Where's the Ham?

Well, the details are going to matter, and we don't have them.

 

But that isn't stopping any one else from running. And conspiracy to do things that are perfectly is itself legal. Nothing they did was illegal. Catch and kill is not illegal. If it was you'd have to jail half the media in the country.

 

Well, until we do just enjoy the ride? It might be bumpy at times.

 

The defense is supposed to get full details, per the law.

 

Who was defrauded? Fraud is a crime that has a victim. Are you alleging Trump committed fraud against himself? How does that work?

 

I do recall that New York has a broader definition of fraud than most places. I have been trying to mostly avoid the word as this makes it confusing, but I see I used it there. I mean the falsifying business records charge.

 

Yes well, guess they'll get plenty of time hopefully. Freaking December, lol.

 

Bragg has dropped fraud, but hasn't explained it at all. He's made a lot of loose allegations that don't make sense and not based on sound logic and law.

 

The criminal justice system is broken now because you guys argued that the U.S. has too many (of color) people in jail. They are now let out of jail free by George Soros DAs who advocate that repeat violet offenders be set free. Is this your idea of reparations? You won’t answer because it will be too embarrassing for you.

 

Look up the First Step Act. Trump did reform the criminal justice system in a major way. Now why don't you hold Biden to the same standard or is hypocrisy just easier?

 

Yes!

 

I can see some logic in this explanation, but stuff does not add up. What possibly would be Trump's motive to say he was paying Cohen for services preformed in 2017 (as opposed to just paying him in 2017 which he did) when he was actually paying for services preformed in 2016? Related question, what crime did Trump commit in 2016 that he supposedly was covering up?

 

Yes, hypocrisy just easier.
I am liking JRB's foreign policy moves right now. I do have a bias in favor of success.

Do you think DJT, still thinks the First Step Act amounted to substantive reform? IMO, Trump deserves praise for the First Step Act, but as with almost all RP reforms they never fully address the problems created by our Big Bad Governments.
He needs to at least stand for far more significant reforms to have much of a chance to win in 2024. Ditto most other RP candidates.

 

He needed bipartisan support. They worked on it for a long time before the first version was voted on in Congress. No complex bill is ever perfect due to the competing interests of legislatures. But, it's rare to find so much common ground and positive reform on a polarizing issue that was universally accepted on both sides. They didn't just make one or two changes. They made a lot of major reforms.

 

The problems with the criminal justice system involve its long history of railroading defendants into prison.
Soros, and his DA's are just exploiting a justice system that was already broken.

Now DJT is facing prosecution by a system that routinely denies defendants fair trials and full due process. So, the utter folly of the RP's reflexive "Back The Blue" position has been fully exposed as the Jaws "justice" have chewed on Trump at least since 2015.
This corrupt system has been digesting J6 defendants for over two years now. The RP's response?
For the most part, passive submission.

 

Yes, but clearly not close to enough reform. Fair trials and due process are still optional depending on the defendant.

 

Due process is now subject to the discretion of every crooked prosecutor.

 

So, because some people got "railroaded" that justifies letting the guilty go? That makes no sense.

 

Yeah like catch and release as favored by current leftist is ever so much better.

 

"Catch and release" is very bad.
Kangaroo justice is very bad.
Now we have both.

A serious political opposition would at the very least propose credible comprehensive reform.

 

The motive for Trump seems to have been to cover up that it was at all related to the election or silencing porn stars. It seems the access Hollywood tape got him and his team concerned that something that corroborates him being inappropriate to women would be damaging. Though Trump knew there was bad stuff out there about him from the beginning and that's why he met with Pecker in 2015 in a scheme to catch and kill negative stories.

Bragg appears to have a 3-pronged approach here, but the prong I was referring to has two crimes that mostly rely on each other to work. So Trump falsified business records many times in 2017. This was done to hide the fact that he used the Cohen NDA and Pecker to silence negative stories to help him win the election. It is a crime to promote an election using criminal activity (falsifying business records), under New York Law, and this in turn elevates the business records charge to 1st degree and a felony. Other prongs also pertain to the falsifying business records, but instead of New York Election law they use campaign finance laws (federal) or New York State tax laws. I haven't dived much into the tax law one, but CNN recently called it the hardest one to argue against. To me, I don't think preemption is a good argument against the election law prong - might work against the campaign finance part. I am more concerned about timing, as no election could be promoted after the fact - but then again, the whole point was to hide the fact that he had used it to promote the election. So if it can be shown that his intent to make false business records started before the 2016 election (e.g. via e-mails with Cohen on how he plans to pay him back), I think it still works.

 

Innocent defendants are routinely railroaded into prison by kangaroo courts.
This is apparently only a concern for Republicans when their political elite is targeted for prosecution and denied full due process.

“THOUGHT EXPERIMENT



With coercive plea bargaining, prosecutors have ripped that heart right out of the criminal justice system.Joan Wong for NBC News / Getty Images


America is the most prosperous country in the history of the world. We excel at innovation and mass production — and nowhere is that more true today than our criminal justice system, which features a streamlined process for transforming millions of suspects into convicted criminals quickly, efficiently and without the hassle of a constitutionally prescribed jury trial.

It’s called coercive plea bargaining, and it’s the secret sauce that helps us maintain the world’s highest incarceration rate.”

“Of coercive plea bargaining’s many problems, two are particularly concerning.

The first is false convictions. Though it was once believed that a confession in open court — a guilty plea — was proof-positive of a person’s guilt, we now know that simply isn’t true. Indeed, of the more than 300 people definitively exonerated by the Innocence Project using DNA evidence, some 11 percent pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit since 1989. The National Registry of Exonerations puts the total number at 20 percent since 1989. But whatever the precise figure, it is clear that innocent people are routinely coerced into pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit.”
NBC NEWS, Prisons are packed because prosecutors are coercing plea deals. And, yes, it's totally legal., By Clark Neily, Aug. 8, 2019. (Emphasis mine)
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...utors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201

 

The indictment is an irrational mess. Partisan prosecutorial roid rage.
An honest judge would throw it out after a preliminary hearing and sanction the prosecutors.

“Why it matters: Bragg's legal theory is complex and hasn't been fully explained — giving Trump cover from some of his biggest critics, who lambasted the case as shaky and wide open to defense challenges.

• "The prosecutor's overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public's faith in our justice system," Romney wrote.

An even harsher critic than Romney — former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN analyst, who was fired by Trump hours before retirement — said the indictment "landed like a dud ... an unimpressive document."

• "Commentators across the spectrum are saying: 'Boy, there's really not much in here. Raises all kinds of questions about the legal theory behind this case. They're gonna have a tough time, facing motions to dismiss,'" McCabe said.

William Barr — Trump's former attorney general, who has called election-fraud claims by his former boss "all bull---" — said on Fox News before the indictment was unsealed that it appears to be "a pathetically weak case.””
AXIOS, "Never Trumpers" sound alarm about Manhattan DA's indictment, By Mike Allen, author Axios AM, April 5, 2023.
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/05/trump-critics-indictment-alvin-bragg-mitt-romney

 

I was a bit disappointed in Bragg's ability to communicate the charges to the public, but even more disappointed by the really pathetic legal analysis most "experts" have given, such as your examples. Here's some actual good analysis, done before we even saw the indictment but from Bragg's sort of people:

The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview (justsecurity.org)

 

Here's another quote from someone who hates Trump with a passion:

“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document,” [John] Bolton said on CNN. “I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be.”

...

But Bolton said the indictment was weak, arguing it would be subject to dismissal.

“I think it’s easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump,” Bolton said.

...

The argument that the case being built by Bragg is weak is one that Trump also spun after leaving Manhattan court on Tuesday, saying on his Truth Social platform that “the hearing was shocking to many in that they had no “surprises,” and therefore, no case.”