Soros-Backed/Placed Prosecutor Alvin Bragg dropped tons of criminal charges on pro-Hamas extremists when they attacked Columbia.

[Dante]

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office dropped the majority of criminal charges that were filed against pro-Hamas extremists earlier this year after they stormed Columbia University.

Bragg — who prosecuted former President Donald Trump in a highly controversial case because he claimed that no one is above the law — dismissed the trespassing charges against 31 of the 46 defendants.

“Lack of evidence?” one police officer responded. “Apparently body-worn camera wasn’t enough?” Another said: “We have a DA giving them what amounts to a mandate to push the envelope further now.”

A popular conservative attorney responded to the news by posting on X that it was “impossible to ignore the fact that his office pursues political vendettas while giving actual criminals a pass.”

Senior CNN political commentator Scott Jennings highlighted the contrast in how Bragg decided to go after Trump vs. the pro-Hamas extremists. “Trump – filed the wrong sex paperwork / 34 felonies! Vandals and terrorist sympathizers – meh, go about your business.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-prosector-alvin-bragg-drops-most-criminal-charges-against-pro-hamas-extremists-at-columbia-university

I think whether it's state courts or the SCOTUS, someone will step in and try to retain judicial sanity from these clear radical judges on the left. Being a judge/prosecutor doesn't mean you get to try to abuse your power to harass the candidate that you disagree with or hate. Bragg made his intentions clear and loud. He hates Trump and wants to take him down, that was his main statement throughout his campaign to become elected as prosecutor.

Now, he just "happened" to bring subjective charges against the man he publically opposes/hates.

Wow, what a coincidence guys!

Soros did not back or somehow place Bragg in office.

Conspiracy alert!

 

[Dante]

Trump was convicted of those subjective charges so Bragg's instinct was spot on.

On what grounds do you believe this will be stopped?

This friscus is an imbecile.

 

[Catsnmeters]

This friscus is an imbecile.

Nonetheless I am interested in their legal acumen.

Certainly it will be a profound and enlightening.

 

[Dante]

Nonetheless I am interested in their legal acumen.

Certainly it will be a profound and enlightening.

Really, really bored today, eh?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Really, really bored today, eh?

Indeed. Lol.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Trump was convicted of those subjective charges so Bragg's instinct was spot on.

On what grounds do you believe this will be stopped?

Multiple breeches of construction law and precedent.

Bragg brought the case without identifying a second crime, which was necessary.

The judge told the jury to “choose their own adventure” and pick from 3 crimes, and all 3 added to one. The jury could have been 4 for crime x, 4 for crime y, and 4 for crime z. That’s not how it works. You need a defined crime that all jurors agree on.

That’s why this was a clear political attack. They abused the law, and any non-angry-Democrat-bubble lawyer thinks this is going to be corrected

 

[Dante]

Bragg brought the case without identifying a second crime, which was necessary.

Not in NY state. Try and keep up with the law.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Multiple breeches of construction law and precedent.

Bragg brought the case without identifying a second crime, which was necessary.

The secondary crimes were identified.

Trump's team knew of them since at least February.

Trump undermined our justice system when he lied to you and said he didn't know the crimes.

The judge told the jury to “choose their own adventure” and pick from 3 crimes, and all 3 added to one. The jury could have been 4 for crime x, 4 for crime y, and 4 for crime z. That’s not how it works. You need a defined crime that all jurors agree on.

The jury did agree on the charged crimes.

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Trump was not charged with the secondary crimes so the jury did not need to agree on them.

That’s why this was a clear political attack. They abused the law, and any non-angry-Democrat-bubble lawyer thinks this is going to be corrected

Their was no abuse of the law.

You were simply duped by lies.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not in NY state. Try and keep up with the law.

There needed to be a second crime for the charges to be brought. That’s a fact. The prosecutor (who ran on getting Trump) abused his power and charged him anyways

 

[Catsnmeters]

There needed to be a second crime for the charges to be brought. That’s a fact. The prosecutor (who ran on getting Trump) abused his power and charged him anyways

It's sad to see an individual so thoroughly duped by Trump's lies.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The secondary crimes were identified.

Trump's team knew of them since at least February.

Trump undermined our justice system when he lied to you and said he didn't know the crimes.

Nobody knew the crimes because Bragg didn’t release them. They weren’t released until late into the trial.

The jury did agree on the charged crimes.

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Trump was not charged with the secondary crimes so the jury did not need to agree on them.

The secondary crime needed to be identified, and precedent says it has to be one crime that all jurors are deciding on, not “any one of these 3”. This was a sprint from precedent.

Their was no abuse of the law.

Most lawyers disagree with you.

You were simply duped by lies.

You want to get Trump so bad you’ll gladly abandon the justice system that protects you.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's sad to see an individual so thoroughly duped by Trump's lies.

You think Trump just made this up? This is objectively what happened vs. what is constitutional law and precedent. If he says anything, he’s just reciting the play by play.

 

[22lcidw]

The secondary crimes were identified.

Trump's team knew of them since at least February.

Trump undermined our justice system when he lied to you and said he didn't know the crimes.



The jury did agree on the charged crimes.

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Trump was not charged with the secondary crimes so the jury did not need to agree on them.


Their was no abuse of the law.

You were simply duped by lies.

Joe promised to be a unifier. Joe promised. He promised. He lied. And everything after was a lie. It makes no difference for Trump voters. All of these lifetime political people nearing the end of their lives and still spewing their defenders of realm agendas. they are controlled by something else. And if they go against the grain will be impoverished from the globalist powers.

 

[Dante]

The judge told the jury to “choose their own adventure” and pick from 3 crimes, and all 3 added to one. The jury could have been 4 for crime x, 4 for crime y, and 4 for crime z. That’s not how it works. You need a defined crime that all jurors agree on.

100% wrong.


CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial that they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign. The judge said jurors could consider three different ways the law may have been broken and that they don’t have to be unanimous on this decision.

THE FACTS: As jury deliberations began Wednesday in Trump’s trial, social media users spread false information about Merchan’s instructions to the seven men and five women who will determine the outcome in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

...

But these claims distort Merchan’s instructions.

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign.

apnews.com

next

 

[Dante]

You think Trump just made this up? This is objectively what happened vs. what is constitutional law and precedent. If he says anything, he’s just reciting the play by play.

Why do you write in such stilted English -- like somebody trying really, really hard to sound like they are a great legal mind?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

100% wrong.


CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial that they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign. The judge said jurors could consider three different ways the law may have been broken and that they don’t have to be unanimous on this decision.

THE FACTS: As jury deliberations began Wednesday in Trump’s trial, social media users spread false information about Merchan’s instructions to the seven men and five women who will determine the outcome in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

...

But these claims distort Merchan’s instructions.

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign.

apnews.com

next

LMAO you want me to listen to a Democrat propaganda machines opinion piece?

 

[Dante]

There needed to be a second crime for the charges to be brought. That’s a fact. The prosecutor (who ran on getting Trump) abused his power and charged him anyways

This has all been explained in the indictment, the filings and trial sessions.

The idea that you choose to ignore facts is on you, but what it won't do is make the facts go away.

 

[Dante]

Joe promised to be a unifier.

And Trump promised to be a divider, to seek revenge. He kept the DOJ on Hillary Clinton until the closing days of his presidency. They came up with NADA. Why? Trump's projections aside, not everybody is as crooked as Trump.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

That crime has to be identified, and it has to be the same crime, not one of 3. That’s your sides problem. Please keep up

 

[Dante]

LMAO you want me to listen to a Democrat propaganda machines opinion piece?

Okay. You cannot refute a single fact.

bye