Analysis of the Bragg prosecution.

[OKTexas]

~~~~~~
Let's see what happens this weekend when DJT holds a rally in the Bronx's Crotona Park.
Mayor Adams is praying for a hurricane to offset the Tornado that the Trump rally will cause.

Adams is a punk that needs to be punked.

.

 

[jc456]

Actually the ONLY one who can testify that Trump knew nothing is Trump.

If I was asked if I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls, I would have to say "No!"

why would someone take a stand when no crime has been provided. He has no obligation to be interrogated.

 

[Lisa558]

Was the Jury in the room?

Oh damn….good point. The jury doesn’t know that the expert wanted to explain to them how Trump committed no violation of election law.

That Merchan should be disbarred.

 

[postman]

No evidence Trump did that. The defense witness testified that Cohen told him that Trump knew nothing about the payoff.

So, reasonable doubt. Should be an acquittal.

You must be talking about Cohens lawyer Costello. The one that Trumps new personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani recommended.
The one that because of that, Cohen didn't trust with the truth.

 

[Lisa558]

why would someone take a stand when no crime has been provided. He has no obligation to be interrogated.

Exactly. According to that leftist, if I’m accused of committing an unidentified crime, the only way the prosecutor can prove I did it is if I take the stand and say I didn’t.

 

[postman]

The jury could also see how the judge didn’t allow the expert defense witness to testify that Trump did not violate any election law. That alone is grounds for an appeal.

The judge determines matters of law, the jury determines matters of fact. Witnesses testify as to facts.

 

[Lisa558]

You must be talking about Cohens lawyer Costello. The one that Trumps new personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani recommended.
The one that because of that, Cohen didn't trust with the truth.

ha, ha….too funny! Cohen is talking about who he doesn’t trust with the truth? The same Cohen who is a convicted perjurer, and was again caught lying on the stand.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, the case against Trump relies on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

Stellar review and analysis

Even the Orange Man Bad jurors should find him not guilty and ask that Bragg and Coangelo be charged with prosecutorial misconduct

 

[Lisa558]

The judge determines matters of law, the jury determines matters of fact. Witnesses testify as to facts.

The judge is ridiculously biased in trying to get Trump convicted.

And the prosecutor’s witnesses are a prostitute who went for a shakedown and a convicted perjurer. But because you’re brainwashed against Trump, you decide what they’ve said are the “facts.”

 

[postman]

why would someone take a stand when no crime has been provided. He has no obligation to be interrogated.

They produced both direct and circumstantial evidence that Trump knew of the payments, and of cooking the books, and his intentions as part of a conspiracy.
The only one who can refute he was a member of that conspiratorial group is Trump himself.

 

[Lisa558]

Stellar review and analysis

Even the Orange Man Bad jurors should find him not guilty and ask that Bragg and Coangelo be charged with prosecutorial misconduct

Agree that it what should happen.

My fear is that the jury will be hung and Bragg will choose to start the trial all over again - during the last couple of months of the campaign, and take Trump off the trail.

There is NOTHING too low for Democrats.

 

[dudmuck]

hilarious at it's best right here. holy fk are you a cuck!!! compliant must be your middle name. There is absolutely nothing in that nonsense showing DJT fingerprints. It is an opinion piece of a violant fkwad like you!

thats correct, i didnt put any of the actual evidence. I only put a description of what needs to be proven. If you want to know the actual evidence they have that Trump caused the falsification of records, you can read about it here. I'm not going to regurgitate it here.

 

[postman]

Exactly. According to that leftist, if I’m accused of committing an unidentified crime, the only way the prosecutor can prove I did it is if I take the stand and say I didn’t.

We aren't asking Trump to testify to incriminate himself. But if he wants to refute the elements of the case, he has to do so under oath. Not on the courtroom steps.

 

[Lisa558]

We aren't asking Trump to testify to incriminate himself. But if he wants to refute the elements of the case, he has to do so under oath. Not on the courtroom steps.

No he doesn’t. That’s what his defense team has done.

 

[postman]

The judge is ridiculously biased in trying to get Trump convicted.

And the prosecutor’s witnesses are a prostitute who went for a shakedown and a convicted perjurer. But because you’re brainwashed against Trump, you decide what they’ve said are the “facts.”

Don't forget David Pecker. The publisher of the National Enquirer.

 

[jc456]

They produced both direct and circumstantial evidence that Trump knew of the payments, and of cooking the books, and his intentions as part of a conspiracy.

nope and nope. if they had, they'd have read the charge.

 

[BackAgain]

That's where you're wrong.

Nope. I’m right.

Pecker laid out the grand conspiracy to "catch and kill" negative stories about Trump. And to create "fake news" about his opponents.

The colorful but misleading phrase “catch and kill” is of no legal significance.

And like Pecker paid off Karen McDugal, he refused to pay off the next one (Stormy Daniels).

Then use of the deliberately misleading term “pay off” is irrelevant. NDA’s are legal as is paying for them.

We then have the recording of Trump telling Cohen to pay it off in cash.

Yeah. Pay off the NDA? So what?

 

[BackAgain]

You have to pay attention to even the boring parts of the trial.
They introduced Trumps book into evidence.

Again. Of no actual value.

You need to learn to distinguish between actual material and relevant evidence and the other crap. Business people keep “books.” So what?

 

[jc456]

The judge is ridiculously biased in trying to get Trump convicted.

And the prosecutor’s witnesses are a prostitute who went for a shakedown and a convicted perjurer. But because you’re brainwashed against Trump, you decide what they’ve said are the “facts.”

judicial corruption exists against trump!

 

[postman]

No he doesn’t. That’s what his defense team has done.

Judge Merchen told Trump that the gag order, in no way prevents him from testifying.

And we all know why Trump won't testify. Because in the two previous cases where he testified, he lost BIGLY.