Are Republican's claims valid that Trump's indictment is 'political'?

[Rumpole]

Way tl;dr

It's true, if you have a short attention span, my comments are not for you. I'll place you on ignore.

 

[kyzr]

Andrew Weissman, Lawrence Tribe, Barbara McQuade, Neil Katyal, Chuck Rosenberg, to name a few.

Weissman is a hack not a professor. Failed lead Mueller Investigator.

Tribe said nothing recently about Bragg's indictment.

The others must be hacks too. Never heard of them.

You got ANY Law professors supporting Bragg's indictment?

 

[Rumpole]

TDS is when you find a person you hate and launch numerous investigations into them, abusing your power in the process, just so you can get the person you hate with something, anything.

Your statement is an assumption manufactured on falsehoods.

Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves.

If you were correct, you'd have a point. Since you are not correct, you do not have valid point.

This is clear abuse of the justice system for purely partisan political gain.

Wrong. Any data point parading as a legitimate phenomenon that serves only a political agenda is not fact, it's propaganda.

 

[Rumpole]

Weissman is a hack not a professor. Failed lead Mueller Investigator.

Your characterization is utterly cheap, false and evidence of your partisanship
He is, indeed, a law professor and has had more trial experience than most law professors who never saw a day in court:
Andrew A. Weissmann (born March 17, 1958) is an American attorney and professor. He was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015- –2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School. [5]

In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Weissmann to be the deputy director and then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Enron Task Force.[5] Weissman also served as the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2011 to 2013.[5]

Starting in 2015, he became the chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. In June 2017, he was appointed to a management role on the 2017 special counsel team headed by Robert Mueller. To assume that position, Weissmann took a leave from his Department of Justice post. The special counsel's investigation concluded in 2019 and Weissmann went into the private sector.

His assignment to the Mueller investigation was competent and professional, and your characterization is anemic and devoid of fact.

Tribe said nothing recently about Bragg's indictment.

No, but he's spoken often on crimes Trump can be indicted federally on and that Dershowitz's defense of Trump is 'dangerous'.

The others must be hacks too. Never heard of them.

Katyal argued before the Supreme court recently on Moore v Harper. Clearly you are uninformed and have no credibility.

You got ANY Law professors supporting Bragg's indictment?

I got Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe criticizing Dershowitz "There is no other legal scholar that agrees with Dershowitz"

Tribe said nothing recently about Bragg's indictment.

The others must be hacks too. Never heard of them.

Your willingness to assess before facts is telling. The two you've never heard of are prominent in law. You are grossly uninformed and clearly a partisan hack, yourself, given the caliber and tone of your comments.

You got ANY Law professors supporting Bragg's indictment?

 

[kyzr]

Your characterization is utterly cheap, false and evidence of your partisanship
He is, indeed, a law professor and has had more trial experience than most law professors who never saw a day in court:
Andrew A. Weissmann (born March 17, 1958) is an American attorney and professor. He was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015- –2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School. [5]

In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Weissmann to be the deputy director and then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Enron Task Force.[5] Weissman also served as the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2011 to 2013.[5]

Starting in 2015, he became the chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. In June 2017, he was appointed to a management role on the 2017 special counsel team headed by Robert Mueller. To assume that position, Weissmann took a leave from his Department of Justice post. The special counsel's investigation concluded in 2019 and Weissmann went into the private sector.

His assignment to the Mueller investigation was competent and professional, and your characterization is anemic and devoid of fact.

No, but he's spoken often on crimes Trump can be indicted federally on and that Dershowitz's defense of Trump is 'dangerous'.

Katyal argued before the Supreme court recently on Moore v Harper. Clearly you are uninformed and have no credibility.

I got Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe criticizing Dershowitz "There is no other legal scholar that agrees with Dershowitz"

Your willingness to assess before facts is telling. The two you've never heard of are prominent in law. You are grossly uninformed and clearly a partisan hack, yourself, given the caliber and tone of your comments.

Nice post. But I have two Law professors, Turley and Dershowitz that criticized Bragg's "reported" indictment on the Stormy payment.
Understood that the indictment is sealed, so not 100% sure what it says.

One more time:
You have ANY recent quotes from any Law professors backing up Bragg's indictment regarding the hush money payment to Stormy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I suggest that such claims by Republicans, itself, is political. It certainly gives Republicans, many of whom, privately, have expressed their dislike of Trump, while publically either being indifferent or approving of him, the claims of 'political' give Republicans a political advantage if they succeed in convincing a large swath of the electorate that the claim is true.

But is it true? Let's take a deep dive (and please, those with short attention spans are not invited).

The recent indictment of former President Donald Trump on over 30 counts of crimes has brought to light once again the problematic claim of Republicans that this is a political move. This claim conveniently ignores the numerous examples of hypocrisy in their own actions, such as their investigations into Hunter Biden and current President Joe Biden, both of whom have not been indicted for any crimes in which there is one salient and glaring fact: Rep. Comer's investigation, when assigned to the task, his committee was investigating Jared Kushner, which he stalled in favor of investigating Hunter Biden (but the target of the investigation, as admitted by Comer, is Joe Biden), and to date, their 'memo' does not actually prove any illegal activity by the 'Biden family', a characterization which, though intended to imply, does not include include Joe Biden

Moreover, this claim also overlooks the fact that Trump's own family members, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, have benefited from their connections to foreign officials, which could potentially constitute conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.

Let us first examine the claims made by Republicans that Trump's indictment is politically motivated. While it is true that politics can play a role in legal proceedings, it is important to note that the evidence presented against Trump is extensive and has been gathered over several years by multiple investigators. It is also worth mentioning that the indictments were issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is not a partisan entity and has a long history of impartiality.

Contrast this with the Republican-led investigations into Hunter Biden, who is not, nor has he ever been, a public official. These investigations seem to have been motivated purely by political gain and have not resulted in any criminal charges being brought against Biden. It is also worth noting that Joe Biden himself has not been indicted for any crimes, despite the intense scrutiny he has faced from Republicans.

However, the hypocrisy of the Republicans does not end there. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, held a senior advisory position in the White House and reportedly received $2 billion from Mohammed Bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This payment was allegedly made in exchange for soft treatment by the Trump White House, and Bin Salman himself is suspected of involvement in the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Similarly, Ivanka Trump also held a senior advisory position in the White House and received accelerated trademarks worth millions from China. These trademarks allowed her to sell products to the tune of millions in profits while her father was negotiating with China on a trade deal.

It is difficult to argue that these actions by Kushner and Ivanka Trump do not constitute conflicts of interest and potentially unethical behavior. Yet, Republicans have largely ignored these examples of possible corruption within their own party.

In conclusion, the Republican claim that Trump's indictment is politically motivated is problematic and ignores the extensive evidence gathered against him. Moreover, it highlights the hypocrisy of their investigations into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, who have not been indicted for any crimes given that no evidence has ever been forthcoming (though plenty of implication and innuendo), while ignoring the potential conflicts of interest and unethical behavior of their own party members, such as Kushner and Ivanka Trump. It is important for us to hold all public officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their actions and to demand transparency and integrity in our political system.

So a District Attorney can indict Hillary for funding the fake Steek Dossier? Charge her with election interference?

 

[Staidhup]

Nixon would feel a great deal of joy and sense of redemption watching Biden’s handlers weaponize the DOJ. Now that the gloves are off what’s next?

 

[Rumpole]

Nice post. But I have two Law professors, Turley and Dershowitz that criticized Bragg's "reported" indictment on the Stormy payment.
Understood that the indictment is sealed, so not 100% sure what it says.

One more time:
You have ANY recent quotes from any Law professors backing up Bragg's indictment regarding the hush money payment to Stormy?

I repeat, there are two videos of two law professors commenting on the video. No law professor worth his or her salt will 'condem or affirm' an indictment with charges that are not released, and they are not released, to Turley and Dershowitz are out of line in their opinions without knowing the facts of the charges and the indictment, itself.

Tribe is a harvard law professor who is highly critical of Dershowitz, and Turley and Dershowitz are birds of that feather, so they flock together.

First, we do not know what the charges on the indictments are, and it is therefore premature of any 'law professor' to criticize before they read the evidence and the indictments and I provide two links, two videos of two law professors, who commented on what the charges 'might be' (which is the correct thing to do, which Turley and Dershowitz did not do) and Weissman is a professor at NY Law school

But, Turley and Dershowitz are against the indictment of a US president on general grounds, and on general grounds, there are many law professors that disagree with that point of view, and in fact, most of them do not, as Tribe has pointed out.

Your being wrong about Weissman, your ad hom characterizations are cheap shots, you ad hommed two you never heard of, and therefore your credibility is diminished greatly if not down to zero.

 

[kyzr]

I repeat, there are two videos of two law professors commenting on the video. No law professor worth his or her salt will 'condemn or affirm' an indictment with charges that are not released, and they are not released, to Turley and Dershowitz are out of line in their opinions without knowing the facts of the charges and the indictment, itself.

Tribe is a Harvard law professor who is highly critical of Dershowitz, and Turley and Dershowitz are birds of that feather, so they flock together.

First, we do not know what the charges on the indictments are, and it is therefore premature of any 'law professor' to criticize before they read the evidence and the indictments and I provide two links, two videos of two law professors, who commented on what the charges 'might be' (which is the correct thing to do, which Turley and Dershowitz did not do) and Weissman is a professor at NY Law school

But, Turley and Dershowitz are against the indictment of a US president on general grounds, and on general grounds, there are many law professors that disagree with that point of view, and in fact, most of them do not, as Tribe has pointed out.

Your being wrong about Weissman, your ad hom characterizations are cheap shots, you ad hommed two you never heard of, and therefore your credibility is diminished greatly if not down to zero.

OK, that would be a nice TV show, Dershowitz vs Tribe debating law cases of the day that have political overtones, or USSC cases.

Anyway, I would hope that Tribe or Weissman could critique' the Turley/Dershowitz preliminary "opinions". Turley keeps updating his based on the most recent info.

The Trump Indictment: Making History in the Worst Possible Way

Below is my column in Fox.com on the Trump indictment. There is a report of 34 counts against former President Donald Trump, which may be count stacking based on individual payments or documents. W…

jonathanturley.org

Alan Dershowitz says Trump indictment 'may be one of the weakest cases'

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in a six-year-old case the Feds refused to take up.

krcrtv.com

Very true I'm not a fan of Weissman after the Mueller "witch hunt". They were supposed to investigate "Russian collusion", but never even looked at the Steele Dossier (written by Russians!!). So Weissman's credibility is below zero. Still, if he renders a legal opinion on the Bragg indictment I'll read it. I think the next step is for Trump's lawyers to file motions to dismiss, then we see how all that plays out. Apparently the hush money payment is just a personal payment, not a tax deduction, not campaign funds, no legal implications, etc.

 

[scruffy]

It's true, if you have a short attention span, my comments are not for you. I'll place you on ignore.

Do that.

You're just boring.

 

[Dadoalex]

I suggest that such claims by Republicans, itself, is political. It certainly gives Republicans, many of whom, privately, have expressed their dislike of Trump, while publically either being indifferent or approving of him, the claims of 'political' give Republicans a political advantage if they succeed in convincing a large swath of the electorate that the claim is true.

But is it true? Let's take a deep dive (and please, those with short attention spans are not invited).

The recent indictment of former President Donald Trump on over 30 counts of crimes has brought to light once again the problematic claim of Republicans that this is a political move. This claim conveniently ignores the numerous examples of hypocrisy in their own actions, such as their investigations into Hunter Biden and current President Joe Biden, both of whom have not been indicted for any crimes in which there is one salient and glaring fact: Rep. Comer's investigation, when assigned to the task, his committee was investigating Jared Kushner, which he stalled in favor of investigating Hunter Biden (but the target of the investigation, as admitted by Comer, is Joe Biden), and to date, their 'memo' does not actually prove any illegal activity by the 'Biden family', a characterization which, though intended to imply, does not include include Joe Biden

Moreover, this claim also overlooks the fact that Trump's own family members, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, have benefited from their connections to foreign officials, which could potentially constitute conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.

Let us first examine the claims made by Republicans that Trump's indictment is politically motivated. While it is true that politics can play a role in legal proceedings, it is important to note that the evidence presented against Trump is extensive and has been gathered over several years by multiple investigators. It is also worth mentioning that the indictments were issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is not a partisan entity and has a long history of impartiality.

Contrast this with the Republican-led investigations into Hunter Biden, who is not, nor has he ever been, a public official. These investigations seem to have been motivated purely by political gain and have not resulted in any criminal charges being brought against Biden. It is also worth noting that Joe Biden himself has not been indicted for any crimes, despite the intense scrutiny he has faced from Republicans.

However, the hypocrisy of the Republicans does not end there. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, held a senior advisory position in the White House and reportedly received $2 billion from Mohammed Bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This payment was allegedly made in exchange for soft treatment by the Trump White House, and Bin Salman himself is suspected of involvement in the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Similarly, Ivanka Trump also held a senior advisory position in the White House and received accelerated trademarks worth millions from China. These trademarks allowed her to sell products to the tune of millions in profits while her father was negotiating with China on a trade deal.

It is difficult to argue that these actions by Kushner and Ivanka Trump do not constitute conflicts of interest and potentially unethical behavior. Yet, Republicans have largely ignored these examples of possible corruption within their own party.

In conclusion, the Republican claim that Trump's indictment is politically motivated is problematic and ignores the extensive evidence gathered against him. Moreover, it highlights the hypocrisy of their investigations into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, who have not been indicted for any crimes given that no evidence has ever been forthcoming (though plenty of implication and innuendo), while ignoring the potential conflicts of interest and unethical behavior of their own party members, such as Kushner and Ivanka Trump. It is important for us to hold all public officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their actions and to demand transparency and integrity in our political system.

The crimes are there.
His co-conspirators have provided damning testimony.
To FAIL to act would be political.
By indicting we attempt to bring even a tiny drop of truth and justice back to our political system.

Background:
Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn actress.
He could have paid her off in 2009 in which case this is just prostitution.
But Donnie decided in 2016 to go for the coverup.
Just giving her the money would have been a campaign finance violation. Not too bad.
But DJ decided to have his lawyer set up a fake corporation to pass the money on to the Enquirer
This, friends is called money laundering a pretty serious felony.
But in acting in cooperation with Cohen and Pecker up comes the very serious Conspiracy charge.

And that's just 3 of the rumored 34 criminal charges.

Trump's WH portrait.

 

[Rumpole]

Assuming there will be other indictments and other charges (not a good assumption), this is a BAD one to come out of the gate first.

And if there are no other indictments, it will look even WORSE.

Trump's superpower is putting intelligent adults in impossible situations with his behaviors.

Trump is a monster, and the legal system isn't well designed for such a creature. But, they must indict, he must be held accountable for his crimes.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Your view is that of a cynic, and I"m not a cynic.

Cynicism begets nihilism and that is a very dark place.

true. You're a douchebag,.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is a monster, and the legal system isn't well designed for such a creature. But, they must indict, he must be held accountable for his crimes.

Yeah, that's what I mean by impossible situations. Let it go and you only invite more and further empower the elites. Prosecute and you the run the risk of losing and/or diluting the other cases.

I think I've settled on the former, but this case going first has me queasy.

 

[bripat9643]

The crimes are there.
His co-conspirators have provided damning testimony.
To FAIL to act would be political.
By indicting we attempt to bring even a tiny drop of truth and justice back to our political system.

Background:
Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn actress.
He could have paid her off in 2009 in which case this is just prostitution.
But Donnie decided in 2016 to go for the coverup.
Just giving her the money would have been a campaign finance violation. Not too bad.
But DJ decided to have his lawyer set up a fake corporation to pass the money on to the Enquirer
This, friends is called money laundering a pretty serious felony.
But in acting in cooperation with Cohen and Pecker up comes the very serious Conspiracy charge.

And that's just 3 of the rumored 34 criminal charges.

Trump's WH portrait.

View attachment 772002

The "crimes" are pure delusions.

 

[Independentthinker]

Your statement is an assumption manufactured on falsehoods.

If you were correct, you'd have a point. Since you are not correct, you do not have valid point.

Wrong. Any data point parading as a legitimate phenomenon that serves only a political agenda is not fact, it's propaganda.

Glad to know that when the indictments are released and every single charge is linked in one way or another to hush money payments that all of you lefties agree that it is nothing but a political witch hunt and abuse of power.

 

[bripat9643]

Your statement is an assumption manufactured on falsehoods.

If you were correct, you'd have a point. Since you are not correct, you do not have valid point.

Wrong. Any data point parading as a legitimate phenomenon that serves only a political agenda is not fact, it's propaganda.

What "falshoods?"

 

[Rumpole]

OK, that would be a nice TV show, Dershowitz vs Tribe debating law cases of the day that have political overtones, or USSC cases.

All for it.

Anyway, I would hope that Tribe or Weissman could critique' the Turley/Dershowitz preliminary "opinions". Turley keeps updating his based on the most recent info.

Fine

The Trump Indictment: Making History in the Worst Possible Way

Below is my column in Fox.com on the Trump indictment. There is a report of 34 counts against former President Donald Trump, which may be count stacking based on individual payments or documents. W…

jonathanturley.org

A political opinion, even when delivered by a 'law professor', therefore becomes level with all pundits. The links I've provided on law professors comment to the law and the facts of the case as are currently known, noting that the indictment with the charges have not been released, and commenting on those would be premature.

Alan Dershowitz says Trump indictment 'may be one of the weakest cases'

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in a six-year-old case the Feds refused to take up.

krcrtv.com

Very true I'm not a fan of Weissman after the Mueller "witch hunt".

I woudl write you a long treatise on the fallacy of the premise, but, I won't.

They were supposed to investigate "Russian collusion",

Any investigation, which is what the Mueller investigation was, a hybrid investigation, part crime finding, part report to congress because of OLC policy no determination of criminality was given effort insofar as Trump was concerned, only facts and how they might apply to law, is provided.

Numerous criminal referrals were given on others. and on 'collusion', note that there is no crime of collusion. But, the objective of an investigation is either to, 1. Determine potential criminality. 2. Investigate russian interference, 3. exonerate where appropriate, an provide a report to congress. The 500 page report was detailed, thorough, noting that it's potential robustness was cut short by Barr under pressure from Trump. As such, it was successful and most definitely not a 'witch hunt' which is a weasel word.

More on that point:

There have been reports that former President Donald Trump did pressure his then-Attorney General, William Barr, to get Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. However, both Trump and Barr have denied that any such pressure was applied.

In his testimony before Congress in 2019, Barr stated that Trump never asked him to interfere with the investigation, but he did acknowledge that Trump had expressed frustration with the probe and its impact on his presidency. Barr also stated that he believed that Mueller was allowed to complete his investigation without interference.

However, there have been reports from other sources, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, that Trump did try to pressure Barr to end the investigation or limit its scope. The exact nature and extent of any pressure applied by Trump on Barr is still a matter of debate and investigation.

but never even looked at the Steele Dossier (written by Russians!!). So Weissman's credibility is below zero.

Given his credentials, your assessment is hyperpartisan. You need to explore your allegations and opinions with greater depth, if you ever want to be closer to the truth, as life is nuanced far more than what appears to be simplistic notions.

Still, if he renders a legal opinion on the Bragg indictment I'll read it. I think the next step is for Trump's lawyers to file motions to dismiss, then we see how all that plays out. Apparently the hush money payment is just a personal payment, not a tax deduction, not campaign funds, no legal implications, etc.

Note that a competent attorney, legal scholar, or law professor, will confine his comments to known facts and applicable law.
I suggest that for such persons, it is wiser to avoid political opinions, but if they are given, political opinions are level to punditry, in general. You appear to be putting far to much weight on Turley's and Dershowitz's political opinions, and they are full of them.

Here are two videos of Weiss commenting on the recent indictment, or various aspects of it which are known.





You should also go back and review the other two videos of law professors I provided.

 

[Rumpole]

Glad to know that when the indictments are released and every single charge is linked in one way or another to hush money payments that all of you lefties agree that it is nothing but a political witch hunt and abuse of power.

As long as the charges are based on facts of evidence, and applicable law, I believe in the justice system. not perfect, but better than a lot of countries.

 

[Rumpole]

So a District Attorney can indict Hillary for funding the fake Steek Dossier? Charge her with election interference?

Whether they can, can't, should, or shouldn't, is a matter of prosecutorial discretion derived from known facts, evidence, context, circumstances, and applicable law.