Is Alvin Bragg answerable to Congress?

[The5thHorseman]

26 years in law enforcement and thousands of hours in court.

This is Civics 101 stuff.

Then you shouldn't have any problem sprinkling your narrative with references.

Proceed.

 

[Blaster]

Kellyanne Conway on ‘delay’ in Bragg charging Trump: ‘they know it’s weak’

Former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway said Saturday that Manhattan prosecuter Alvin Bragg’s “delay” in indicting Trump stems from the case being “weak.” Conway offered…

thehill.com

 

[SavannahMann]

Congress wants to talk to him about his pursuit of an indictment of Donald Trump. He complained that the request that he appear before Congress is "an unprecedented inquiry into a local pending prosecution.

He's wrong on several counts. It is his digging up of a seven year old federal case and trying to cut and paste some kind of hybrid federal and state crime that is unprecedented. Many of the actions taken against Trump have been unprecedented, along with the usual sneer and smear we are used to from Democrats.

Sorry, my dude!

You cant prosecute a former president who doesn't reside in your state shortly after he declares his candidacy for president and not expect congress to notice. You chose to run with the big dogs, so it is laughable to play the "I'm just a local boy fighting local crime" card.

It is my understanding, and perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but the responsibility for prosecution is where the crime takes place. If I commit a robbery in New York City, arguing that I don’t live there isn’t a defense. If I come to your town, and murder someone. Isn’t it your town that has the right, and responsibility, to hold me to account?

 

[SavannahMann]

There are two issues. 1. That a local Prosecutor, with no statutory authority to bring federal charges is trying to do so. Charges that have been declined for prosecution at a federal level. 2. The statutory limitations on the two local charges has expired as they were misdemeanors. These actions both Violate Trumps right to equal treatment under the law as defined in the Constitution. The over-reach into federal crimes by a local prosecutor is unlawful. The contortions that you go through to make any of this legal are mind-bending.

Then we add the fact that Bragg withheld exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury... over 600 pages worth...

He has crossed the line several times and should be disbarred at the very least. Congressional Oversight is indeed warranted, and laws passed to keep it from ever happening again.

Perhaps you can help me. When did the Grand Jury become the trial? As I understand it, the purpose of the Grand Jury is to see if enough evidence exists to justify an indictment.

The appropriate place for the exculpatory evidence is at the trial. When guilt is decided. But apparently you feel the Grand Jury should not only decide if sufficient evidence exists for an indictment, but manage the trial phase and determine guilt or innocence as well. When did this start?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then you shouldn't have any problem sprinkling your narrative with references.

Proceed.

Please show me where Bragg has any right to proceed in federal statutes.

The Two misdemeanor charges have a statute of limitations of two years. It has been seven years. And four of those were in the white house. So, the "we didn't know where to find him" won't work...

Then you tell me how you can roll these two together and come up with a felony. This one has legal experts stunned. Not even they can figure out what this idiot is trying to do. Make shit up is all he has...

The violations of the equal protections clause are stunning and blatant.

Now pony up your facts... that was off the top of my head, EXPERIENCE!

 

[Seymour Flops]

But Bragg IS the law, in Manhattan.

Of course he is not "the law."

 

[Billy_Bob]

Perhaps you can help me. When did the Grand Jury become the trial? As I understand it, the purpose of the Grand Jury is to see if enough evidence exists to justify an indictment.

The appropriate place for the exculpatory evidence is at the trial. When guilt is decided. But apparently you feel the Grand Jury should not only decide if sufficient evidence exists for an indictment, but manage the trial phase and determine guilt or innocence as well. When did this start?

The grand jury MUST be given all exculpatory evidence. There is no defense present. The rules for a grand jury require that the prosecutor give "ALL EVIDENCE" good and bad to the grand jury. Bragg failed to do this. There is a presiding Judge assigned to the jury to ensure that the rules are followed. That Judge is now in the hot seat if he does not hold Bragg accountable and release the jury.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is my understanding, and perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but the responsibility for prosecution is where the crime takes place. If I commit a robbery in New York City, arguing that I don’t live there isn’t a defense. If I come to your town, and murder someone. Isn’t it your town that has the right, and responsibility, to hold me to account?

Sure for a serious crime like murder the perpetrator should be pursued to another state and to the ends of the Earth if needs be.

For a more minor crime like stealing a bicycle, no prosecutor in their right mind would go through the expense of extradicting someone a thousand miles away.

Where does the allegation that a supposedly false entry "was made" - somewhere by someone - fit in with that?

Bragg did not run on cracking down on people making false entries in their business records. He ran on hating Trump. This prosecution is entirely political. So of course the politicians will get involved.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Correct. Rule of law went out the window in 2020.

Algore put it in their heads in about 2007.

A Reminder: Remember ‘No Controlling Legal Authority’? | National Review

 

[SavannahMann]

The grand jury MUST be given all exculpatory evidence. There is no defense present. The rules for a grand jury require that the prosecutor give "ALL EVIDENCE" good and bad to the grand jury. Bragg failed to do this. There is a presiding Judge assigned to the jury to ensure that the rules are followed. That Judge is now in the hot seat if he does not hold Bragg accountable and release the jury.

Actually. Not so far as I can find.

https://www.stroock.com/uploads/NYLJ-JC-The-Ethics-of-a-One-Sided-Grand-Jury-Presentation.pdf

If the Defendant request’s exculpatory information be provided. That information must, under NY Law, be presented by a witness sworn to testify, and invited by the Grand Jury themselves to testify.

So if Trump wanted information presented. He had to request that information be provided. And someone with first hand knowledge would have to testify about it. Trump couldn’t send a lawyer with information after the fact. He would actually have to either testify himself or have a witness testify who was there when the alleged activity took place.

Now I know that there has been a lot of claims about it to the contrary. But any Defense Attorney who has been in business for more than ten minutes would not advise their client to testify before the Grand Jury. First. You are not represented by an attorney in the hearing. Second. The Grand Jury can ask anything they want.

So simply saying there were X number of pages of exculpatory information. First that is a claim from Trump. We don’t know if it is true. Second. We don’t know if the information was examined. We just do not know. Third. If it was me, I’d keep as much of that in my pocket as I could for the actual trial and use to to counter the prosecution witnesses.

The successful defenses we have seen all have one thing in common. They challenge every assertion of the prosecution during the trial. They present experts to counter the experts of the prosecution. They show where the conclusions are wrong, or the prosecution is lying.

You don’t know if the six hundred pages exist. I find it hard to believe that there are six hundred pages of direct evidence on a simple pay for silence deal that is exculpatory in nature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don’t know if the six hundred pages exist. I find it hard to believe that there are six hundred pages of direct evidence on a simple pay for silence deal that is exculpatory in nature.

Actually, we do know that 600 pages exist and the witness, in person, under oath, testified to the grand jury. So, both criteria are met for the inclusion of that evidence without Trump asking that be included. The witness testified that he did indeed give them that many pages. I guess you can take it up with the witness.

We can argue all day about what must be included, and each state is different, which is why this one question is getting so many different answers. All lawyers take the oath of office to defend the truth and the courts. Under that oath alone, as an officer of the court, Bragg is deficient in his duties as a prosecutor. A disbarment offense.