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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

This is about the author's opinions: 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.

So you disagree with:

JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

April 23, 2024, 12:39 p.m. ET19 minutes ago
19 minutes ago
Alan Feuer
Reporting from the courthouse

Trump’s lawyers have objected all along to prosecutors couching Trump’s relationship with Pecker and Michael Cohen as a conspiracy — after all, Trump is not facing a conspiracy charge. But Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, just noted for the first time in court that one of the election statutes the case is based on does in fact have a conspiracy provision. That could prove important later when the jury is instructed on the laws they must consider in reaching a verdict.

 

[westwall]

This is about the author's opinions: 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.

So you disagree with:

JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN

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

Which doesn't answer my question in the slightest
Try again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which doesn't answer my question in the slightest
Try again.

What is it you are asking? Is it relevant? Does it actually make any sense in the context of the OP Post #1?

 

[westwall]

What is it you are asking? Is it relevant? Does it actually make any sense in the context of the OP Post #1?

Of course it is relevant. How do you cover up a non crime.

Be specific.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it is relevant. How do you cover up a non crime.

Be specific.

Shugerman explained it, and I linked to his explanation, and you are arguing what?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A public service keeping the thread on track(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

 

[westwall]

Shugerman explained it, and I linked to his explanation, and you are arguing what?

No, he didn't. He never once explained how you can cover up a non crime.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, he didn't. He never once explained how you can cover up a non crime.

He explained how what Trump did can be considered a crime.

Your posts are deflections because they are not about what is posted in the thread. You are merely attacking Dante. Dante pwned you so many times in the past, you just can't let it go.

Your condition: DDS

 

[westwall]

He explained how what Trump did can be considered a crime.

Your posts are deflections because they are not about what is posted in the thread. You are merely attacking Dante. Dante pwned you so many times in the past, you just can't let it go.

Your condition: DDS

How can a non crime be a crime?

 

[BackAgain]

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

 

[Lastamender]

If your unnamed Democrats actually were able to handpicked lawyers to take down Trump, they could've done far better than Bragg and James.

please go away with your crazed conspiracy theories

Don't forget Smith. Judge Cannon just straightened his ass out.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DDS

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't forget Smith. Judge Cannon just straightened his ass out.

She's straightened Trump's ass out and will again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How can a non crime be a crime?

quote --
crimes
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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

www.nytimes.com

The author of this opinion piece, JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN, is highly regarded by fellows in his field of expertise. He is a co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v Trump. Shugerman is no ideological warrior, or political hack.

CREW v. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/2017/08/2017-08-11-EMOLUMENTS-Historians-Amicus-Motion.pdf

Wow!

“I received a call from Michael Cohen telling me that the boss wanted to see me,” Pecker says.

Pecker says he didn’t know the purpose of the meeting before he arrived. When he got there, he says, Cohen and Trump asked him what he and his magazines could do “to help the campaign,”

 

[BackAgain]

DDS

Zzz

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Zzz

There is no cure.

Now back on topic:

quotes --
David Pecker tells the courtroom that he asked Dylan Howard, the former editor of The National Enquirer, to investigate Karen McDougal’s story and that he told Cohen he had done so. He seems to indicate his conversations with Cohen soon increased in frequency and the two men began to talk multiple times daily. Cohen said they should communicate over Signal, an encrypted app, which is often used for conversations that a person wants to keep private.


Maggie Haberman
The jury is quite alert for this portion of Pecker’s testimony.

Kate Christobek
Trump’s body language changed when Pecker started testifying about the catch-and-kill deal involving McDougal. He started moving his head, squinting and pursing his lips, and then crossed his arms over his chest.

Jonah Bromwich
Pecker says he advised Trump to purchase McDougal’s story directly. “I think you should buy it,” he recalls having said to Trump, who was then a candidate for president. He says Trump said he’d think about it and have Cohen call Pecker back.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Trump, speaking in the hallway outside the courtroom, says he thinks the gag order is unconstitutional." - Dope. Gag orders are not unusual, forget about unconstitutional.

LOL

 

[BackAgain]

There is no cure.

For your abiding ignorance?

Now back on topic:

You, of all people, want to stick to an alleged topic?

Mark this day on a big old calendar.

quotes --
David Pecker tells the courtroom that he asked Dylan Howard, the former editor of The National Enquirer, to investigate Karen McDougal’s story and that he told Cohen he had done so. He seems to indicate his conversations with Cohen soon increased in frequency and the two men began to talk multiple times daily. Cohen said they should communicate over Signal, an encrypted app, which is often used for conversations that a person wants to keep private.


Maggie Haberman
The jury is quite alert for this portion of Pecker’s testimony.

Kate Christobek
Trump’s body language changed when Pecker started testifying about the catch-and-kill deal involving McDougal. He started moving his head, squinting and pursing his lips, and then crossed his arms over his chest.

Jonah Bromwich
Pecker says he advised Trump to purchase McDougal’s story directly. “I think you should buy it,” he recalls having said to Trump, who was then a candidate for president. He says Trump said he’d think about it and have Cohen call Pecker back.

I can’t help but note that The Dainty is presently all about pecker.