Blah, blah, blah.
BINGO!
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
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
They are told to? By whom?
CoAngelo worked as a prosecutor in New York with Alvin Bragg before the DOJ hired him temporarily, and then he returned back to his home to work for New York State again....silly one!
They are told to? By whom?
Not true but even if it were so what?... he worked for Garland as a senior DOJ prosecutor.... he worked on the Tish James case and now he is with Bragg who had to have his arm twisted by Garland to even bring the case...
The kind with former leaders who are criminals?
Picked by VOTERS you mean.
If they are then a quick dismissal will come.
They're in the indictment.
Poor the dainty. Narcissistic to a fault. But also delusional.
No. They aren’t.
~~~~~~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.
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
