Scumbag Bragg Implements the Plan to Mislead the Jury about the Charges

It can't be charged because, just like the primary misdemeanor Trump was charged with, the statute of limitations has expired. This case is a disaster. I have no idea why you keep saying it's a strong case.

So to recap. Biden's associate attorney general leaves the DOJ to join Bragg's team to prosecute Trump leading up to the election after the DOJ, Vance (previous DA), and Bragg declined to pursue it. Now under Biden's associate AG's prosecution Trump is charged with a misdemeanor beyond the statute of limitations. But, to bring the charges they are claiming it is in furtherance of another crime. A crime that they didn't disclose to the defense until the trial started, a due process nightmare. And that other offense is also beyond the statute of limitations and cannot be prosecuted. So they turned a misdemeanor into a felony based on an uncharged allegation of another misdemeanor that is beyond the statute of limitations. What a time to be alive.

 

This issue was explored in court, and determined to not be violated. In part because as a felony they have 5 years (1st degree is a felony, not a misdemeanor), and in part because over a year extension was given by the governor for all crimes due to covid. But if it were a misdemeanor, it could also be argued Trump was unavailable for indictment while he was a sitting president, so even then it may be chargeable.

 

Bragg is a vile corrupt scumball. His indictment is a farce, and he knows it. That's why 'Bragg has been hiding the ball. He did not acknowledge in the indictment that he was trying to enforce federal campaign law. And as I recently detailed, in his “statement of facts,” he purported to establish that Trump had violated federal campaign law by pointing out that Cohen had pled guilty to federal campaign crimes — even though Bragg knew that Cohen’s guilty plea is not admissible evidence against Trump (and that Cohen pled guilty to those charges because he was desperate to avoid prison for other crimes he’d committed and was hoping — in futility, it turned out — to sell himself to the feds as a cooperating witness against Trump). Bragg calculated that
(a) the Biden Justice Department would not complain that he was illegitimately seeking to enforce federal law as long as the target was Trump, and
(b) he was likely to get a compliant Democratic judge who would not challenge his usurpation of federal authority — and he has certainly hit the jackpot with Judge Merchan.'

'The “other crime” Trump was trying to commit or conceal was a violation of New York state election law. This, at long last, sets forth the statute that includes “a conspiracy provision,” as prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reminded Judge Merchan.'

'So what is this conspiracy crime? Well, §17-152 of the state’s election laws says a person is guilty of a conspiracy if he agrees with one or more people “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”'

'In Bragg’s telling — dutifully quoted by Merchan in his opinion denying Trump’s pretrial motions (at p. 12) — Trump entered “a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 election.” But wait: It’s not a crime for a candidate and his supporters to try to influence an election — that’s what a political campaign exists to do. Maybe so, Bragg counters, but under §17-152, such influencing becomes a criminal conspiracy if done “by unlawful means.”'

 

'What unlawful means? That brings us back to square one. According to Bragg, the unlawful means was Trump’s supposed violation of federal campaign law.'

But Trump didn't violate Federal Campaign Law.

'There is no difference between Bragg’s direct reliance on federal campaign law and his invocation of state election law. Either way, Bragg is illegitimately undertaking to enforce federal campaign law and, in so doing, making up his own version of what federal campaign law provides — sharply different from what that law actually says and from the DOJ/FEC standards for enforcing it.'

Congress enacted Federal Law to control campaigns for federal office, and Trump did not violate Federal Campaign Law.

'§17-152 is a state law that is fine for regulating state elections; but Congress enacted federal campaign law to control campaigns for federal office. Trump did not violate federal campaign law, which is why neither the DOJ nor the FEC took enforcement action. (Memo to Alvin Bragg: How is it that you suggest Cohen’s guilty plea to campaign violations is somehow relevant, but you don’t mention the decision by the two authorized federal enforcement agencies not to charge Trump?)

It was not illegal for Trump to suppress politically damaging information.

'even when §17-152 arguably applies, prosecutors still have to show that the conspirators agreed to do something unlawful. To repeat, it is simply not unlawful to agree to suppress politically damaging information. That legal objective does not become illegal just because §17-152 uses the word conspire.'

An §17-152 is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

 

'For that — for a misdemeanor business-records falsification supposedly designed to commit or conceal a misdemeanor state-election violation — Bragg has charged Trump with 34 felonies that, statutorily, add up to a potential 136 years of imprisonment.'

A complete farce.

https://archive.ph/379hD#selection-1337.2-1341.242

 

I did? In fact, I predicted the outcome correctly, but not the reasoning.

Your reasoning on this case is non-existent. You don't seem to have read any of the pleadings or court decisions. Hell, I even directed you to a particular order. Did you read it? No.

READ IT.

 

They have a solid case for lawful activity.

'New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that one of the crimes that Trump allegedly committed in listing the payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense” was New York Law 17-152. This law states “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”'

'So they are arguing that Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy. He did this by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer with other legal expenses.'

'Confused? You are not alone.'

'It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair.'

'Yet, somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is being treated as an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York.'

It's not because it's the law, it's because it's about Trump.

'We have never seen a case like this one where a dead misdemeanor from 2016 could be revived as a felony just before any election in 2024.'

'Trump is accused of conspiring to promote his own candidacy by mislabeling this payment, even though it was part of a larger legal payment to his former counsel, Michael Cohen.'


'They do not see a crime in analogous mislabeling of payments by Democratic candidates. Take Hillary Clinton who served as senator from New York and ran for president against Trump. For months before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims. That was untrue.'

 

'It was later discovered that the funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding.).'

'While the funds were part of the campaign budget, they were listed as legal expenses and the Clinton people continued to insist that such payments to a former intelligence figure to put together the dossier was a legal expenditure.'

'It is not clear if Trump even knew how this money was characterized on ledgers or records. He paid the money to his lawyer, who had put together this settlement over the nondisclosure agreement. Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.'

'Even if money was paid to bury these stories with the election in mind, it is not unusual or illegal. There was generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because they were not a campaign contribution in the view of the federal government.'

'It is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records. What if the Trump employee put “legal settlement in personal matter” or “nuisance payment”? Would those words be the difference'

Should have labeled it: 'Payment to Porn Star In The Hopes She'll Keep Her Mouth Shut?'

'Again, it is not clear. But that does not appear to matter in New York. The crime may not be clear or even comprehensible. However, the identity of the defendant could not be more clear and the prosecutors are hoping that the jury, like themselves, will look no further.'

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/...rial-all-he-needs-now-is-a-crime/#more-218237

 

Interesting... Trump's signature is not on the NDA...

 

What Democrats Want Out of the Trump Trial

'The Trump case is being prosecuted by an elected Democrat in New York, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, with a big assist from a former senior Biden Justice Department official who just happened to join a local district attorney’s office for the purpose of trying the former president. As he defends himself, Trump also has to deal with the aftermath of the lawsuit brought by another elected New York Democrat, Attorney General Letitia James, and the charges brought by the elected Democratic district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, Fani Willis, and two indictments from the Biden Justice Department’s chosen Trump prosecutor, Jack Smith.'

'Democrats are delighted by the current state of affairs. Their party’s law enforcement officials have done a bang-up job bringing charges, a total of 88 felony counts, against the de facto Republican presidential nominee. With all of Biden’s weaknesses — his age, the economy, immigration, and his 35% job approval rating in a poll out today — they have managed to put Trump in a box from which he might never escape.'

'That’s what Democrats want from the Trump prosecutions. The box doesn’t have to be a prison cell, although some would be very happy to see that. It just has to be something that a) cripples Trump’s ability to campaign, b) bankrupts him or at least pressures him to use campaign funds for legal bills, and c) erodes Trump’s appeal to swing voters who might be less likely to vote for him if he is convicted of a felony.'

It's election interference

 

If they are going to force Trump to be in NY, Trump's going to campaign in NY.

'He plans to hold Trump rallies for cops and firefighters at Madison Square Garden and in the South Bronx.'

'Trump said he's ironing out details for the Madison Square Garden rally'

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2...-court-after-his-latest-announcement-n4928500

He may co-produce it with the UFC.

 

How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction.

https://archive.ph/SZwQg#selection-679.0-679.53

'“Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.” In the ongoing criminal trial, elected progressive Democratic DA Alvin Bragg doesn’t have much of a case. But he has the judge, and that is all he needs.'

'Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction of a crime that is not actually charged in the indictment: conspiracy to violate FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act — specifically, its spending limits). That should not be possible in the United States, where the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment mandates that an accused may only be tried for a felony offense if it has been outlined with specificity in an indictment, approved by a grand jury that has found probable cause for that offense.'

'Bragg, a county district attorney responsible for enforcing state law, has no authority to prosecute federal crimes, much less crimes under FECA — a corpus so abstruse that Congress created a specialized bureaucracy, the Federal Election Commission, to ensure its uniform application, vesting the FEC and the Justice Department with exclusive enforcement jurisdiction (as explained in my weekend column).'

'Yet, Judge Merchan has swallowed whole Bragg’s theory that he can enforce FECA. The judge not only ruled pre-trial that Bragg could prove the uncharged federal crime; he has abetted Bragg’s prosecutors in their framing of the case for the jury as a “criminal conspiracy,” notwithstanding that no conspiracy is actually charged in the indictment — under either federal or state law. And although the trial has been under way for just a week, Merchan has already made key rulings patently designed to convince the jury that Trump’s complicity in a conspiracy to violate FECA has already been established.'

'Yet, in his major pre-trial ruling, Merchan endorsed Bragg’s theory that because §175.10 says “another crime” rather than “another New York crime,” there is no bar to Bragg’s endeavoring to prove that Trump was concealing a federal crime. (See Merchan’s pre-trial opinion, pp. 12–14.) By this loopy logic, Bragg similarly has jurisdiction to enforce, say, Chinese penal statutes, sharia’s hudud crimes, and perhaps even the criminal laws of Rome (after all, under the Bragg/Merchan rationale, the statute doesn’t say the “other crime” must still be in existence).'

Even the Kangaroos are impressed with Merchan's court.

 

Merchan has a duty to explain to the jury the NDA and "catch and kill" are not illegal and done everyday in America.... he has a duty to explain the original charges are misdemeanors with the statute of limitations ran out..... if Bragg tries pulling the the NY law for conspiracy as the "second crime" 17-152 ..... it also is a misdemeanor with the statute of limitations run out.... he needs to explain the documentation being considered is in 2017 AFTER the election..... he needs to explain that Bragg is a state DA and is trying to stick in a federal crime he has no jurisdiction over...... and instruct them if they truly do not understand what is being called a crime then they can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the heck is going on.... he needs to explain any federal election issues were addressed and dismissed the FEC already.. Bragg is just throwing garbage against the wall to see what sticks and hoping the NY jury does not come to their senses...

 

Scumbag Bragg never charged Conspiracy.

'“Why didn’t prosecutors just charge it in the indictment?” There are two answers.'

'First, because a §17-152 conspiracy is a misdemeanor — i.e., just like the misdemeanor business-records-falsification statute (§175.05) that Bragg also didn’t charge, §17-152 has a two-year statute of limitations. Ergo, as to the conduct in this case, the time to charge that conspiracy lapsed in 2019. And yes, Bragg is now trying to qualify for the six-year felony statute of limitations — so he could charge 34 felonies with a potential of 136 years’ imprisonment — by stitching together two misdemeanors as to which the statute of limitations lapsed four years before Bragg finally indicted the case.'

'Second, to establish a §17-152 conspiracy, it is not enough for prosecutors to prove that a defendant conspired to promote a candidate’s election; they also have to establish an intent to promote it “by unlawful means.” Even if such a conspiracy charge hadn’t been time-barred, Bragg would not have wanted to spell the supposedly “unlawful means” out in an indictment because the illegality he wants to prove is a supposed violation of federal campaign-finance law. Bragg, as a state DA, has no jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign-finance law.
Nondisclosure agreements are legal. They do not run afoul of campaign law because they are technically not campaign expenditures — which is why the Justice Department and FEC, which have exclusive prosecutorial authority over federal campaign law, decided not to prosecute Trump.'

'Why is this so important? Because if, as an objective legal matter, a disbursement of money is not a campaign expenditure, then it does not matter what the people involved in the disbursement were subjectively thinking. They could have guilty consciences. They could be sneaky, stealthy, and dishonest. But if the payment of “hush money” is not a campaign expenditure, then there is no crime, period.'

'Nor, in any event, is conspiracy to violate federal campaign-finance law the crime Bragg charged. But it’s often hard to know what Bragg charged, especially by reading news coverage, because the business-records statute he invoked does not state the crime he indicted (concealment of a federal campaign violation), and the indictment he filed does not charge the “offense” he is presenting to the jury (conspiracy to suppress politically damaging information).'

'This is a prosecutor making it up as he goes along. Due process worthy of the name does not tolerate that.'

This is a prosecutor that belongs in prison.

https://archive.ph/ijEj9#selection-1019.0-1053.106

 

The entire objective is to big Trump down and ruin him financially. Not only do they not care if the it gets overturned, they don't really care if they win.

 

Bragg’s Prosecution of Trump Violates New York State’s Constitution

'A crucial due-process provision is meant to prevent exactly what the DA has done: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge.'

'What other crime? The penal statute in question doesn’t say. That’s a fatal problem because New York State’s constitution mandates that a statute must spell out any statutory terms it is incorporating. Under Article III, §16, of the state constitution, incorporation by reference is not permitted.'

'Under Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution:
No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act.'

'This is a due-process provision meant to prevent exactly what Bragg has done here: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge.'

'Article III, §16, mandates that if a prosecutor is to be enabled by a penal statute to enforce another law, including federal law, the conduct proscribed by that other law, or at very least the citation of that other law, must be spelled out in the penal statute. A penal statute may not just vaguely incorporate “another crime” by reference and leave everyone guessing about what that other crime might be – i.e., what conduct it proscribes, or at least where in law it is codified.'

Bragg is violating the NY Constitution and Merchan is abetting him.

https://archive.ph/IHFVb#selection-1303.212-1307.221

 

'When former president Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial resumes in Manhattan on Thursday morning, if you know what you are looking for, you’ll get a real sense of how Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction.'

Crooked Prosecutor,
Corrupt Judge,
Rigged Court

'Prosecutors from the office of Alvin Bragg, New York County’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, are expected to finish their direct examination of Keith Davidson. He’s the lawyer who, during the 2016 campaign, helped Playboy model Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels extort big paydays from Trump and his associates in exchange for maintaining their silence about extramarital affairs they claim to have had with Trump a decade earlier. Davidson will then be turned over to Trump’s lawyers for what media reports are predicting will be a tough cross-examination that may keep him on the stand for the rest of this week.'

'Now, if I were Trump’s lawyer seated at the defense table near the jury box, I’d be tempted to do crossword puzzles, play solitaire, and otherwise quietly convey to the jury that I didn’t have a care in the world about Davidson’s testimony because it wasn’t hurting my client.'

'Nondisclosure agreements, which is what Davidson negotiated for McDougal, with Trump pal David Pecker’s National Enquirer, and for Daniels, with Michael Cohen, are perfectly legal. Naturally, Bragg is drawing a lot of attention to the salacious aspects of the story to distract attention from the legality of NDAs — and, of course, to damage Trump politically, which is the main purpose of the prosecution. The best way to combat such a strategy is to act like this is all a sideshow so the jury knows it’s a sideshow.'

Either ask him nothing or just ask him few questions. For example:

• 'how many times he met with Bragg’s prosecutors to rehearse his testimony.
• I would also elicit from him whether Bragg had ever charged him or his clients with conspiracy to “promote . . . the election” of a political candidate by “unlawful means.” That is the misdemeanor offense, codified in §17-152 of New York’s election law, that Bragg claims may be — may be — the “other crime” that Trump was fraudulently trying to conceal by causing his business records to be falsified.'

No here has ever been charged with violating campaign finance law, by the agencies tasked with enforcing it, because NDA's are not campaign expenses. And Trump didn't use campaign expenses to pay them.

'Judge Merchan has allowed prosecutors to tell the jury that legal conduct was illegal conduct. When the defense has objected, Merchan has sharply overruled Trump’s lawyers; that can only persuade the jurors that Trump’s defense, not the prosecution, is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.'

https://archive.ph/72phj#selection-1255.99-1255.392

 

That's quite understandable, and many others feel the same.

Trump To Address Libertarian Convention In Move That Has Members Debating Merits

"This isn’t an endorsement of Trump, it’s an endorsement of relevance"

 

So...... what is the difference... the FEC fined her $8k for paying her attorney to hide payments... yet they never touched Trump.... hhhmmmmmmm.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clint...-fec-for-lying-about-steele-dossier-payments/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fec-fines-hilary-clinton-campaign-014755915.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-clinton-campaign-fec-civil-penalties-perkins-coie-fusion-gps

 

Crooked Judge warned by Trump Team.

'Only last week, Weinstein's 2020 conviction on rape charges was overturned by a New York appeals court because the prosecution had piled on unaffiliated "evidence," resulting in an unfair trial. It was a reversible error. And oh, boy, did they reverse it.'

'The New York Times reported that the "Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Weinstein’s defense team that the trial judge who presided over the sex crimes case in Manhattan, Justice James Burke, made a critical error."'

So, what was that error? Interesting that you should ask. It's what we have been telling you about Bragg's trumped up case, the entire time.

'And what was that error? He let witnesses testify who gratuitously piled on Weinstein, prejudicing the jury when law enforcement were either unable or unwilling to bring charges against Weinstein based on their allegations. The Times reported, "[Burke] let prosecutors call as witnesses several women who testified that Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, even though none of those allegations had led to charges."'

Just like Corrupt Judge Merchan has been allowing Dirtbag Bragg's team to do.

"Under our system of justice," the ruling reads, "the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged, and thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality,"

Related: It's Hard to Imagine a Worse Day for Stormy and the NYC Prosecutors in the Hush Trump Case

"It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict..." wrote Appeals Court Judge Jenny Rivera for the majority.

And the farce continues, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve, bit by bit, while Bribed Joe's continue to falter, bit by bit.,