Alvin Bragg's potential indictment of Donald Trump slammed for partisanship: 'Looks like Christmas f

It's a federal charge (as virtually every media entity is admitting) because the state campaign finance laws do not apply to candidates who file their expense statements at the federal level.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/14-124

 

The only way it becomes a felony is if the defendant is also guilty of the intent to commit another related crime in conjunction with the initial offense. So Bragg has to prove both for it to be a felony.

So basically the first gate is he has to prove Trump is guilty of the bookkeeping issue. That's something that is up in the air after Cohen's former attorney, Costello, testified earlier this week to the grand jury over Bragg's objections. He showed Bragg introduced six Cohen related emails to try to prove his case. But, Costello has first hand knowledge at the time and is also aware of 315 other Cohen emails that show he is lying that Bragg kept from the grand jury.

The second gate is Bragg needs to convince a judge to allow him to add a federal charge to the case. This is something a judge might be happy to do if this applied only to Trump, but this won't end with Trump of they're allowed to do this. This opens the door for them to do this to other people which is a can of worms the judge may not want to open.

The third gate is he needs to prove the federal charge in state court, which is a bit ridiculous.

Even if he gets a complicit judge and jury willing to go off the deep end with him on all of this Trump has the resources to appeal. Trump and his legal team are pretty confident. Trump is apparently bragging and holding parties down in Florida shaking hands and laughing about all of this to his friends and donors.

While Trump is partying and enjoying the humor of this whole thing Bragg has continued to cancel the grand jury last minute each morning since Costello testified. A lot of prosecutors quit to avoid working with him when he got elected and decided to be "pro-crime," but even his allies who stayed are now running to the press saying Bragg is afraid he lost the grand jury and they have no idea what he's doing because he has no case. He apparently has one more witness to call and it seems he's afraid to call them because he needs to go back to the well to refute Costello's testimony.

All these chances to lose a single jury member doesn't look good for Bragg. On that top of that the jury will hear about his campaign pledges, vendetta, statute of limitations, not bringing the federal charge in federal court, only bringing the case after he decided to run for re-election, etc. Just need one jury member sympathetic to any of that.

 

"Corporations are people"

Corporate personhood existed long before Citizens United. And "money is speech" is a funny way of saying businesses can spend money to get their message out into public.

 

Partisan my behind.... lol

 

Yea, no ****.

 

Trump was a criminal long before he ever ran for office.

 

So this statement: "If you cared about the rule of law . . ." only applies as long as you don't afford it to DJT. The "rule of law" includes the standard that "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty." You do see how your standard would make it difficult for a jury trial to be fair if all jurists had your standard, don't you?

 

I'm not suggesting that he be put in jail with no evidence. I know he has committed crimes though.

OJ Simpson is a murderer, his being found not guilty didn't impact my view on that at all.

 

I do wonder about this case if it weren’t Trump, would the Manhattan DA be going after the average Joe Blow? I don't think so. I do think the other cases, Georgia, DOJ, etc have merit. But this one may be all about Trump in a very political, partisan way. MAGA can hoot and holler, rant and rave about partisanship in the other cases, I don’t see it. But this one case, they may have a point. I know, this is impossible for anti-Trumpers to admit just as it is impossible for pro-Trumpers to admit Trump screwed the pooch in Georgia, classified documents, 1-6 etc.

 

You're free to have your own opinion, but you're not free to declare what is the rule of law. Doing so opens the door to a double standard. "Car(ing) about the rule of law" requires respect for that part that states a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

Not sure where you think I have declared what the rule of law is.

Trump knew Michael Cohen was going to pay off the porn star he had sex with while his third wife was at home with their newborn son.

The government may nor may not have enough evidence to convict him for it, but i know that he knew Michael Cohen was going to pay off the porn star he had sex with while his third wife was at home with their newborn son.

 

Then I suggest you carefully review the thread, beginning where you first referenced "the rule of law".

What evidence (even circumstantial) do you use to draw this conclusion?

If there's not enough evidence to convict, then the standard is "not guilty" of the crime a person is accused of committing. That's "the rule of law." Your opinion doesn't matter, because others can respectfully disagree with it and you can't logically say they're wrong. Do you understand this basic principle? It involves that which is subjectively known and that which is objectively known.

 

The rule of law is separate from what we choose to believe. We are responsible for what we believe.

No one really believes Trump is innocent. There are some devotees who pretend that he is, but in reality they don't care whether he's guilty or not. They are going to support him forever.

Casee Anthony murdered her daughter.

 

I'd like to call out the blatant hypocrisy you've exhibited on this subject. Here you are saying you need to wait until you see the evidence before classifying Bragg's behavior as lawfare... despite campaigning on the fact that he intended to harass a private citizen with criminal prosecution and investigations before having any evidence.

And then throughout this thread you claim Trump has committed crimes here. RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR MEE!!!!

 

Bragg's policy is to ignore most non-violent crime and to try his hardest to downgrade violent crimes to misdemeanors. There is zero chance that if Trump were a Democrat he would be doing this. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. Bragg has a two-tiered system of justice and is targeting Trump solely for political purposes.

 

"No one"? How do you even believe this? If you had said "Many people . . . ." then you would have a valid point.

 

The one who broke the law was Daniels when she agreed to the NDA and then broke it. BTW, it's funny that many say Trump is lying when he doesn't divulge anything about the Daniels' affair but there's that NDA he would violate if he said anything about the Daniels affair.

Well, at least, NY state can't prosecute (persecute) Trump for violating an NDA.

 

Because i can't beleive that there are any people stupid enoguh to not have figured out that Donald Trump is a terrible human being, and

Yea, you are criticizing the investigation as a political witch hunt. If you cared about the rule of law, you would wait to see what evidence they have before reaching that conclusion. You can't possibly know whether or not it is a witch-hunt until you know what the people who have testified have said. You hate law enforcement when they are going after Trump.

I have seen more than enough to reach the conclusion that Trump is guilty. I am fine with only preponderance of the evidence for me to decide, because i'm not on a jury.

 

So, you call anyone that disagrees with you "stupid" and see nothing wrong about that type of thinking? Is it intelligent thinking?

 

That's not a crime. The supposed "crime" is that his bookkeepers misclassified the payments. And, they're trying to prove that Trump told them to break the law in the way that they handled the expense filing. NDAs are perfectly legal.

 

Put me into the list of people who does not want to see the Donald reelected, but I am more concerned about setting a precedent of chickenshit drummed up petty ass charges being used against political opponents (though these days most consider them enemies, sadly), especially ex-Presidents!!!!

That's banana republic crap that is something we really don't need, certainly in light of the real problems we are dealing with.

 

The DA's primary campaign platform was to go on a witch hunt against Trump. Yes, I'm critical of that. And, quit complaining about "waiting to see the evidence" of the trial. You don't care about waiting for anything. You've declared Trump guilty over and over again in a blatant display of hypocrisy in this thread. The evidence also doesn't change the fact that this investigation was a campaign promise to target Trump. That's corruption of the justice system.

 

No, there are plenty of people who disagree with me about all sorts of things who don't believe that Trump is an innocent victim in all of this. They aren't stupid.

 

yea, he shouldn't have ran on that, it does hurt his credibility. He should have just talked about it in terms of ensuring everyone no matter who they are get's justice, and not named Trump. People still would have got it, and it wouldn't have damaged his credibility.

I would have expected whoever the DA was to prosecute Trump, so there is nothing suspect about him being prosecuted to me.

 

Trump knew they broke the law on his behalf. Whether he knew the details of what they did doesn't matter to me. Of course it matters in court, but you shouldn't have to wait on a conviction for you to decide whether or not the guy who knew his lawyer was paying off the porn star he had sex with while his third wife was at home with their newborn son is someone of good moral character.

Trump is human garbage. I don't take anyone seriously if they say they believe anything else.