Legal Opinion, Trump Indictment by Napolitano

[Care4all]

Not all legal opinions on this Trump indictment say it is crazy.... And this coming from a once Fox News contributor is a first....

He explains what he believes the crimes are,in depth...

And explains how Bragg should handle it....in his legal opinion.


COMMENTARY
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, March 29, 2023
OPINION:
After processing what he heard on cable television, former President Donald Trump publicly announced two weeks ago that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested by the New York Police Department. That day came and went with no arrest.
Mr. Trump is the subject of four criminal investigations: one by the Manhattan district attorney for campaign finance fraud; one by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney for conspiracy to subvert an election; and two by the feds, one for conspiracy to subvert a congressional function on Jan. 6, 2021, and the other for retention of national defense secrets at his Florida home and obstruction of justice by hiding the secrets.

The case currently getting media attention is the one in Manhattan. It is also getting Mr. Trump’s attention, as he has threatened and predicted “death and destruction” if he is indicted. Along with that prediction, he posted photos that depicted himself about to strike Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, with a baseball bat.

The photo juxtaposition was appalling and ought to strike terror in his Manhattan lawyers, as it will form a credible basis for the New York prosecutor, at the time of arraignment, to ask for Mr. Trump’s immediate incarceration. It is standard to ask for no bail when the defendant has threatened the prosecution with bodily harm and has the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

While Mr. Trump is protected 24/7 by the Secret Service from harm, the agents do not protect others from harm by him. If he is indicted in Manhattan, his lawyers will unhappily confront all this. They may also confront an indictment for threatening a public official with violence.

=========

Thus, Mr. Bragg will charge that when Michael Cohen, then Mr. Trump’s lawyer, used his own money to pay a woman to remain silent about a sexual liaison she claims she had with Mr. Trump, one that he denies, that payment was made to protect Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton in October 2016.

If Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen out of his own funds on which he paid income taxes, and recorded that reimbursement as a personal campaign contribution, there would have been no crime. But by using corporate funds to reimburse Cohen and falsely recording the payments to Cohen as legal fees — ordinary corporate expenses, on which no income taxes were paid — Mr. Trump ran afoul of New York law and federal law. Then, the misdemeanor becomes a felony.

====================

Mr. Bragg looked at the evidence and research amassed against Mr. Trump by his predecessor and, for reasons not made public, decided to put the criminal investigation of Mr. Trump on the back burner. Then, after he interrogated Cohen, he and his team — the Manhattan DA is a former federal prosecutor in the same office that prosecuted Cohen and declined to prosecute Mr. Trump — concluded that Cohen is sufficiently credible, particularly when buttressed by Cohen’s files and the records of the Trump Organization, to testify against Mr. Trump.

=============

While most of the thousands of federal and state criminal laws have no moral place in America, as they either criminalize harmless behavior or intrude upon the exercise of natural rights, so long as these laws are enforced against others — and they are — they should be enforced wherever the evidence sufficiently points to guilt, without fear or favor.

Should Mr. Trump get a pass? Only if the district attorney thinks the case is weak, not because Mr. Trump is a former president.

 

[pknopp]

I had never considered the threat angle. Interesting. It goes a long way in showing that Trump really isn't all that smart. Threatening physical harm to a prosecutor is not going to go over well in court.

Will he be released? Yes but it's got to be embarrassing for his lawyers.

 

[Donald H]

Napolitano makes the news now in interviews with Scott Ritter or Col. Macgregor. He's strong antiwar.

 

[Care4all]

I had never considered the threat angle. Interesting. It goes a long way in showing that Trump really isn't all that smart. Threatening physical harm to a prosecutor is not going to go over well in court.

Will he be released? Yes but it's got to be embarrassing for his lawyers.

I hadn't really either....

 

[Oddball]

Mr. Bragg looked at the evidence and research amassed against Mr. Trump by his predecessor and, for reasons not made public, decided to put the criminal investigation of Mr. Trump on the back burner. Then, after he interrogated Cohen, he and his team — the Manhattan DA is a former federal prosecutor in the same office that prosecuted Cohen and declined to prosecute Mr. Trump — concluded that Cohen is sufficiently credible, particularly when buttressed by Cohen’s files and the records of the Trump Organization, to testify against Mr. Trump.

100% speculation.

While most of the thousands of federal and state criminal laws have no moral place in America, as they either criminalize harmless behavior or intrude upon the exercise of natural rights, so long as these laws are enforced against others — and they are — they should be enforced wherever the evidence sufficiently points to guilt, without fear or favor.

Should Mr. Trump get a pass? Only if the district attorney thinks the case is weak, not because Mr. Trump is a former president.

They're ony enforced by way of plea agreements....The is the root of the weaponization of the judicial system, against people who can't afford to fight back.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not all legal opinions on this Trump indictment say it is crazy.... And this coming from a once Fox News contributor is a first....

He explains what he believes the crimes are,in depth...

And explains how Bragg should handle it....in his legal opinion.


COMMENTARY
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, March 29, 2023
OPINION:
After processing what he heard on cable television, former President Donald Trump publicly announced two weeks ago that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested by the New York Police Department. That day came and went with no arrest.
Mr. Trump is the subject of four criminal investigations: one by the Manhattan district attorney for campaign finance fraud; one by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney for conspiracy to subvert an election; and two by the feds, one for conspiracy to subvert a congressional function on Jan. 6, 2021, and the other for retention of national defense secrets at his Florida home and obstruction of justice by hiding the secrets.

The case currently getting media attention is the one in Manhattan. It is also getting Mr. Trump’s attention, as he has threatened and predicted “death and destruction” if he is indicted. Along with that prediction, he posted photos that depicted himself about to strike Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, with a baseball bat.

The photo juxtaposition was appalling and ought to strike terror in his Manhattan lawyers, as it will form a credible basis for the New York prosecutor, at the time of arraignment, to ask for Mr. Trump’s immediate incarceration. It is standard to ask for no bail when the defendant has threatened the prosecution with bodily harm and has the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

While Mr. Trump is protected 24/7 by the Secret Service from harm, the agents do not protect others from harm by him. If he is indicted in Manhattan, his lawyers will unhappily confront all this. They may also confront an indictment for threatening a public official with violence.

=========

Thus, Mr. Bragg will charge that when Michael Cohen, then Mr. Trump’s lawyer, used his own money to pay a woman to remain silent about a sexual liaison she claims she had with Mr. Trump, one that he denies, that payment was made to protect Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton in October 2016.

If Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen out of his own funds on which he paid income taxes, and recorded that reimbursement as a personal campaign contribution, there would have been no crime. But by using corporate funds to reimburse Cohen and falsely recording the payments to Cohen as legal fees — ordinary corporate expenses, on which no income taxes were paid — Mr. Trump ran afoul of New York law and federal law. Then, the misdemeanor becomes a felony.

====================

Mr. Bragg looked at the evidence and research amassed against Mr. Trump by his predecessor and, for reasons not made public, decided to put the criminal investigation of Mr. Trump on the back burner. Then, after he interrogated Cohen, he and his team — the Manhattan DA is a former federal prosecutor in the same office that prosecuted Cohen and declined to prosecute Mr. Trump — concluded that Cohen is sufficiently credible, particularly when buttressed by Cohen’s files and the records of the Trump Organization, to testify against Mr. Trump.

=============

While most of the thousands of federal and state criminal laws have no moral place in America, as they either criminalize harmless behavior or intrude upon the exercise of natural rights, so long as these laws are enforced against others — and they are — they should be enforced wherever the evidence sufficiently points to guilt, without fear or favor.

Should Mr. Trump get a pass? Only if the district attorney thinks the case is weak, not because Mr. Trump is a former president.

This guy cannot make a valid assessment on a sealed indictment. He needs to wait till they release the charges in the indictment before he can comment on it.

And let's not forget that this individual used to work for the Clintons (and probably still is), and he's the last person I would listen to on any subject.

 

[nomadic5]

Not all legal opinions on this Trump indictment say it is crazy.... And this coming from a once Fox News contributor is a first....

He explains what he believes the crimes are,in depth...

And explains how Bragg should handle it....in his legal opinion.


COMMENTARY
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, March 29, 2023
OPINION:
After processing what he heard on cable television, former President Donald Trump publicly announced two weeks ago that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested by the New York Police Department. That day came and went with no arrest.
Mr. Trump is the subject of four criminal investigations: one by the Manhattan district attorney for campaign finance fraud; one by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney for conspiracy to subvert an election; and two by the feds, one for conspiracy to subvert a congressional function on Jan. 6, 2021, and the other for retention of national defense secrets at his Florida home and obstruction of justice by hiding the secrets.

The case currently getting media attention is the one in Manhattan. It is also getting Mr. Trump’s attention, as he has threatened and predicted “death and destruction” if he is indicted. Along with that prediction, he posted photos that depicted himself about to strike Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, with a baseball bat.

The photo juxtaposition was appalling and ought to strike terror in his Manhattan lawyers, as it will form a credible basis for the New York prosecutor, at the time of arraignment, to ask for Mr. Trump’s immediate incarceration. It is standard to ask for no bail when the defendant has threatened the prosecution with bodily harm and has the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

I read this far---NOT impressed w/ article so far, to say the least

I respect napolitano, have readsome of his books

but I don't see where he has much of a point (maybe he made one further along and I didn't see it but once Idetect BS, I stopped reading, a lot of the time)

 

[mudwhistle]

I had never considered the threat angle. Interesting. It goes a long way in showing that Trump really isn't all that smart. Threatening physical harm to a prosecutor is not going to go over well in court.

Will he be released? Yes but it's got to be embarrassing for his lawyers.

When did Trump personally threaten Bragg?

Trump said that there was a possibility for violence.
That's not a direct threat by any stretch.

The problem with you people is you have to make assumptions on everything when it comes to attacking your enemies, but when it comes to finding fault in your own people you expect everything cut and dried with zero speculation.

Were it not for double-standards you'd have no standards at all.

 

[Care4all]

100% speculation.

They're ony enforced by way of plea agreements....The is the root of the weaponization of the judicial system, against people who can't afford to fight back.

True and true...

Most cases are plea deals, mostly the wealthiest, fight charges, but they do not always win.

 

[Care4all]

I read this far---NOT impressed w/ article so far, to say the least

I respect napolitano, have readsome of his books

but I don't see where he has much of a point (maybe he made one further along and I didn't see it but once Idetect BS, I stopped reading, a lot of the time)

His point is Braggs decision should be without fear of favor.

If he has solid evidence to support the crimes, then he should indict and prosecute if Trump does not cop a plea, as he would for any other individual who broke the law...

Trump being an ex president, should have ZERO influence over Bragg's decision in his opinion.

 

[pyetro]

Not all legal opinions on this Trump indictment say it is crazy.... And this coming from a once Fox News contributor is a first....

He explains what he believes the crimes are,in depth...

And explains how Bragg should handle it....in his legal opinion.


COMMENTARY
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, March 29, 2023
OPINION:
After processing what he heard on cable television, former President Donald Trump publicly announced two weeks ago that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested by the New York Police Department. That day came and went with no arrest.
Mr. Trump is the subject of four criminal investigations: one by the Manhattan district attorney for campaign finance fraud; one by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney for conspiracy to subvert an election; and two by the feds, one for conspiracy to subvert a congressional function on Jan. 6, 2021, and the other for retention of national defense secrets at his Florida home and obstruction of justice by hiding the secrets.

The case currently getting media attention is the one in Manhattan. It is also getting Mr. Trump’s attention, as he has threatened and predicted “death and destruction” if he is indicted. Along with that prediction, he posted photos that depicted himself about to strike Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, with a baseball bat.

The photo juxtaposition was appalling and ought to strike terror in his Manhattan lawyers, as it will form a credible basis for the New York prosecutor, at the time of arraignment, to ask for Mr. Trump’s immediate incarceration. It is standard to ask for no bail when the defendant has threatened the prosecution with bodily harm and has the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

While Mr. Trump is protected 24/7 by the Secret Service from harm, the agents do not protect others from harm by him. If he is indicted in Manhattan, his lawyers will unhappily confront all this. They may also confront an indictment for threatening a public official with violence.

=========

Thus, Mr. Bragg will charge that when Michael Cohen, then Mr. Trump’s lawyer, used his own money to pay a woman to remain silent about a sexual liaison she claims she had with Mr. Trump, one that he denies, that payment was made to protect Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton in October 2016.

If Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen out of his own funds on which he paid income taxes, and recorded that reimbursement as a personal campaign contribution, there would have been no crime. But by using corporate funds to reimburse Cohen and falsely recording the payments to Cohen as legal fees — ordinary corporate expenses, on which no income taxes were paid — Mr. Trump ran afoul of New York law and federal law. Then, the misdemeanor becomes a felony.

====================

Mr. Bragg looked at the evidence and research amassed against Mr. Trump by his predecessor and, for reasons not made public, decided to put the criminal investigation of Mr. Trump on the back burner. Then, after he interrogated Cohen, he and his team — the Manhattan DA is a former federal prosecutor in the same office that prosecuted Cohen and declined to prosecute Mr. Trump — concluded that Cohen is sufficiently credible, particularly when buttressed by Cohen’s files and the records of the Trump Organization, to testify against Mr. Trump.

=============

While most of the thousands of federal and state criminal laws have no moral place in America, as they either criminalize harmless behavior or intrude upon the exercise of natural rights, so long as these laws are enforced against others — and they are — they should be enforced wherever the evidence sufficiently points to guilt, without fear or favor.

Should Mr. Trump get a pass? Only if the district attorney thinks the case is weak, not because Mr. Trump is a former president.

Trump can just say that he didn't want his wife to find out.

 

[Care4all]

Trump can just say that he didn't want his wife to find out.

from what I've read, there is a problem with that....the timing, and other witnesses, and Access Hollywood tape just being exposed during his campaign and dealings with that....which connect them...

It doesn't have to be solely for the campaign benefit, under the law, from what I have read.

But also, the latest rumor is, from one of the first lady's assistants, Melania already knew about it.

 

[Care4all]

This guy cannot make a valid assessment on a sealed indictment. He needs to wait till they release the charges in the indictment before he can comment on it.

And let's not forget that this individual used to work for the Clintons (and probably still is), and he's the last person I would listen to on any subject.

He's been on the right far far longer than his sidekick with clinton.

And I don't trust him with much.....

That is why it is odd to see him express this legal opinion imo.

 

[mudwhistle]

He's been on the right far far longer than his sidekick with clinton.

And I don't trust him with much.....

That is why it is odd to see him express this legal opinion imo.

Because he's a Clinton mole.
He's been acting like he's a rational person for awhile, but when they need him....they call in their favors.
He's like Lindsey Graham.
But Lindsey Grahnesty isn't fooling anyone.
And to be honest.....this guy is a former Clinton campaign manager.....and nobody leaves the Clinton plantation alive, unless they're clandestine.

 

[mudwhistle]

His point is Braggs decision should be without fear of favor.

If he has solid evidence to support the crimes, then he should indict and prosecute if Trump does not cop a plea, as he would for any other individual who broke the law...

Trump being an ex president, should have ZERO influence over Bragg's decision in his opinion.

Did you complain this way when Obama constantly chimed in on various court decisions?

No f*cking way.

You thought that everything the Messiah said and did was rational and legal.

But the fact is....Obama, Chuck Schumer, and other's attempted to influence court decisions on a regular basis. One of them was the Dobbs decision. They said all Hell was going to break loose if they didn't rule in their favor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The photo juxtaposition was appalling and ought to strike terror in his Manhattan lawyers, as it will form a credible basis for the New York prosecutor, at the time of arraignment, to ask for Mr. Trump’s immediate incarceration. It is standard to ask for no bail when the defendant has threatened the prosecution with bodily harm and has the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

Sounds good.

As are his supporters, Trump is a thuggish advocate of lawlessness and violence.

 

[toobfreak]

The case currently getting media attention is the one in Manhattan. It is also getting Mr. Trump’s attention, as he has threatened and predicted “death and destruction” if he is indicted. Along with that prediction, he posted photos that depicted himself about to strike Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, with a baseball bat.

So what you are saying is that the NY DA's case was so weak that until Trump posted a humorous meme on Twitter, they had nothing, and now intend to try to build Trump as a credible "threat" to Bragg, as if anyone actually worries that Trump would go after him with a bat!

If Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen out of his own funds on which he paid income taxes, and recorded that reimbursement as a personal campaign contribution, there would have been no crime.

Thanks again for admitting that Trump having an affair was no crime, that Trump paying her to be quiet was no crime neither, that the entire case rests on how Trump RECORDED the payment in a record book, a total technicality and matter of opinion which he probably got from Cohen himself as his attorney, because calling it this or that changes nothing--- it doesn't change the amount, it doesn't change who it went to, it doesn't change why, it doesn't even show whether the affair was real or not, it just affects what column a transaction was recorded in a business ledger which ordinarily, no one but Trump and his business cares about.

IN OTHER WORDS: The whole case against Trump is based on a nitpicking technicality blown way out of proportion and Trump's making a funny meme on social media to illustrate just how absurd it really was. Put simply: a drummed up legal harassment part of a continuing weaponized harassment by the legal system to try to keep the person America wants for president out of the WH, even out of the race for the office, because he doesn't take bribes from Soros and doesn't sell out to China.

GOT IT

 

[Care4all]

So what you are saying is that the NY DA's case was so weak that until Trump posted a humorous meme on Twitter, they had nothing, and now intend to try to build Trump as a credible "threat" to Bragg, as if anyone actually worries that Trump would go after him with a bat!


Thanks again for admitting that Trump having an affair was no crime, that Trump paying her to be quiet was no crime neither, that the entire case rests on how Trump RECORDED the payment in a record book, a total technicality and matter of opinion which he probably got from Cohen himself as his attorney, because calling it this or that changes nothing--- it doesn't change the amount, it doesn't change who it went to, it doesn't change why, it doesn't even show whether the affair was real or not, it just affects what column a transaction was recorded in a business ledger which ordinarily, no one but Trump and his business cares about.

IN OTHER WORDS: The whole case against Trump is based on a nitpicking technicality blown way out of proportion and Trump's making a funny meme on social media to illustrate just how absurd it really was. Put simply: a drummed up legal harassment part of a continuing weaponized harassment by the legal system to try to keep the person America wants for president out of the WH, even out of the race for the office, because he doesn't take bribes from Soros and doesn't sell out to China.

GOT IT

Take it up with judge napolitano...it's his opinion piece.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who was previously investigating former President Donald Trump, said Trump’s statements regarding current District Attorney Alvin Bragg have the potential to strengthen the case against him with an added obstruction charge.

[…]

“I've got to say, I was disturbed to hear the former president speak in the way he spoke about the District Attorney Bragg and even the trial court in the past week," Vance said Sunday in an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press."

…I would be mindful of not committing some other criminal offense like obstruction of governmental administration, which is interfering with — by threat or otherwise — the operation of government."

Vance said adding an obstruction count to the charge could "change the jury's mind about the severity of the case that they're looking at.”’

April 2, 2023 Trump indictment news

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, marking the first time in US history that a current or former president has faced criminal charges.

www.cnn.com

 

[jknowgood]

His point is Braggs decision should be without fear of favor.

If he has solid evidence to support the crimes, then he should indict and prosecute if Trump does not cop a plea, as he would for any other individual who broke the law...

Trump being an ex president, should have ZERO influence over Bragg's decision in his opinion.

Bragg over looks felonies, but a nothing burger. He makes a big deal, he needs to be investigated.