From McCarthy's essay:With an open mind, I hope people will read this scathing indictment of Alvin Bragg's indictment against Trump by @AndrewCMcCarthy, a conservative who has often been contemptuous of Trump:https://t.co/N5gJ1ldjkr
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 5, 2023
Bragg’s indictment fails to state a crime. Not once . . . but 34 times. On that ground alone, the case should be dismissed — before one ever gets to the facts that the statute of limitations has lapsed and that Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law (if that’s what he’s trying to do, which remains murky)....
The 34 counts are arrived at by taking what is a single course of conduct and absurdly slicing it into parts, each one of which is charged as a separate felony carrying its own potential four-year prison term....
[T]he indictment fails to say what the crime is. Bragg says he is charging Trump with felony falsification of records, under Section 175.10 of New York’s penal code. To establish that offense, Bragg must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump caused a false entry to be made in his business records, and did so with an intent to defraud that specifically included trying to “commit another crime or aid or conceal the commission” of that other crime. Nowhere in the indictment does the grand jury specify what other crime Trump fraudulently endeavored to commit or conceal by falsifying his records.
That is an inexcusable failure of notice. The indictment fails to alert Trump of what laws he has violated, much less how he violated them....
[I]f Bragg did not spell it out, then the grand jury cannot have found probable cause of the crime charged, which is the grand jury’s function....
Bragg would like to be able to charge Trump with keeping unflattering information from the voting public. But all candidates for public office (no doubt including the progressive Democrat elected to the Manhattan district attorney’s post) try to airbrush unfavorable information — that’s electoral politics.
Bragg’s problem is that it is not a crime to pay people for their silence: Nondisclosure arrangements are not just legal, they are a staple of the civil-justice system.... They are not crimes, but Bragg is hellbent on accusing Trump of crimes, so he is left to suggest — because he cannot prove — that Trump skirted campaign-finance laws....
But if Trump’s campaign had viewed disclosure as required, McCarthy writes, the requirement would be in a reporting period after the 2016 election, so how could the failure to disclose be seen as intended to affect the election?
पोस्ट्स
१५० टिप्पण्या:
People routinely fight the last war, and those who feel they are losers keep fighting the same old fight until they feel better. Most never do feel better, as they lack self-awareness and don't know how to win.
This was Jordan Peterson's essential message and professional mission. But...the left canceled him and canceled mental illness as they attributed everything to discrimination.
Overton window and opening in negotiation with trial judge (and gives judge opportunity to show he's fair by throwing out some of the charges).
Bragg’s indictment fails to state a crime. Not once... but 34 times.
Bragg's indictment of Trump reminds me of Bart writing on the chalkboard at the start of a Simpson's episode.
Bart Bragg.
The only crime this indictment proves is that the illegal leaks from Bragg’s office were accurate, meaning the only Class E felony he gave actual evidence of is the one he committed. Nice self-own Bragg. Never read the Classics, did you Alvin? Maybe you should google “hubris” at long last.
Posted @ Ace of Spades...
Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted.
But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate.
The United States ability to use “democracy” as foreign policy is gone.
Forever is a long time.
In his first paragraph, McCarthy writes the same thing I wrote. Demurrer to the Indictment.
I've withheld forming an opinion on this case because I've concluded it doesn't matter. Right or wrong, guilty or not, injustice or justice, the needle won't move one bit. The trajectory won't be altered at all.
Republicans can say, "This sets an awful precedent. Republican DAs will now be free to legally harass Democrat presidents." But that won't happen. Those DAs would not have the system-wide political, bureaucratic and cultural protection that Democrats have. A Democrat target will not have been so thoroughly demonized and dehumanized as Trump and other Republicans are. There's just no GOP machinery in place influential enough to weaken a Democrat to the point that a political prosecution would be politically profitable.
As Milton Friedman said, things happen or don't happen in Washington depending on whether they are politically profitable.
But if Trump’s campaign had viewed disclosure as required, McCarthy writes, the requirement would be in a reporting period after the 2016 election, so how could the failure to disclose be seen as intended to affect the election?
You’re being logical. Logic doesn’t apply here.
It should be noted that Mr. Bragg is an alum of Harvard Law School and Harvard College. And he undoubtedly employs an army of Ivy League lawyers. I guess they all missed the classes where due process and notice to a criminal defendant were covered.
To listen to that Soros DA fraud say that Trump had no right to help himself win an election - is banana republic stuff.
A real judge would toss this out in 2 seconds.
NY? Trump is probably screwed.
Yeah, the indictment fails to state a cognizable crime. NSS. That was said in these pages a couple of days ago.
A bit of a surprise, however, that Andy McCarthy isn't doing his usual circle-the-wagons act.
The headline for McCarthy's NY Post piece is even more apposite: "For the left, putting Trump through a painful prosecution is the point."
Well, it's 'Outside the Beltway', so McCarthy is not obligated to perform his usual 'I'm a Conservative' defensive maneuvers to defend the fortress. He's probably thinking, 'Hey, it's out-of-town, and I can afford to be generous.'
The judge should do the country a favor and dismiss the Indictment sua sponte and write in his Order that the State has no right to refile or amend.
Do the right thing!
It is just one more witch hunt that the left will broadcast to the masses with their Propaganda to keep Trump from exposing them for the corrupt critters that they are. They want the money they make from lying to us, and cheating Americans out of the Government we deserve.
wow, that is a brutal takedown of Bragg
from a never-Trump attorney
in a never-Trump magazine
Bragg managed to unify the Republican party in support of Donald Trump in this matter
what a dummy!
If you think about this entire thing as an exercise in Alvin Bragg making his name a household name, which is extremely valuable in national political elections, then this makes sense.
Bragg was never going to win. He knows that. If you view this entire thing as it's NOT ABOUT BRAGG WINNING the case, then all of the sudden it makes sense.
The leaks from the grand jury make sense.
The leaks from the AG office make sense.
The indictment makes sense.
This is about setting up a NY politician for national office.
Secondly it's about further polarizing the Republican base, which tears itself apart over Trump.
Honestly, if Democrats governed as well as they set up these political strategies, they'd actually be a dominant party instead of constantly warring for a 2% plurality of vote share.
Pish Posh. Mere details - and you know what Thoreau said about those.
Get a rope, find a tree, and meet me at Ox-Bow Canyon. What could possibly go wrong?
As a law professor I wish Ann would look at the Trump indictment and review it. There should be a copy of that available. A hard, clear eyed, review of the documents rather than a review of others opinions would be a great gift to all.
This is even worse than I thought it would be.
My great concern was that Trump would be charged with something that could not be easily explained and understood by the average person. It turned out to be worse. It appears that Trump has been charged with something that the prosecutor can not understand.
Bragg has guaranteed his place in history. He has transformed a poor excuse for a stale misdemeanor charge, resting on the say-so of an admitted liar, into a snowball that will now roll down the political mountainside and trigger a catastrophic avalanche of division, ill-will and partisan vengeance.
Nothing good can come of this.
Trump failed to suppress the story the legal way. The acceptable way to suppress a possible damaging political story is to have some National security intelligence agency write up a paper saying whatever you want to suppress is a Russia disinformation story. With that gag order, if you will, the media dutifully falls in line and not only doesn’t report the story but it actively works to suppress the possible scandalous story.
Not even you believe he has not committed a crime as stated under the indictment.
News flash: if the judge wants to ignore the law and the jury wants to send him to jail, then they will, quaint bromides about the “rule of law” notwithstanding. That’s a different America where the law mattered. In the future, law professors will just teach Nietzsche.
Bragg has nothing to lose by trying. If he actually succeeds in convicting Trump, it'll be a horrific miscarrage of justice -- but he'll be a hero to Democrats for generations to come.
"Bragg’s problem is that it is not a crime to pay people for their silence"
This is what I asked in my comment a few days ago: the only "crime" announced last week was that Trump paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their sexual liaison, to which I asked, "Is that a crime?" I could only see it as a crime if the payoff was proven to be drawn from funds not permitted for such personal use. However, even then, it seemed, as I said, "a flaccid case."
Trump is and has always been a self-serving asshole, and more recently a blight on the development of US politics. He was a mediocre president, at best, but probably not the worst we've ever had, and less criminal than some others have been. In their monomaniacal desire to prosecute Trump, the Democrats are wounding themselves and empowering the worst elements in the opposition. This will be seen as a catastrophic blunder, harmful to the nation overall.
If you think about this entire thing as an exercise in Alvin Bragg making his name a household name, which is extremely valuable in national political elections, then this makes sense.
Bragg was never going to win. He knows that. If you view this entire thing as it's NOT ABOUT BRAGG WINNING the case, then all of the sudden it makes sense.
The leaks from the grand jury make sense.
The leaks from the AG office make sense.
The indictment makes sense.
This is about setting up a NY politician for national office.
Secondly it's about further polarizing the Republican base, which tears itself apart over Trump.
Honestly, if Democrats governed as well as they set up these political strategies, they'd actually be a dominant party instead of constantly warring for a 2% plurality of vote share.
I was able to read Andrew McCarthy's article from an archived link provided in comments to Greenwald's tweet.
This indictment is truly shocking. It's Crim Law 101 that an indictment (or any other charging document) for an offense that is defined by reference to the commission of another crime MUST state clearly what the underlying offense is. A common example would be where the crime of Conspiracy is charged. It's not enough to say that Althouse conspired with others to commit "bad stuff". The document must allege that Althouse conspired with others on such and such a date(s) to commit Aggravated Mopery as defined by Wisconsin Crim. Code section 941 (b) (3). Moreover, the indictment would also have to define exactly what acts Althouse committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; i.e. allowed her fellow conspirators to borrow her car, knowing they were going to use the car to commit the Mopery.
Andrew McCarthy can go fuck himself sideways. That he finds an acorn today doesn't excuse his blind squirrel act of the last 7 years. When he was actually needed to stand up against this sort of thing, he was on the fence stroking his chin thoughtfully over the terribleness of Donald Trump.
is that like flipping Stockhom Syndrome?
Its amazing how Greenwald is now taking some "Conservative" positions, or that what used to liberal positions are now conservative ones. its also amazing that he's better at defending them and analyzing them then 90 percent of the weak-kneed, bloviaters on the right. Its the same with Michael Tracy, who's much better at defending non-interventionism and attacking Neo-cons than most of the so-called Right.
Its not really a matter of intelligence, its a matter of guts and focus.
Its obvious that this whole thing is nonsense, but all of the conditions required for a conviction are present.
You know what they are'
Ann
If one of your students turned in a indictment like this as an assignment what grade would you give them?
The law prof is finally looking at the law? Isn’t that just precious?
As I understand it, Trump was paying off an extortionist to make his life (and marriage) easier. With his own money. And I think after the election was even over. Bragg threw around the term "fraud" in a presser, but there is no general crime of fraud. There can be fraudulently getting a loan or something, but not "fraud" per se. It is nonsense. As to falsifying business records, is there a category of business record for paying extortionists?
And how was anyone injured? Hillary Clinton got 59% of the vote in 2016. It isn't like whatever Trump did changed anything. If he did anything wrong at all.
The really amazing thing is that Alvin Bragg managed to refrain from eating the ham sandwich long enough for the grand jury to indict it.
Thanks for sharing McCarthy, I was just reading it on my own from its Twitter link. Their work is priceless, grounded in real context, renewing, restoring.
G*dspeed, America
It's changed, though. This isn't the 1960s left or 1970s liberalism. The enemy isn't the military, the security agencies or even big corporations any more. It's MAGA Republicans, focus group revised to the scarier Ultra MAGA Republicans. That and White Supremacy. Old Left and Young Socialist sites like to go on about corporations and the rich, but it reads like a side note. It's a side show, not the main show, not taken seriously outside of small cults, and not likely to change anything.
Jeff Epstein is still dead and Clinton rode on the Lollita express to underage sex island how many times? I think it was 26.
But shut up.
Somehow this got posted on the wrong thread:
One of the main points, and at least half of the fun for the Left is proving to conservatives that they can persecute and harass us based on little or no evidence with impunity.
What happened to Lois Lerner?
What happened to Anita Hill or CBF?
What happened to the protestors outside the conservative justices' homes?
What happened to Comey?
So you think that ACORN/SDS disbanded?
Snap out of it!
Who thought making America great again would be a bad thing?
The process is the punishment.
CJinPA: "A Democrat target will not have been so thoroughly demonized and dehumanized as Trump and other Republicans are. There's just no GOP machinery in place influential enough to weaken a Democrat to the point that a political prosecution would be politically profitable."
I think you mean a Democrat/GOPe target (they are allies after all) will not have been so thoroughly demonized and dehumanized as Trump and other non-GOPe republicans are.
A dynamic much in play on this very blog.
None of this makes sense except what TreeJoe said. Now I get it. Bragg has accomplished all he needed, even if the whole case were tossed tomorrow. He can run for higher national office on his gotcha indictment.
What Yancey Ward said...@ 9:26am.
Collusion, most private? Bragg is auditioning with the bureaucratic underbelly. A Whitmer event?
Robert Cook: "This is what I asked in my comment a few days ago: the only "crime" announced last week was that Trump paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their sexual liaison,...."
There is zero actual evidence of a "sexual liaison", whether you like that fact or not.
There actually is quite a bit of actual legal evidence of there not having been a "sexual liaison" between Trump and Daniels, whether you like that fact or not.
Now, you can choose to believe what you want (until the leftists take full control, naturally), but you have no basis for that particular said belief.
And for a dude (I'm afraid the sex/gender binary is quite real and immutable) that screams to the heavens...er, marxists don't like "heavens" so....for dude that screams to the proletariat for "evidence" and "links" for any and every claim that goes against his maoist inclinations, Cookie sure does throw terms around loosely, doesn't he?
Dan from Madison: "And how was anyone injured? Hillary Clinton got 59% of the vote in 2016."
I think you have a typo on the percentage.
SF Chronicle's Trump headline is so big, it's reminiscent of The Onion's two-line
WA
R
Wince said: Bragg’s indictment fails to state a crime. Not once... but 34 times.
I infer that the second crime was Trump defeating Hillary in the election. He's obviously guilty of that transgression.
Looks like Alvin Bragg is angling to become a top banana in a Banana Republic.
Bragg is hoping he can succeed upwards just like Kamala did.
He’s the right party.
He’s the right color.
Don’t know if hey put away as many druggies as Kamala did. But in today’s world I guess that is his upside. He lets criminals go.
Only downside is he can’t spread his legs as wide as Kamala did.
Blogger ccscientist said...
there is no general crime of fraud. There can be fraudulently getting a loan or something, but not "fraud" per se. It is nonsense. As to falsifying business records, is there a category of business record for paying extortionists?
Read the law and the indictment, cc. I posted links to both yesterday as well as the full text of the law. Since you seem to have missed it:
Here is the NY State law
175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10.html
And the indictment:
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
Contrary to Cook, I don't think there were many people who thought Donal Trump violated any law at all by paying off a whore who was extorting him.
Extorting him because she said she was going to claim she had sex with him. She has later, in a sworn (I think) affadavit, said that she never had sex with him. He says that he never had sex with her. It would be contrary to all we know about him for him to have schtupped her and there is no evidence that anything happened. ''
He gave her some couch change, to him, to go away and be quiet. Completely legally.
The DA is claiming he put it in the wrong column of his ledger.
Do you understand now?
John Henry
Dave Begley said...
It should be noted that Mr. Bragg is an alum of Harvard Law School and Harvard College.
We've seen recently what has become of "elite" law schools, like Stanford and Yale. Here we have an example of a Harvard Law School product. It would be interesting to see what his LSAT score was.
Democrats view disagreement with them as "hate." They say it all the time - they tell us who they are all the time. Of course, to them, things that are bad like "hate" are crimes. Thus, disagreement is a crime.
Since Trump was very aggressively disagreeable to them, he is a criminal. What crime? Doesn't matter. This mindset occurs in these people who confuse their politics and morality - believing them to be the same thing.
As a result, it doesn't matter what the indictment says. It doesn't matter what the alleged crime is. Due process is at most, an obstacle, and at least something that can be disregarded because WE ALL KNOW Trump is a criminal. Details don't matter. Facts don't matter. Hell, the law doesn't even matter. The only thing that matters is who's in charge, and in NYC, unqualified Ivy-brainwashed radicals are in charge.
A nation of men, not of laws.
If Andrew McCarthy is right, Donald Trump has nothing to worry about and we’ll soon all be singing another verse of Pancho and Lefty:
All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
We only let him slip away
Out of kindness, I suppose
But keeping an open mind means being open to Trump being found guilty and having his conviction upheld on appeal all the way up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, his conviction will have to be bipartisan.
There are some interesting criminal procedure questions that I certainly don’t know the answers too. If you are indicted for a crime that has another crime as one of its elements, what does the indictment have to allege for the element? McCarthy claims a lack of notice, but the statement of facts filed with the indictment does provide notice as to crimes that will support that element. As to whether state and federal crimes can support each other, I think that has been litigated in the context of their strike laws. Bragg’s answer to a statute of limitations defense may be that the statute was tolled while Donald Trump was President.
From CJinPA:
As Milton Friedman said, things happen or don't happen in Washington depending on whether they are politically profitable.
As long as people keep allowing this to be the case it will be the case. The left promise free stuff and social utopia. The right promise responsibility. Neither actually happen, but which markets better?
It is almost exclusively the case that in criminal law, a serial offender is charged with one crime while the other victims are told the system cannot afford to try each case, so the rest of their cases are nolle prosequi if he is convicted of one.
Costs too much, they say. Then the guy is sprung with a clean record, always early, and the rest of us are left with nolle justice.
Thousands of violent crime victims who voted Democrat in New York City are getting just the nolle they dumbly voted for. Enjoy your grandma getting punched in the face, morons.
After reading this post I decided on a banana nut muffin for breakfast.
I'm not sure the law matters much here. All that matters is getting the scalp. Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Just as Russia Collusion was a palpable fraud from the beginning, and the virus coming from pangolin's was a palpable fraud from the beginning, so is this. But the entire team is playing along and piling on. All the media, the talking heads, the politicians, and social media commenters are having their field day. People on the left are in celebration mode. They don't even realize what they are opening up on all of us- including themselves.
There is a color that runs through everything the left does. It is grey. They don't like clarity. They love to muddle things up. There is no black and white allowed. Muddle your ideas of American Exceptionalism, muddle your views on your founders and the nation at large, muddle your views on your religion, on good or bad behavior, on just good or bad people. Muddle science itself and just tell everyone that consensus is enough proof of science and they have consensus so they are science! Muddle your ideas on life itself and the value of a baby.
The left is in it's growth in an environment of muddled unsureness, when we're no longer sure about the things we were always so sure about. Should our border really be secure? Does it even matter if we show an ID to make sure it's us voting and not...anyone else? Does it matter if our schools suck, as long as we continue to support those public schools? Does it really matter who we vote for?
I'll know we're a serious nation again when people start to ask for- no...demand clarity and refuse to participate or listen to another minute of the muddled information coming at them. I'll know we're serious when we start to toss the jokers- all of them- out on their asses.
Trump's gift to the nation is that he exposed the true nature of the Democrats.
Trump's curse on the nation is that he exposed the true nature of the Democrats.
I suspect that the unspecified crime that's the basis for this historic indictment will be the mattress tag that Trump ripped off when he did Stormy. Now do you see why that midnight knock for ALL of us is close at hand?
I wonder if the grand jury refused to indict on the underlying crime, or if they were never presented with an underlying crime and the DA told them that it was unnecessary. Bringing forth the indictment in either case is misconduct, but the latter is worse.
People routinely fight the last war, and those who feel they are losers keep fighting the same old fight until they feel better. Most never do feel better, as they lack self-awareness and don't know how to win.
This was Jordan Peterson's essential message and professional mission. But...the left canceled him and canceled mental illness as they attributed everything to discrimination.
Enigma, you're rocking on this blog, thank you!
People need to see the indictment for what it is; cover for the MSM to spend a lot of time slagging Trump for their masters in the DNC. It is a desperation move that they will come to regret when it gets turned on them.
@Yancey Ward. I couldn't agree more. Andrew McCarthy is a worm. Always there when you don't need him.
With a single, quick, deft move Alvin Bragg proved Trump right in everything he had been saying.
Moreover, Bragg presented an indictment such that supporting Trump has become like supporting Dreyfus - the integrity of the justice system is at stake which is a higher issue than the fortunes of one single man, be he a Jew or a Republican political candidate.
And thus Bragg united the country, not just the Republican party, in a high quest - communists, comedians, Never Trumpers and MAGA country are united in opposing Bragg's Travesty as communists, singers, soft-core liberals and the right were united in France during the era of the Resistance.
And the Democratic party went on record as favoring Bragg's Travesty. They think they have an infallible mechanism for re-election, namely, ballot harvesting, which has ended the secret ballot for the black community. With that support it isn't even necessary to do anything for the black community and hence de-schooling and de-policing are established there with the smiling blessing of Approved Black Richey Riches.
Blogger Saint Croix said...
wow, that is a brutal takedown of Bragg
from a never-Trump attorney
in a never-Trump magazine
Bragg managed to unify the Republican party in support of Donald Trump in this matter
what a dummy!
4/5/23, 8:56 AM
———————————
The recognition that the indictment is problematic does not mean that neither McCarthy nor NR now support Trump.
There is general recognition that Trump cannot be elected President. Independents, who detest Trump for the same reasons his supporters love him, will not vote for him.
There is also a general recognition among conservatives who do not support Trump that his behavior following the 2020 election renders him unfit to be serve as President.
Here's something I just read on NPR site:
“In the ordinary circumstance, it could take a year to get to trial,” said Daniel Horwitz, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, who said the process could drag on longer depending on how many months it takes for the judge to resolve all the motions filed by Trump’s legal team.
what the fuck!!! What the hell is wrong with the legal system in this country?
Dave Begley said...
In his first paragraph, McCarthy writes the same thing I wrote. Demurrer to the Indictment.
So let's have a friendly wager. I say that Bragg will present a case that survives all motions. Including appeals. My position is effectively even grander and more bold than Andy McCarthy's (and your) suggestion.
So what do you say? Wanna bet?
Just Security has built us all a table of recent Falsification of Records cases in New York. This case with Trump really does look like what every experienced Manhattan criminal litigator has suggested; this is the sort of case that is the Manhattan DA's "bread and butter." They investigate, build and win these cases all the time.
Per Cook, and offered without support, Trump was a mediocre president.
If so, tens of a million Americans think we need to bring back lots more of that mediocrity.
**********
What a frickin' troll.
There are three reasons for this phony indictment:
1. To make Alvin Bragg a name (as others have stated)
2. To make sure that Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024
3. To hamstring Trump's 2024 campaign in which he will once again lose to the dumbest, most corrupt and most dishonest President in American history.
Heh! Good stuff, planetgeo!
And spot on, wildswan!
Legal analysis showing its an incredibly weak case, is fine but insufficient.
1) What happens when the Judge lets it go forward?
2) What happens when the Judge refuses to allow the case to relocated outside of NYC or denies all of the Trump team's motions?
3) What happens when the Jury finds Trump guilty?
Because all things probably will happen.
I was going to pass on this one, until I listened to Scott Adams today. He said something I’ve been thinking since 2016.
That “Lock her up!” bit came back to bite Trump in the ass. Karma.
I’ve always considered this to be the likely motive for Hillary fabricating and launching the Russian collusion hoax. She really was afraid that Trump would launch a prosecution.
The chant was a lot of fun, but it carried a big price tag.
I think Adams is correct. There is a gentleman’s agreement at high levels of government to not threaten opponents with prosecution. Trump violated that and in doing so set in motion the equal but opposite reaction, ferociously amplified.
And the pool of quality people who may want to serve keeps dwindling.
The strange thing is that Bragg inherited a ready-to-go criminal investigation from his predecessor, Cy Vance, who had brought in as special prosecutors two titans of the white shoe white collar bar in Manhattan, retiring partners from Davis Polk and Paul Weiss. But Bragg stalled the investigation, leading them to quit in protest. Then he turns around and does this.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Andrew McCarthy can go fuck himself sideways. That he finds an acorn today doesn't excuse his blind squirrel act of the last 7 years. When he was actually needed to stand up against this sort of thing, he was on the fence stroking his chin thoughtfully over the terribleness of Donald Trump.
4/5/23, 9:26 AM
————————-
In 2019 McCarthy published a book, “Ball of Collusion: The Plot To Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency”.
The members of the Trump Colon Cowboy Brigade are very much like the Progs. They stick to their narrative without regard for the truth and if they are confronted with the truth they ignore it.
“It should be noted that Mr. Bragg is an alum of Harvard Law School and Harvard College. And he undoubtedly employs an army of Ivy League lawyers. I guess they all missed the classes where due process and notice to a criminal defendant were covered.”
That the sort of stuff that regional and local law schools (like Creighton for Bagley) waste their time learning. Not the elite law schools. They have more important things to teach… This isn’t really that new. The elite law schools, and I think Harvard may be worse, have been proud of this for some time now. Law can be a messy business. Which is why they try to skip teaching a lot of what would be useful to lawyers.
There is zero actual evidence of a "sexual liaison", whether you like that fact or not.
That's true. All that we know with certainty, is that Cohen charged Trump's corporation for legal service(s), which were recorded as a professional expense.
Blogger wildswan said...
With a single, quick, deft move Alvin Bragg proved Trump right in everything he had been saying.
Moreover, Bragg presented an indictment such that supporting Trump has become like supporting Dreyfus - the integrity of the justice system is at stake which is a higher issue than the fortunes of one single man, be he a Jew or a Republican political candidate.
And thus Bragg united the country, not just the Republican party, in a high quest - communists, comedians, Never Trumpers and MAGA country are united in opposing Bragg's Travesty as communists, singers, soft-core liberals and the right were united in France during the era of the Resistance.
And the Democratic party went on record as favoring Bragg's Travesty. They think they have an infallible mechanism for re-election, namely, ballot harvesting, which has ended the secret ballot for the black community. With that support it isn't even necessary to do anything for the black community and hence de-schooling and de-policing are established there with the smiling blessing of Approved Black Richey Riches.
4/5/23, 12:17 PM
——————
If you think that this is going to switch independent voters to Trump you have been raiding Hunter’s supply.
The endless drama and chaos that perpetually surrounds Trump are key reasons why independents detest Trump.
There are four huge stories this week that have been completely drowned out by this circus:
1. Saudi Arabia has announced cuts of 1.0 million barrels in oil production.
2. Biden lied about the Chinese spy balloon.
3. Progs now control the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
4. Chicago affirmed its commitment to go the way of Detroit.
Instead it is Trump all the time. It is exhausting and most voters want it to end.
But keeping an open mind means being open to Trump being found guilty and having his conviction upheld on appeal all the way up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, his conviction will have to be bipartisan.
Keep hoping, lefty. Keeping an open mind means following the law. That was not the case here. Too bad you can't see that.
Extorting him because she said she was going to claim she had sex with him. She has later, in a sworn (I think) affadavit, said that she never had sex with him.
Her lawyer, Avenatti, cooked this up based solely on a photo taken at a golf tournament. Avenatti is in prison and she had to pay Trump $500,000 for legal fees. Case closed.
This clusterfuck of an indictment makes the charges against the protagonist in the Trial by Franz Kafka seem reasonable by comparison.
Cookie at 9:15, you rock!
Trump is and has always been a self-serving asshole, and more recently a blight on the development of US politics. He was a mediocre president, at best, but probably not the worst we've ever had, and less criminal than some others have been. In their monomaniacal desire to prosecute Trump, the Democrats are wounding themselves and empowering the worst elements in the opposition. This will be seen as a catastrophic blunder, harmful to the nation overall.
From an historical perspective, the demand to be the victim to justify whatever is pretty common. Many if not most of the Roman wars of aggression were justified as preemptive wars against an inevitable invader. During the Roman-Pontic wars, at one point Pontus made a point of not opposing an invasion by a Roman client state so they could then claim to be the victim, despite Pontus being the initiator of the war. The Crusades saw this on both sides, which is a lot easier to do when you have a religious motivation and the other side is infidels, who are oppressors just by existing.
That's the problem we are seeing from the Left and the media. It is becoming more and more obvious that their positions on, well, anything is based entirely if they approve of the person or group taking the action, which is almost always informed on whom they decide is the victim. Hence you have all the vile efforts to rehabilitate a mass murderer of children because the killer was transgender. You cannot have a functioning constitutional republic or rule of law when there are multiple sets of rules.
I think Donald Trump will ultimately be remembered as an innocent man who had enemies who did worse things than he did.
I think he will be remembered as an obnoxious man, but also an honest one.
I will always remember him as the first president to attend the Walk of Life. And the first president to promise to "put pro-lifers on the Court." And he succeeded in getting Roe v. Wade overruled, which was an amazing accomplishment.
God bless him, God bless our enemies, God bless America. I think our country is very blessed.
"Robert Cook: 'This is what I asked in my comment a few days ago: the only "crime" announced last week was that Trump paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their sexual liaison,...."
There is zero actual evidence of a "sexual liaison", whether you like that fact or not.
There actually is quite a bit of actual legal evidence of there not having been a 'sexual liaison' between Trump and Daniels, whether you like that fact or not."
Drago: Impressively consistent in missing the point.
"Contrary to Cook, I don't think there were many people who thought Donal Trump violated any law at all by paying off a whore who was extorting him."
Do you think that I thought he violated a law by (allegedly)* paying off Stormy Daniels for their (alleged)* sexual liaison? If so, please explain how you come to that view.
*(Included to conform to Drago's Law)
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
Well, Trump wasn’t in New York at the time. He wasn’t running the Trump Organization at the time. He almost assuredly didn’t make the entry in the business records of an organization he no longer ran, etc. Importantly, the DA never specified the other crime. It couldn’t have been a campaign finance violation, because this was after he was already in the White House. Plus, it was from personal funds, and if he had done it as a campaign contribution, it would have been completely legal, since it was his money, and you can contribute as much as you want to your own campaign. It’s just everyone else who has campaign limits. And what he allegedly did was not a crime under NY law, since federal law is exclusive in federal elections. That the FEC refused to prosecute a crime that they have exclusive jurisdiction over means that effectively no crime was committed. And, in particular, no NY crime was committed, which is implied in the statute.
Oh, and the thing that gives away that LawFare was involved (beyond the allegation of some nebulous, unspecified, likely federal, crime having been committed) - this crime apparently requires an intent to defraud AND an intent to commit another crime. How does PJDT intend to commit fraud, when there wasn’t any, he likely had no knowledge of the entries being made, and was not in control of those making the entries? The LawFare roots there include that specific intent was converted to general intent (as they did with their Obstruction charge against Gen Flynn), and then mostly ignored. Mark my words - the DA is going to try to use general intent instead of specific intent to defraud AND specific intent to commit another crime.
As others have said, the failure to specify the other crime, and to show both specific intents should be fatal to the complaint, as a matter of law.
...tens of a million Americans think we need to bring back lots more of that mediocrity."
I said "mediocre, at best". And yes, many Americans are so lacking in discernment and frenzied with blind belief they perceive mediocrity (at best)--presented repeatedly in word-salads of self-serving boasting--as good. To the marks, "mediocrity" appears to be genius. That's what keeps the grifters in business! (And there is a larceny of grifters* in politics!
*(My own use of "larceny" to refer to a grouping of grifters.)
I think the law prof's position is fairly obvious based on how she edited the original post. Res ipsa loquitur
It is pretty pointless to demand any more from her than she has already provided, especially when what she provided is very substantial.
The key thing, there is nothing about the letter of the law that matters here. This is lawfare, the use of law to benefit one side vs the other. As many have noted, there is plenty to indict various Democrats over in all sorts of jurisdictions, but that hasn't happened. There is plenty to indict previous Presidents, but that never before happened. They could have indicted Trump on these charges 3 years ago, and that didn't happen. It is happening now to affect the election. Whatever the outcome the trial, the political aspect has now been played and the affect will happen regardless of the trial's outcome.
Democrats, or if you prefer the establishment, has set up a political fervor that will all but guarantee Trump is the GOP nomination for President and Biden will run again as the DNC nomination. The polls just a few months ago said a majority of Americans didn't want this, but now the polls are manipulated, and this is what we are going to get. You can forget about DeSantis. You can forget about Sanders or Newsom.
As for the outcome of the General Election, you can bet the rest of the trial will be an effort to get Trump removed from state ballots preventing any chance of him winning the electoral college. Again, it won't matter the intent of the law or what fits with legal theory. It will only matter to give cause for local jurisdictions to pull his name from the ballot at the right time. With the results from Wisconsin's Supreme Court, that's one more state in the Biden column for the electoral college. Whether Democrats plan will succeed along this front is about the only remaining hurdle to Trump/Biden rematch with 4 more years of Biden. If polls were right a few months ago, that should piss off the majority of voters on both sides of the aisle (e.g. it obviously has pissed off Glenn Greenwald and Andrew McCarthy, except the latter is mostly concerned about sloppiness).
There is nothing regarding traditional law or democracy happening here. This is old fashioned political machines doing what they do. If Trump or radicals on either side get hurt during the process; it is just collateral damage and not necessarily a bad thing either, for the Democrats or the establishment.
I read that Bragg was worth $40 million dollars. He is about 50 years old and has been a public "servant" in NY for the past 20. I wonder where he obtained all that 'worth". Is he from a family with "old-money" Or is he a "self-made" man?
I think Adams is correct. There is a gentleman’s agreement at high levels of government to not threaten opponents with prosecution. Trump violated that and in doing so set in motion the equal but opposite reaction, ferociously amplified.
The left has long used prosecution as a weapon against Republicans. Rick Perry, Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Bob McDonnell, etc. Part of the reason that "lock her up" resonated was that we have long memories of all that crap, and no longer want the GOP to play by gentlemen's rules.
"There is also a general recognition among conservatives who do not support Trump that his behavior following the 2020 election renders him unfit to be serve as President."
This. There is zero chance that I will vote for Trump in the next election.
But this indictment is laughable. If Bragg weren't unjustly wielding the power of the state against a person, his petty splitting of the charge into 34 counts would be funny.
The recognition that the indictment is problematic does not mean that neither McCarthy nor NR now support Trump.
Of course.
That's why I wrote "in this matter"
I'm talking about his criminal prosecution.
And the indictment is not "problematic," it's a fucking disgrace.
Something nobody mentioned anywhere that I saw was a "statement of facts" filed with the indictment. I just skimmed it quickly on my phone and don't really know what it says in ay detail.
It does seem to answer many of the questions I and others raised. 32 counts because it was paid in monthly installment. Several paragraphs on how it was election fraud and more. Noting I saw on the statue of limitation but it might be in there.
Read it here. H/t politico via vodka Pundit via insty.
Vodka Pundit says than Bragg mentions that trump overpaid his taxes. I need to go read that part!
And the rest.
Download here
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
John Henry
I'm not sure the law matters much here.
Much? It doesn't matter at all to these thugs.
And they think they can get away with it. Maybe they will in this venue. But when the venue changes, they'll wish they hadn't.
There are four huge stories this week that have been completely drowned out by this circus:
1. Saudi Arabia has announced cuts of 1.0 million barrels in oil production.
2. Biden lied about the Chinese spy balloon.
3. Progs now control the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
4. Chicago affirmed its commitment to go the way of Detroit.
Instead it is Trump all the time. It is exhausting and most voters want it to end.
That is why Democrats keep pushing. People like you blame Trump for the Democrats creating constant strife. Do you remember the book, "Games People Play?" Remember "Uproar?" That is what Democrats are doing. They want the independents to "slam the door" and go away and it is working. Is that Trump's fault? Remember how the economy was going before the Chinese virus arrived?
“There is general recognition that Trump cannot be elected President. Independents, who detest Trump for the same reasons his supporters love him, will not vote for him.”
True. I’m always happy to hear Trump bloviate, the more he does the more independents he loses.
“I think Adams is correct. There is a gentleman’s agreement at high levels of government to not threaten opponents with prosecution. Trump violated that and in doing so set in motion the equal but opposite reaction, ferociously amplified.”
One of the few times I can agree with Shouting Thomas.
Rule of Law under D regimes. Totes adorbs.
John Henry: you cited the indictment.
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
committing another crime and concealing it is necessary to use the "defraud" clause here. Unless you are committing another crime or using fraud to obtain something of value, "fraud" is an empty word. It is in fact quite plausible to call the payoff of an extortionist "legal services" when reimbursing Cohen. What else would you call it?
Robert Cook: "Drago: Impressively consistent in missing the point."
You dont like being called on your false assertions.
We get it.
Cry all you like about it.
"In 2019 McCarthy published a book, “Ball of Collusion: The Plot To Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency”."
You can go fuck yourself sideways, too, AMDG. McCarthy spent 2017 and 2018 writing column after column supporting the Mueller investigation and James Comey's integrity, and only found the courage to write "Ball of Collusion" after Mueller was forced to close up shop empty handed.
When McCarthy could have made an actual difference, he stood there throwing stones at Trump over the investigation he later critiqued.
has Trump indictment been wrung through AI/Chat etc?
answer
Trump has a new lawyer:
“In his resignation email, Blanche said he was unable to take Trump as a client while remaining at Cadwalader, New York City’s oldest law firm and one of its most elite.” Blanche did not want to pass up the opportunity to represent Trump. Doing so at the firm, however, was problematic. Blanche wrote his colleagues: “Obviously, doing this as a partner at Cadwalader was not an option, so I have had to make the difficult choice to leave the firm.”
has Trump indictment been wrung through AI/Chat etc?
answer
Well, Trump wasn’t in New York at the time.
I've read several places that on the statute of limitations issue, DA Bragg might argue Trump was outside of NY, so the clock wasn't running. I understand the concept behind such a regulation in the law, because a person could otherwise commit a crime then skip town for the duration of the statute of limitations and then stroll back in free from arrest. However, Trump was still outside NY when this DA decided to prosecute, and Trump showed no problem showing up to answer the indictment. Are we going to set a new precedent for celebrities that violate various laws while "in-town". The statute of limitations clock pauses while they travel elsewhere, regardless of how otherwise accommodating they would be to facing the music?
Alvin Bragg explained the case. The argument is that in 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen, David Pecker, Trump, and others agreed to conduct the catch-and-kill program to help Trump win. That violated three crimes, per Bragg:
- New York State laws prohibit the promotion of a candidate by false means, ie, SECTION 175.10 - Falsifying business records in the first degree
- Federal campaign finance laws.
- Document falsification by American Media Inc (National Enquirer)
He alleges each invoice and check was an attempt to cover up those 2016 crimes which are the 34 counts. So in my estimation, Greenwald and McCarthy might not have done their research.
I can see the future pithy headline: "Trump trumps Bragg's brag"
Consequences of the September 1969 Chicago trail. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Sorry cook. Perhaps I misread you
John Henry
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
Interesting reading. Bragg still didn’t say anything about the alleged underlying crime(s). It sounds kinda like a campaign finance problem, but he never gets around to specifying exactly what statute was violated. Just that it was evil. Most of the dirt appears to have come from Cohen, and Trump has already released a letter from him that exonerates Trump. Are they going to put that convicted felon on the stand? Going to have to - otherwise they have no case. I expect his cross examination to be brutal.
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof
And....what was that 'Another crime'? Is it a "Crime to be named later"? Is "another crime" behind door No 1 or Door no 3?
Anyway, Good to see to all leftists and Democrats are making it clear to the dumbest boob, they will stop at nothing to destroy their political opponents and keep power. The will of people? LOL. The people get to choose to choose their own leaders? LOL. Let the people decide? Hahaha.
Nope. If the Left can't win at the ballot box, they will jail the opposition via "Lawfare" and a kangaroo court. Just win, baby. Just win.
One of the PowerLine guys has made a McCarthy-esque spin move because of this event; Hinderaker, I think. Mr. Begley would know.
effinayright said...
"Per Cook, and offered without support, Trump was a mediocre president.
If so, tens of a million Americans think we need to bring back lots more of that mediocrity.
**********
What a frickin' troll."
Which makes me think that Comrade Robert spent his entire career in the payment of the state. He's never actually had to produce anything or be held accountable for anything.
Gadfly, can you provide a link to support your claims of Braggs explanation instead of links to what the law says. We know the law says, but absent the leaks made available to you, the information explaining how Trump violated those laws has not been made available. At this point, it should be public information and never should have been leaked.
CC,
I stand by what I said about the indictment. He was indicted under the NY law for committing "fraud" in the furtherance of another crime. The fraud and crime were not specified in the indictment and a lot of people here and elsewhere objected, including me. I was not the only one to mention that to commit fraud someone had to be defrauded.
Although the document was filed and published yesterday, nobody, anywhere seems to have heard of. I only found out about it following a rabbit trail from Insty this afternoon, more than 24 hours later. I posted a link and some comments here at that time.
I just finished reading the 13 page statement of facts. It goes into quite a bit of detail about the fraud Bragg is alleging and how it was committed. Briefly, Cohen and the National Enquirer committed election fraud according to Bragg. Not sure how that falls on Trump but there are 5-6 pages discussing it. Then, after the election, Trump gave them money from the trust account and from his checking account. Both were personal, not business accounts. He gave it in a series of monthly payments of $35m each month and called it legal services and a retainer. Bragg argues that Trump and Cohen had no retainer agreement and this was fraud.
IANAL so probably have gotten some stuff wrong there. I've probably missed other key points. Hopefully one of the real lawyers here will read it and correct me.
Read the whole thing. Very interesting document.
John Henry
Vodkapundit points out that Trump gave Cohen $180m to reimburse him. That is $130m for the reimbursement plus an extra $50m so Cohen could report it as income and pay state and federal tax on it.
Had it been a simple $130m reimbursement, it would not have been taxable, Trump could have stayed with the $50m and NY + Feds would have been out the taxes they got.
Paying taxes is apparently problematic for Bragg:
The TO CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes.
Page 8, Statement of fact
John Henry
Yancey Ward: "McCarthy spent 2017 and 2018 writing column after column supporting the Mueller investigation and James Comey's integrity, and only found the courage to write "Ball of Collusion" after Mueller was forced to close up shop empty handed."
Yep.
You can always count on McCarthy to spend years, literal years, vouching for his deep state pals and giving succor to the democraticals and then, grudgingly, reluctantly, shifting to Aw Shucks, Gee Whiz, That Wasnt Exactly Cricket Was It? mode and then completely resetting right back to esablishment hack square 1 position for the next crisis.
But only every time.
David B will be better able to answer this question but aren't there a lot of mediocre citizens in the US? Many, like Cook, in NY and environs. Are they not entitled to representation?
John Henry
(Ref Hruska the cornhusker)
After hearing out my mostly older white female cohorts, I can assure you that Trump’s “other crime” is a sex crime. They believe that Trump had sex with a porn star. This is a a grievous crime against the sisterhood. The sisterhood is fighting a proxy war against pornography.
@Darkisland: are you writing $130m where others would write $130k?
Once the Dems have prosecuted and convicted him they'll have him assassinated. Just to be sure.
That is why Democrats keep pushing. People like you blame Trump for the Democrats creating constant strife.
=======
is that like successful attempt for voter suppression by A-nomie [lawless]
Republicans: you’re being played!
The left’s sole objective is to make Trump the GOP’s 2024 presidential nominee
Not a conspiacy. REal../
The left will cripple Don, and make sure he is the nominee. So easy to beat.
Republicans: you’re being played!
The left’s sole objective is to make Trump the GOP’s 2024 presidential nominee
"What’s easier to roll than Donald Trump?
Answer: Republican voters.
Democrats are playing Republicans like a fiddle. The left’s sole objective is to make Trump the Republicans’ 2024 presidential nominee. He’s already lost three election cycles for the GOP — why not make it four?
A month ago, things were looking bad for the Democrats.
Immediately after Trump announced for president last November, he may as well have gone into the witness protection program. Even Fox News cut away from his announcement speech. He had to have dinner with a noted Hitler enthusiast to get any attention — and, when he spoke at CPAC in February, the room was half-empty."
more from Coulter:
... Instead of attacking Trump for the things he’d actually done, liberals would run off and make wild charges, forcing normal people to say, "I don’t like the guy, but he’s not a Russian agent."
The endless stream of preposterous charges against Trump only helped him.
{..}
So why not launch another ridiculous accusation to help him get the nomination? That’s exactly what they did in last year’s GOP primaries, supporting Trump’s nut-bar candidates, knowing they would go on to lose the general election. By boosting Trump’s candidates, Democrats managed to pull out a historic midterm victory for Biden.
And now, they’re doing it again, trying to trick Republicans into choosing the worst possible presidential nominee. Guess what? It’s working! New GOP motto: unable to learn from the third kick of a mule.
In response to Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday, all conservative media swept aside news of out-of-control crime, chaos at the border, fentanyl overdoses and the looming recession. Their No. 1 job became: SAVE TRUMP! A major conservative talk radio host even suggested DeSantis stand down and endorse Trump."
Trump is a democrat party asset.
"True, everyone at MSNBC is a Trump-hating zealot. But this helps obscure the real objective. Half the Democrats genuinely hate Trump, and the other half are saying, This is fantastic. We’re going to win him the nomination.
Politico reports that Biden’s senior advisirs reacted to Trump’s recent surge in the polls with unmitigated joy. “We beat Trump once, they say, and will again.”"
Bunkypotatohead: "Once the Dems have prosecuted and convicted him they'll have him assassinated. Just to be sure."
And the usual GOPe suspects will blame Trump.
Nothing entices me to join team loser "like never before!" used car salesman Trump - than Drago calling us all McConnelltards and GOPe suspects over and over.
LOL Gadfly thinks the local DA can prosecute Federal laws that the Feds already said Trump did not violate and even if he had the law wouldn’t require disclosure until long after the election, just like McCarthy wrote in the very article under discussion here. The getTrumpers are a confused and feeble minded lot.
chickelit said...
@Darkisland: are you writing $130m where others would write $130k
Yes.
$130m=$130,000
I'm not not European
John Henry
I think Adams is correct. There is a gentleman’s agreement at high levels of government to not threaten opponents with prosecution. Trump violated that and in doing so set in motion the equal but opposite reaction, ferociously amplified.
Now defend/explain what happened to Bob Packwood.
For all you never Trumpers:
Do you actually think that the Republican party can nominate ANYONE that the Democrats won't persecute and harass?
Look how they treated their lap dogs Romney and McCain.
Gahrie said...
For all you never Trumpers:
Do you actually think that the Republican party can nominate ANYONE that the Democrats won't persecute and harass?
Look how they treated their lap dogs Romney and McCain.
We're not expecting that the Democrats will love a non-Trump Republican. But a big part of us in the Republican Party will. We will be attracted to some candidates who might actually win general elections. Candidates whom we can intelligently defend. Candidates and some actual conservative policies. Apart from culture war shitposting.
But do what you want. I am very, very confident that as long as you keep putting up TrumpWing maniacs, we -- the NeverTrumpers, and the independents, and the Trump-hating Democrats who are fired up like never before -- will keep beating you.
The Republican Party could nominate Liz Cheney. I'd vote for her. And I'd like to hear from any self-professed conservative as to why they would vote against her. Be careful, and exacting, and specific in why you'd oppose her.
Something else. Some 2/3 of the charges involve bookkeeping by one or another of the Trump group of companies, partnerships, etc. Yet he resigned his position in each and every one of them upon being sworn in as President. How then is he legally responsible for those things happening? He didn’t do the bookkeeping, nor was he in charge of those who did. There shouldn’t be any Respondeat Superior liability whatsoever. As for the 11 charges of signing the checks, It is likely that he just periodically got a stack of checks to sign, and signed them, without any indication of what they were for? Why? Again, to minimize conflicts of interest. Was it PDJT the one who classified the check as for Legal Services? Or the bookkeeper who just put that on every check for a lawyer that he had to sign?
This latter gets back to my point about LawFare being infamous for fudging general intent for the required specific intent. Let’s go back to Gen Flynn for a minute. He was charged with making a false statement to a federal official. He joked at the time (having come from Military Intelligence) that the FBI agents were in a better position to know the accuracy of his statement, than he was, because they had a copy of the transcript of his phone call, and he didn’t. Didn’t matter. He supposedly made a false statement. But that was general intent. What they couldn’t show was that he intentionally made it with the intention of obstructing an investigation (that also meant that the statement was not material, which is why the DOJ under AG Garr moved to dismiss the charge). The general intent was making the statement. The required specific intent was to make it to obstruct the investigation.
Here, the general intent was to sign the checks (and make the bookkeeping entries). The required specific intent would have been to have done so in order to commit some sort of business (or maybe election) fraud. Did PDJT know that signing those checks was in furtherance of such a business fraud? Highly unlikely. Contrary to recent Dem Presidents, he wasn’t a lawyer. He was a CEO. He hired lawyers to answer questions like that. Heck, it’s not even clear now that any fraud occurred - it’s an open legal question because the bottom line is that he was legally allowed to have paid for the blackmail payout in either case, personal or campaign, since politicians can make unlimited payments to their own campaigns. And a non-lawyer long time CEO was supposed to know that an check from an invoice submitted by one of his attorneys was misclassified? As I said, that’s what he hired attorneys for. And why the distinction between general and specific intent is important here.
“$130m=$130,000”
“I'm not not European”
Interesting response. My understanding is that you no longer live in the US, and I was going to maybe blame the misunderstanding on our part on that. No harm done - we all knew what you were saying, even if most of us now use K for thousands, M for Millions, (B for billions, T for trillions, etc). Much better than the European convention of reversing commas and periods in numbers. When someone is talking US$, they should use the American convention of using the period to indicate whole numbers from fractions. It’s our currency. Thinking back, that was drummed into us back in elementary school, when we first learned about decimal numbers.
“LOL Gadfly thinks the local DA can prosecute Federal laws that the Feds already said Trump did not violate and even if he had the law wouldn’t require disclosure until long after the election, just like McCarthy wrote in the very article under discussion here. The getTrumpers are a confused and feeble minded lot.”
This wash the providence of the FEC, which, unsurprisingly deadlocked on party lines. It is intentionally split evenly, with Congressional leaders of both parties selecting commissioners. They are intentionally paired, one Democrat and one Republican, so Schumer was able to prevent investigation of Crooked Hillary for some pretty gross campaign finance violations by refusing to name Dem commissioners, depriving Republicans of theirs, resulting in a lack of quorum.
In any case, what the DA is gliding over, by failing to specify exactly what statute, in what jurisdiction, was supposedly violated and how. Without the other “crime”, all they have is a bunch of alleged misdemeanors, with a 2 year statute of limitations. Before they go to trial, they are going to have to get specific, because they will have to prove the commission of that crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, as one of the required elements of a felony conviction. And the Feds passing on prosecuting Trump for this is strong indicia that there was reasonable doubt. The Feds have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute federal election crimes, esp at this level, so they would be in the questionable position of proving this federal crime beyond a reasonable doubt, that they legally cannot try him for, as the crime in chief. Of course, he could mean that the underlying crime was a state election law crime, but that would be preempted by federal exclusivity. Or, it could be some sort of business crime tied to the bookkeeping entries. The DA is keeping this vague, and I suspect because he knows that he is going to lose. Begley, or some other better attorney than I, will have to clarify this, but my understanding is that one of the next steps by the defense should usually be to request a more definite statement, and this would be one of the things they would ask be cleared up.
"Which makes me think that Comrade Robert spent his entire career in the payment of the state. He's never actually had to produce anything or be held accountable for anything. "
BONNNNGGGG! WRONG!
I have never worked for a government institution in any capacity at any level, unlike my two brothers, one a retired DEA agent and the other a one-time public high school teacher, both Republicans, though one is a Trump supporter and the other is sane and sees Trump has the liar and con-man he has always been. (If you think you know which of these two is the Trump supporter, you might be wrong!)
I know whatcha' mean, though, about those shiftless state workers who never produce anything and are accountable for nothing...just take a look at the cadres of thick-necked bully-boy cops-on-power-trips who are certainly Trump-lovin' Republicans! (I don't think all cops are of the "thick-necked bully-boy" type, as I have known several who aren't, including more than one bro-in-law! If they exist, others must also. Unfortunately, the thick-necked bully-boys cast a dark shadow of ill-repute on all cops.)
Seven Things You Don’t Know About the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case: If these trumped up charges were being used to disable a candidate in, say, Egypt or Russia, the U.S. State Department would condemn these tactics.
Two things I learned there. First, that NY law requires that “A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature . . . asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s or defendants’ commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” Secondly, that Trump actually reported the expenditures to the FEC.
Gahrie: "For all you never Trumpers:
Do you actually think that the Republican party can nominate ANYONE that the Democrats won't persecute and harass?
Look how they treated their lap dogs Romney and McCain."
The Romney and McCain campaigns were the GOPe-ers glory years and it worked out precisely as they wished....with Romney and McCain spending almost all their time attacking the republican base.
You can bet there are a number of republican posters at Althouse blog who recall those days wistfully.
Chuckie: "We will be attracted to some candidates who might actually win general elections."
Those don't exist.
You see, the establishment GOP won't get the TrumpWingers (as you call them) votes because the GOPe is a wing of the Democrat party. That's why GOPe wouldn't line up behind Trump as the GOP nominee, preferring to help reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven.
"Candidates and some actual conservative policies."
Conservative policies such as amnesty for illegal aliens, putting liberals on the Supreme Court, invading and destroying countries that are no threat to the US, inflicting huge increases in entitlement spending and deficits, supporting national health care and limitless abortion - those "conservative" policies? The ones that are also supported by Democrats?
Like the pro-slavery Northerners before the Civil War who were aligned with the Democrats of the South, Chuckie and his ilk will be the cause of our next civil war.
Trump is a democrat asset.
Learn it.
I would vote for Trump enthusiastically over Liz Cheney. geeez.
But he is still a fraud.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा