Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

[jotathought]

Bragg prosecuted a store clerk who defended himself and killed the would-be robber .. Social reaction and response had him drop the charges.

Says alot about the ethics of this piece of shit prosecutor.

 

[westwall]

Read the indictment and follow the trial.

I read the indictment. It lists no underlying crime.

 

[Dante]

Bragg prosecuted a store clerk who defended himself and killed the would-be robber .. Social reaction and response had him drop the charges.

Says alot about the ethics of this piece of shit prosecutor.

Do not try and hijack this thread. And btw, no one was prosecuted. They were charged. Charges were dropped. The much hateed (by you people) Mayor, voiced outrage. The system needed to be allowed to see it through.

The slay charges brought by Bragg’s office prompted an uproar, with Alba and his many backers — who ranged from Mayor Eric Adams to former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton — arguing his actions were clearly self-defense.

Following an investigation, prosecutors concluded they couldn’t prove that Alba “was not justified in his use of deadly physical force,” the motion said. Surveillance footage of the attack showed Alba being attacked by Austin Simon, 35, and even telling the assailant, “Papa, I don’t want a problem.’’

 

[Billiejeens]

Crimes that are past the statute of limitations?... hush money case???? man everyone can see what this is and who is running this BS and its Biden... he should be in a courtroom not Trump....
And when Justice prevails and it will one day we may see that happen....

From listening to the proceedings (limited so far) they may agree that it is a mistake.
They seem to have pivoted from the "bookkeeping error" to - how Candidate Trump wanted to seem more electable to the public than Democrats wanted him to be.

 

[Dante]

I read the indictment. It lists no underlying crime.

From the OP:

On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.

From Post #2:


And as a public service (sans a paywall):

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

 

[westwall]

From the OP:

On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.

From Post #2:


And as a public service (sans a paywall):

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

How does a person cover up a non crime?

Please be very specific.

 

[Dante]

From listening to the proceedings (limited so far) they may agree that it is a mistake.
They seem to have pivoted from the "bookkeeping error" to - how Candidate Trump wanted to seem more electable to the public than Democrats wanted him to be.

The prosecution has not pivoted away from anything. If you'd read the indictment you would know this. And you are commenting on an opening statement, not the prosecution's arguments, which have not all been laid out so far.

The court has this by the end of each day:

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):Latest Correspondence, Decisions, Orders & Media Access

ww2.nycourts.gov

Trump's Tribulations: The New York state court system has just agreed to publish a transcript of each day’s proceeding

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml There’s some good news for people who want to follow the Trump trial in detail, but can’t make it to the courthouse. The New York state court system has just agreed to publish a transcript of each day’s proceeding by the end of the following day on its...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dante]

How does a person cover up a non crime?

Please be very specific.

The author lays it out.

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

 

[Billiejeens]

Bragg prosecuted a store clerk who defended himself and killed the would-be robber .. Social reaction and response had him drop the charges.

Says alot about the ethics of this piece of shit prosecutor.

He has a history of reducing felonies to misdemeanors or dismissals - this singular instance stands out, for a reason.

 

[Billiejeens]

The prosecution has not pivoted away from anything. If you'd read the indictment you would know this. And you are commenting on an opening statement, not the prosecution's arguments, which have not all been laid out so far.

The court has this by the end of each day:

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):Latest Correspondence, Decisions, Orders & Media Access

ww2.nycourts.gov

Trump's Tribulations: The New York state court system has just agreed to publish a transcript of each day’s proceeding

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml There’s some good news for people who want to follow the Trump trial in detail, but can’t make it to the courthouse. The New York state court system has just agreed to publish a transcript of each day’s proceeding by the end of the following day on its...

www.usmessageboard.com

You do, or you do not, know what "limited so far" means?

 

[jotathought]

Do not try and hijack this thread. And btw, no one was prosecuted. They were charged. Charges were dropped. The much hateed (by you people) Mayor, voiced outrage. The system needed to be allowed to see it through.

The slay charges brought by Bragg’s office prompted an uproar, with Alba and his many backers — who ranged from Mayor Eric Adams to former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton — arguing his actions were clearly self-defense.

Following an investigation, prosecutors concluded they couldn’t prove that Alba “was not justified in his use of deadly physical force,” the motion said. Surveillance footage of the attack showed Alba being attacked by Austin Simon, 35, and even telling the assailant, “Papa, I don’t want a problem.’’

Sharing the character of Bragg is "hijacking the thread?" .. he's a douche.

 

[Dante]

You do, or you do not, know what "limited so far" means?

I'm not the kind to take things out of a full context and distort in order to make shit up. That's your job. Run with it. Now, back to teh subject at hand.

From the OP:
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.

This is a pretty damn good piece:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[jotathought]

He has a history of reducing felonies to misdemeanors or dismissals - this singular instance stands out, for a reason.

Don't hijack the thread based on his demonstrated history of litigation!! According to the OP.

 

[Dante]

Sharing the character of Bragg is "hijacking the thread?" .. he's a douche.

Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dante]

Don't hijack the thread based on his demonstrated history of litigation!! According to the OP.

Post #2:
And as a public service (sans a paywall):

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.

web.archive.org

 

[jotathought]

Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...

www.usmessageboard.com

So you agree or disagree with his history of litigation, and poor decisions?

 

[jotathought]

Post #2:
And as a public service (sans a paywall):

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.

web.archive.org

It doesn't change his history as a litigator ..

 

[Billiejeens]

Don't hijack the thread based on his demonstrated history of litigation!! According to the OP.

The OP is a bit of a micromanaging control freak.
He literally must have only compliance in his thread, or he gets grumpy.

 

[westwall]

The author lays it out.

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

So, no crime. Just the covering up of an act that isn't in any way criminal.

So why try and cover up something that isn't a crime, and, more to the point, is that even possible in non retard land?

 

[jotathought]

The OP is a bit of a micromanaging control freak.
He literally must have only compliance in his thread, or he gets grumpy.

I realize that .. especially when individuals share related insights into the topic.