Progressive DA Alvin Bragg's case against Trump hinges on witnesses with 'credibility problems': And

Progressive DA Alvin Bragg's case against Trump hinges on witnesses with 'credibility problems': Andy McCarthy
https://www.foxnews.com/media/progr...-witnesses-credibility-problems-andy-mccarthy

So another kangaroo court convenes to further the course of dual justice.
Witness A: A corrupt stripper who denied anything ever happened until she met lawyer Avenatti, who then stole her money. (And CNN fawned over “as possibly the next president!”)
Witness B: A corrupt attorney who got caught up in dual justice and had his attorney client relationship voided because they needed something on Trump. He ended up in jail even after agreeing to anything to stay out of prison. He is now a ventriloquist dummy.
Obviously the first defense witness should be Bill Clinton who paid $800k in hush money to Paula Daniels. No big deal. Dual justice as usual.

 

It's amazing how the left will hitch themselves to wagons that have square, instead of round, wheels thinking that wagon will really navigate through the mud. They only end up looking silly, with mud on their faces, but they don't seem to mind. They'll just look for the next goofy looking wagon to hitch up to.

 

District Attorney Bragg has been scrupulous is assessing whether the evidence against Trump in his paying hush money to a bimbo with whom he rutted behind the back of one of his pregnant trophy wives as a "business expense" (a sordid caper in which Trump's "fixer' was convicted) is worth prosecuting.

Meanwhile, despite their being no charges, Trump is using his hysteria to promote his dogma that he is above the law and spewing his venomous, vendetta-driven, victimhood pretense, a reliable fundraising ploy that successfully targets his weird worshipers.

The Loser's raving that the meticulous litigator and church-going father of two is "human scum!", and an "animal!" - evoking Trump's goons' threats and evocations of "death and destruction!" - promises to be a tantrum tirade that will persist for many months.

Democrats are becoming more confident that the Loser of the 2020 presidential election, the Loser of GOP's control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate in a single term, the big Loser in the 2022 midterms, will be the Republican nominee in 2024.

Next time, the Loser won't get to pleasure himself watching his goons savagely attack police for hours.

‘You’ve got guns. Use them!’

Lindsey Graham, January 6, 2021​

 

Paying for a NDA is NOT illegal nor any sex he may have had with her. The record was an INTERNAL record only affecting the company INTERNALLY, not a tax reporting matter, so the only person "defrauded" would be the owner, guess who is that. Besides the statute of limitations ran out over FIVE YEARS ago.

Why is this a matter before a court?

 

This is primarily a documents case, not a he-said-she-said. Business documents and e-mails. Witness credibility is unlikely to be a significant factor, as the documents and e-mails can be forensically analyzed to prove where they originated and when. And the crime isn't hush money payment.

As usual, Fox is purposely lying about a situation to help conservatives.

 

There is no need for kibitzers to opine regarding the legality of Trump paying hush money to two of his bimbos with whom he rutted behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife and claiming the pay offs were business expenses (as his personal attorney insists is proper.) The matter is being adjudicated.

... Giuliani said that whether such an expenditure was legal expense or not, it would still be a business expense, noting that it would just affect someone’s “reputation."

Abrams pushed back, saying, “Well, it’s not a business expense if you’re paying off women to not tell people about your affair.”

Giuliani responded that “it sure is” — and that the Internal Revenue Service would accept it as such.
​

If Giuliani's insistence is correct, Trump will be acquitted.

​

 

No. The key about the falsifying business records being false is that they allege legal services in 2017 that actually occurred in 2016. The reason for this was to cover up the fact that they were used to promote Trump's election (illegal in new york to conspire to commit crimes to promote an election). The definition of fraud is broad in New York.

So the category of the expense doesn't actually need to be false for the case to stick, as there are other false attributes to them such as timing of services.

 

As noted, the matter - regarding all the counts - is being adjudicated.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000

 

Who was defrauded?

 

The voters of New York, probably. It’s important to understand that New York has a broad definition of fraud: https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/...ew-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/

Excerpt: “ Applying this broad concept of “intent to defraud” in false business records cases, New York state courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases including when a defendant: made covert contributions to a political campaign, covered up an alleged rape, misled the relatives of a patient about the individual’s treatment, operated a motor vehicle without a license, obtained credit cards through false documents but with no proof of intention to miss payments, frustrated the regulatory authorities of the New York City Transit Authority, and much more. ”

Many non-New York legal experts are missing the argument in that article because the jurisdictions they practice in are different.

 

Ok. How were the voters of New York harmed?

 

From what I’ve read, this Manhattan case is the weakest of all the possible pending cases against Trump. I’m satisfied to relax, sit back, and have a cup of coffee watching all of this play out. This whole thing is better than any daytime soap opera.

 

The most entertaining part of the soap opera is watching how the lefties defend Bragg. He's their hero for finally "getting" Trump.

 

I could care less what Giuliani has to say in the matter. The DOJ and FEC said no campaign finance violation. Bragg has no jurisdiction in such matters.

 

You have no victim.

 

If what you say is true, the case will be summarily dismissed on its lack of merit, and Trump's hysterical "Animal!" and "Psychopath!" - while serving his fundraising purposes - will have had no impact on the case.

 

Trump's legal waterlooloos should build to a climax, as the Jordanaires will divert their national priority of a citizen named Hunter Biden to anyone who tries to hold Trump legally responsible for his behavior.

​

 

Don’t need one in New York. Not that this is quite a victimless crime. Voters are victimized by being misled with crimes.

 

What were the crimes that misled voters in New York? It's not as if they were going to vote for Trump anyways.

 

Falsifying business records is a crime in itself. Promoting a candidate for an election by using crimes is also a crime. Using falsifying business records to help him in the election is the crime. Together they are felony falsifying business records in New York.

I agree that, at least for New York, it wasn’t going to make the difference, but it doesn’t have to in order to be a crime. Maybe it made a difference for the general election, but bottom line is he did things in New York that fell afoul of New York law.

 

The payments didn't take place until after the election. You're not indicating what crimes were committed that victimized the voters.

 

I will not be surprised at all if it is, what have I said that is not true?

 

How did he mislead voters in New York? And that would be a federal not a state crime.

 

That's my question. So far he hasn't answered it.

 

For one, you opined that the District Attorney (attacked by the accused as being an "Animal!" and a "Psychopath!") "has no jurisdiction in such matters."

Obviously, the falsifying of business records is well within the DA's purview, an easily proven misdemeanor (in the matter of Trump's paying hush money to bimbos with whom he rutted behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife.) Did such payoffs augment another crime and rise to the level of felony? That is yet to be determined, and you are not authorized to make such a determination.

I support our system of jurisprudence, and will respect whatever disposition of this case is made by the courts.