Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

[Marener]

Care to explain why the assistant attorney general left his job to go work for Bragg?

You'd have to ask him. I imagine that successfully prosecuting Trump would be a major accomplishment for a lawyer. Why wouldn't he jump at that opportunity?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You'd have to ask him. I imagine that successfully prosecuting Trump would be a major accomplishment for a lawyer. Why wouldn't he jump at that opportunity?

Again care to explain why the U.S. assistant attorney general left his powerful position to work for Alvin Bragg?

 

[Marener]

Again care to explain why the U.S. assistant attorney general left his powerful position to work for Alvin Bragg?

I don't know. They didn't tell me. Who cares?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't know. They didn't tell me. Who cares?

I know it's weaponizing the judicial system against the political opposition. Tit for tat is fair game now.

 

[Marener]

I know it's weaponizing the judicial system against the political opposition. Tit for tat is fair game now.

How is it "weaponizing" and how do you know it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How is it "weaponizing" and how do you know it?

The cult is in denial. Doesn't change a thing

 

[Marener]

The cult is in denial. Doesn't change a thing

You don't know anything. You're just repeating what you're told.

That's why you can't explain what the **** you're talking about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't know anything. You're just repeating what you're told.

That's why you can't explain what the **** you're talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

You're delusional. Show me where I denied it.

What official determination? They didn't find him innocent of anything, which is what you implied, but later admitted that the FEC never finds anyone innocent. There was no official determination. The only vote taken was to ignore the matter. You interpret that one way, I interpret it differently. The only difference is my interpretation is backed up by the statement from the FEC commissioners at the time and yours is based on wishful thinking.

It is not their province to determine innocence.

 

[Marener]

It is not their province to determine innocence.

I agree 100% with this statement. But that also means that the actions of the FEC have ZERO impact on the case.

Bragg was able to prove to the jury that Trump was intending to cover up campaign violations with his false business records. The FEC never found him innocent of any violations.

 

[BackAgain]

I agree 100% with this statement. But that also means that the actions of the FEC have ZERO impact on the case.

What case?

Bragg was able to prove to the jury that Trump was intending to cover up campaign violations with his false business records. The FEC never found him innocent of any violations.

No. He wasn’t. The jury didn’t get any instructions on that. And you have no way of establishing that their verdict was unanimous on the element of intent (on any alleged “other” crime).

 

[Marener]

No. He wasn’t. The jury didn’t get any instructions on that. And you have no way of establishing that their verdict was unanimous on the element of intent (on any alleged “other” crime).

Yes, they did. Page 31.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, they did. Page 31.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Ok. That’s fair enough. However, the charges also includes these morsels:

And

Among numerous other problems with the charges (given the complete irrationality of the People’s “theory of the case”) those snippets alone should invalidate conviction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Among numerous other problems with the charges (given the complete irrationality of the People’s “theory of the case”) those snippets alone should invalidate conviction.

Well, they don't.

 

[BackAgain]

Well, they don't.

You couldn’t possibly know that yet, Farty.

Like the rest of us, you’re going to have to await the outcome of the entire appellate process.

 

[Marener]

Ok. That’s fair enough. However, the charges also includes these morsels:

View attachment 961807
And

View attachment 961809

Among numerous other problems with the charges (given the complete irrationality of the People’s “theory of the case”) those snippets alone should invalidate conviction.

So changing the subject now?

You brought the FEC into this, and after all this time, we got you to walk it back to the fact that their actions were completely irrelevant to the case.

 

[22lcidw]

Trump spent his entire term "investigating the investigators" and coming up empty. He raged at Barr for failing to indict any Democrats before the election. Barr went around the world looking for evidence of Democrat corruption and criminality and came back with more evidence of Trump's criminality - which he buried.

Trump is absolutely NOT being treated unfairly. He's been given every break and indulgence possible.

From self-destruction alone, Pelosi's husband had two incidents within a couple of years. You can only imagine what he got away with over time. We live in a royalty/peasant society. Just like throughout history.

 

[BackAgain]

So changing the subject now?

No maam. I conceded your point about them getting charged. That’s not a change of subject.

What I proceeded to note was that the instructions don’t require unanimity as I suggested just a moment earlier.

Some juror(s) might not have found any “intent” to commit or conceal any (un)alleged violation of the NY Election law while other juror(s) might have. Meanwhile, the former might have found some “intent” to violate or conceal the violation of Federal election law (over which the court had no jurisdiction anyway) but the other jurors did not.

That’s one of the many objections. The rule requiring a unanimous verdict isn’t there just for grins shots and giggles

You brought the FEC into this, and after all this time, we got you to walk it back to the fact that their actions were completely irrelevant to the case.

You’re wrong. I wasn’t the one who brought FEC into the discussion. I did respond to a comment about the FEC.

The point which you persist in trying to evade is clear: if you want to pretend that what the FEC officially did (or didn’t do) is “irrelevant to the case,” then why would the charge include any language about Trump’s intent about violating the Federal Election Law. The FEC HAD jurisdiction. The NY State court had no such jurisdiction over that matter.

 

[Marener]

No maam. I conceded your point about them getting charged. That’s not a change of subject.

What I proceeded to note was that the instructions don’t require unanimity as I suggested just a moment earlier.

Some juror(s) might not have found any “intent” to commit or conceal any (un)alleged violation of the NY Election law while other juror(s) might have. Meanwhile, the former might have found some “intent” to violate or conceal the violation of Federal election law (over which the court had no jurisdiction anyway) but the other jurors did not.

That’s one of the many objections. The rule requiring a unanimous verdict isn’t there just for grins shots and giggles

You’re wrong. I wasn’t the one who brought FEC into the discussion. I did respond to a comment about the FEC.

The point which you persist in trying to evade is clear: if you want to pretend that what the FEC officially did (or didn’t do) is “irrelevant to the case,” then why would the charge include any language about Trump’s intent about violating the Federal Election Law. The FEC HAD jurisdiction. The NY State court had no such jurisdiction over that matter.

The first mention of the FEC came from you, here.

I didn’t bring up the FEC. You did.

Not according to the FEC.

Bragg didn’t claim jurisdiction over these laws. The NY law does not require him to charge the object offense. An intent to facilitate the violation of another law is all that is required. The statute doesn’t say the object crime has to be state or federal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The first mention of the FEC came from you, here.

I didn’t bring up the FEC. You did.



Bragg didn’t claim jurisdiction over these laws. The NY law does not require him to charge the object offense. An intent to facilitate the violation of another law is all that is required. The statute doesn’t say the object crime has to be state or federal.

Yep.

All Bragg had to do was convince the jury the crimes covered up other illegal activity.

Which he did.