsification of business documents. Turley seems to keep forgetting that. Of course NYC is a “legal silo.” Financial law in NY is going to be different than financial law in Charlotte NC or Los Angeles CA. It’s the same thing when it comes to defining fraud. Each state is going to have their own particular definition for a particular violation.
“Bragg didn’t target Trump because he is Trump.”
Stopped reading after that lie
BS. You hate Trump as much as Bragg and Merchan.
Trump put himself in that position. The fact that Cohen amplified the focus on him after being thrown under the bus made Bragg’s pursuit that much easier. You should be blaming Cohen. Not Bragg.
You see, in NEW YORK, the way it works, is you get charged for a crime that NO ONE had to go looking for, because there was a VICTIM. And then, you get prosecuted for THAT crime. And at the same time, you get prosecuted for falsifying business records to cover up that crime.
Thats how it works in new york. Unless you’re Trump.
Get a grip, dude. You sound unhinged.
The charge of falsifying business records has been brought by the Manhattan DA 755 times since 2020,
Cite your source for this.
And if you cite a news article, or wikipedia, I am going to laugh you out the door again.
Also, 755 counts is not bringing charges 755 times.
How many of those were FBR1?
And how many were NOT in conjunction with prosecution for other crimes?
No one needs numbers to know that Trump was targeted, but I suspect you’re starting your prevarications off quickly this week.
Trump was charged based on claims brought forth by Cohen. If Cohen didn’t say anything Bragg wouldn’t have much reason to pursue the claims. Not without Cohen’s cooperation.
“ Also, 755 counts is not bringing charges 755 times.”
Bragg has brought charges of falsification of business records 755 times in other cases. Meaning this is a regular occurrence in NY. Being that NYC is a major financial hub it is going to happen and it does happen.
“ How many of those were FBR1?”
Don’t know. That does not mean they are any less relevant. But if three involved campaign finance violations then perhaps three.
It can’t be a prevarication when the facts are not in dispute. Cohen did point out Trump’s violations during congressional hearings. That caught Bragg’s attention. Trump is known to engage in fraud, naturally it’s going to attract scrutiny. This time Bragg had Trump’s personal lawyer as a witness.
Answer his questions, dick head.
Notice how George calls his own unsourced claims “facts not in dispute”. He’s a slick one, but not very bright. Definitely Svelaz.
That caught Bragg’s attention.
Another LIE
You just cant stop lying.
This case had Braggs “attention” before he even came into office.
It got renewed “attention” when Colangelo showed up. Get a grip dude. You sound unhinged.
“ This case had Braggs “attention” before he even came into office.”
Yeah, because of Cohens testimony in Congress.
In 2019,
“ 3. “A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account — after he became president — to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign.”
Bragg started investigating after that.
You’re so full of shit its not even funny.
Bragg didnt start this investigation.
Obviously you’re not reading for comprehension. I didn’t say he was the one who started the whole thing. What DID say is Bragg didn’t investigate Trump until after Cohen testified before Congress.
You seem to have trouble comprehending.
What DID say is Bragg didn’t investigate Trump until after Cohen testified before Congress.
So there was no point to this statement. Got it.
He also didn’t investigate Trump in 2012. For the same goddam reason. He wasn’t the DA then.
What an idiot. Do you enjoy looking this stupid?
Buh buh buh Bragg didn’t investigate Trump until after Covid 19 came to be?
Yea, also irrelevant, dipshit.
Buh buh buh Bragg didn’t investigate Trump until after he ate a hot dog from the street vendor at 34th and Broadway.
Also irrelevant, dipshit.
Buh buh buh Bragg didn’t investigate Trump until he was the DA.
No shit.
Comprehend?
And exactly what was he investigating in that statement??
God, you’re an idiot.
LMAO
If you can’t figure that out then that’s your problem. Not mine.
LMAO
Nothing. And that’s YOUR problem.
Love it when you get to this point. Happened quick today.
You’re asking for something that is clearly obvious, but you choose to ignore it because you don’t want to acknowledge it.
If its so obvious, just say it.
LIAR
WHAT EXACTLY, in that statement, was a crime or indicative that a crime had been committed? There is ZERO probable cause in that statement.
ZERO.
If you disagree, name it.
Otherwise, you’re just pinhead little kunt.
2019???
Do you even know when bragg came into office
You’re embarrassing yourself dude
You dont know because apparently you just made those numbers up.
“Bragg has brought charges of falsification of business records 755 times in other cases.”
You are consciously ignoring key elements of the Trump case, in order to spread the lie that it is just run-of-the-mill.
Your deceptive ways never cease.
I pointed this out to him with specificity, from his own citation He wont have an answer, but he’ll try.
As for the number 755, he admits that he made that up.
Waters, you didn’t want an article citation or anything else. So I provided you with the data that can be attributed to Bragg’s time as DA. Use your engineering prowess to figure it out.
I took the study you provided as a good citation. They gave facts. I am not interested in Vox’s take on it, and you are now too embarrassed to cite it.
Or, as i suspect, you just made it up.
The study you linked to showed EXACTLY what Turley argued. That this case was not only unusual, it was unprecedented.
Every time Manhattan has prosecuted FBR1, it was IN CONJUCTION WITH and BECAUSE OF ANOTHER CHARGED CRIME.
“ I am not interested in Vox’s take on it, and you are now too embarrassed to cite it.
Or, as i suspect, you just made it up.”
Didn’t make anything up. YOU already made it clear you won’t accept anything I give you. You’re just going to whine and complain more. You’re on your own to figure it out.
“ As for the number 755, he admits that he made that up.”
Where did I admit that?
by not citing your 4th hand source
That’s not an admission. Nice try.
HIS case is not run of the mill. However charges of falsifying business records is. Trump is a former president charged with a crime. That’s the only distinction. Charges of falsifying business records in NY are not uncommon or rare.
The key elements are he intentionally conspired to falsify business records. A jury unanimously found him guilty. Where’s the deception?
EVERY prosecution by the Manhattan DA in the last 4 years, of FBR1, has included a prosecution for the underlying crime.
Except this one.
That’s the distinction, dum dum.
So incase you don’t get that, because you’ve shown your low IQ:
Every case of FBR1 was not really a case of FBR1. It was another crime that was prosecuted, and the FBR1 charge was thrown in. Comprehend?
So, you’re contradicting yourself. Nice.
“ Every case of FBR1 was not really a case of FBR1.”
Because you say so. Riiiight.
It’s funny how you keep changing the rationale every time you post.
Seems you don’t comprehend, dum dum. Read it again, or get someone smart to explain it to you.
It was tacked onto the underlying charge. Comprehend?
As for the number 755, he admits that he made that up.
Waters,
“ Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/survey-new-york-felony-falsification-of-business-records-just-security.pdf
Lmao thats your source??? So you just made up the number.
Whats funny is how you clumsily avoid the most relevant question. How many FBR FIRST DEGREE cases were brought, NOT IN CONJUCTION WITH THE UNDERLYING CRIME(S).
Your source likely didnt bother with that because like you they:
Started with a conclusion and searched for anything to affirm it.
You do understand that you are a laughingstock at this point, right?
“Can you honestly say that any other person in the world, in any other court in the world, would have been treated the same?“
Yes. Others have been charged with falsifying business records in NY. Trump has not been singled out.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/survey-new-york-felony-falsification-of-business-records-just-security.pdf
Same irrelevant link^^^^
Just as i suspected.
EVERY ONE of the examples cited in that link INCLUDE a prosecution and conviction for the UNDERLYING CRIME.
I love it when your own citations prove your ignorance.
Laughingstock.
“Didn’t target Trump”? “Not just targeting Trump”.Please, you embarass yourself. No wonder this country is ablaze.
What nonsense. I am sorry I wasted my time reading this drivel.
Turley says, “On the New Yorker map circa 2024, once you cross the Hudson River eastward, you enter a legal wilderness.” I think he got this confused. The legal wilderness IS New York and the rest of the country, that little strip of land between the Hudson River and the western coast of California is the real America where the real rule of law prevails. And it will prevail against New York in November, as well.
@jjc: That’s why Turley said “eastward.” He said the same thing you’re saying, only better.
You have to wonder was Boeing also training lawyers and they all sought employment at some of these DA’s offices?
Turley is being rather obtuse.
“ For Trump, selective prosecution claims were summarily dismissed, even though no case like Bragg’s appears to have ever been brought before.”
Yes, they were dismissed because Trump did not meet the burden of proof that he was selectively prosecuted. Turley left out the fact that to make a selective persecution defense of, a defendant must show that he was singled out for race, religion, or some other arbitrary classification and that other similarly situated defendants were not prosecuted for the same offense. Trump was unable to do so.
“ In Trump’s trial, Judge Juan Merchan effectively guaranteed a conviction by telling jurors that they did not have to agree with specificity on what had occurred in the case to convict Trump.”
They were told what NY law required. Turley keeps forgetting it’s a state law.
Under New York law, a jury must be unanimous on the existence each element of the crime but not on every detail on how the crime was committed. For a conspiracy charge, the jury must be unanimous that the conspirators committee an ‘overt act to further the conspiracy’ but they can disagree on whether that act was securing a getaway car or making an explosive device.
Trumps case is not a case about a sentencing enhancement but about the level of crime Trump committed.
Turley is comparing apples to oranges and he’s relying on his readers ignorance and naivety to not know the difference by leaving out key aspects of the law.
So is your argument that Donald J Smith, owner of a haberdashery on 47th Street, would have also been prosecuted for 34 felony counts based off a nearly 8 year old records violation? Trump was singled out because he is running for president and Alvin Bragg does not want him to win. In fact, Bragg campaigned on “getting Trump”. That’s the very definition of selective prosecution and certainly meets the “arbitrary classification” requirement. The Bragg prosecution had literally never been done before. How does that not meet the “selective prosecution” threshold in your own mind? Trump’s failure to get the case dismissed says more about the court, which also seemed hellbent on getting him convicted, than it did about the legal merits of the case.
Remember, Trump was convicted of misrepresenting entirely legal payments to Stormy Daniels, and that this misrepresentation somehow concealed another crime, a crime which the prosecutors themselves were more than a little vague on. Can you honestly say that any other person in the world, in any other court in the world, would have been treated the same?
I think lack of unanimity on the unlawful means will not survive a due process challenge. What you are saying is that if there were 12 possible unlawful means each could be voted down 11-1 and the defendant could still be convicted, if a different juror voted for each of the different ones.
Sounds like it’s New York state law that is defective, not Turley’s legal reasoning.
Turley is intentionally mischaracterizing NY law. He has to. Because he is required to argue in defense of Trump due to his Fox News contract.
Each state has its own particular laws regarding financial crimes. Trump chose to violate them in NY where he was subject to NY law. If it happened in NC the outcome would have depended on what NC financial crimes law. What is legal in one state isn’t necessarily illegal in another. Turley should know that.
Knock it off with the Fox News horseshit, pea brain. Thats been flailed about by your predecessors to the ridicule of all.
Cite the relevant text from that contract , or show us that he even has a contract, or go sit in the corner and jerk your tiny dick.
Thank you!
Please, Darren, don’t delete this comment. It was the best laugh I’ll have all day and the recipient is a known threat to democracy… Diogenes
You’re the fvcking ignorant one, ya douchebag.
On Monday, January 20, 2025 at Noon, Double Haters will be vindicated [.]
Being relevant and recognized won’t matter anymore, whether your President or not.
The Faction will get it’s War, The Secrets Keep, The Music played on.
By the end of the next Administration January 20th, 2029 (Saturday @ Noon),
The Faction will have gotten all of what it wants.
All will be well on; Wall Street, K Street, and in the ‘City of Magnificent Distances’.
I doubt selective prosecution will succeed on appeal. The following have the best chances in my view:
1. Inadequate specification of charges before trial;
2. No need for unanimity on unlawful means;
3. Prejudicial witness testimony and excessive scope of cross if Trump testified (Weinstein); and possibly
4. Limitation of scope of testimony by Brad Smith.
@Daniel: With all due respect, none of that matters. Merchan, Biden et al know perfectly well the case won’t stand up on appeal. It doesn’t need to. This is simply a very cynical operation to throw Trump in jail, get the orange jumpsuit/perp walk photo opp, and silence him up to and through the election. Just the fact of throwing Trump in jail before and during the RNC will be absolutely devastating to Trump. People are going to panic. The Supreme Court is going on their annual 3 month vacation in a few days and the New York Appeals Court is in bed with Merchan and Biden. The soonest Trump can reasonably expect anybody to get him out of jail is October when SCOTUS returns, and considering the glacial pace at which they move, it’s quite possible, plausible, and even probable that he will still be in jail on November 5. Of course this conviction will be overturned on appeal, if Trump lives long enough to go through the whole excruciatingly slow judicial process. So what? They’re not going to redo the election. They’re not going to erase the orange jumpsuit pix or the perp walk pix from the public consciousness. They’re not going to erase the damage that will be done to the country by another four years of the Biden hologram or the damage to public confidence in the judicial system which, unless steps are taken to put safeguards in place, will never, ever be restored.
I can not believe that they are stupid enough to send Trump to jail. But then, you never know.
so when do we start to JAIL lawless judges, DA, AG, Gov, DOJ, FBI, etc?
Turley misstates the nature of the charge. The falsification was alleged to conceal one crime, NYL 17-152. That is a conspiracy to influence an election by unlawful means. It is with respect to the unlawful means that there were three options: a federal campaign violation, falsifying records and a tax violation (it was not explained how a tax violation could have influenced an election). The instruction was that the jury did not have to be unanimous about which unlawful means was used, so long as they all concluded that some unlawful means was used. I don’t think this affects the conclusion of the article but it is important to state the situation clearly.
Daniel I am SURE you would have voted for the Fascist in Europe in 1930’s
I bet you have NO PROBLEM with the Russian Hoax Conspiracy and the FACT that NOT ONE of the Conspirators went to jail!
You just LOVE fascism…where lawless democrats and their friend and families steal billions….while Illegals pour over the border!
Your point is a distinction without a difference. A-hole Merchan and d-head Bragg are corrupt. They should be stripped of their law licenses. Not prosecuted — enough of that already — but prevented from using the court system to pursue such corrupt political acts.
1) Federal Campaign Violation – FEDERAL not state. The DOJ declined to prosecute,
2) Falsifying Records – Misdemeanor AND the Statute of Limitations had run out,
3) Tax Violation – In addition to your comment, they talked about how he reported the payments on his company’s books, NOT on his actual tax returns.
I dont think so. The conspiracy to promote an election was at the core of 2 of the underlying crimes. The other was simply tax fraud. Thats a crime regardless of whether it involved an election.
Also, the jury was not drawn from Trump’s peers. He had as much chance of winning in Manhattan as an Orthodox Jew would have of be acquitted by a Dearborn Michigan jury.
Trump shouldn’t have violated the law in NYC.
QED
do you are good with the Bidens taking millions from China?
Non sequitur.
But what, precisely, IS the law in New York state? Seems pretty lawless to most of us.
Wally is always so profound.
Weeks ago I asked the lawyers on this forum a few questions, one of them being what constitutes a jury of one’s peers. I asked that out of the same observation you just made. The answer from Anon (the one with a brain) was that a jury of one’s peers simply means a jury consisting of fellow citizens.