╌>

New York v Trump

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  54 comments

New York v Trump
Ajudge in New York sided with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg at a hearing on Monday and set a trial in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump to begin on April 15.


Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will likely be the only prosecutor to take Trump to trial before the election. Believe it or not, he is using what some here listed as the least likely case to try and hang a conviction on Donald Trump before the election. The trial date is now set at April 15.

The facts of the case:

1) The only crime that has been discussed in this case is an unprecedented attempt to revive a misdemeanor for falsifying business documents that expired years ago.

2) Many believe that Bragg may attempt to “bootstrap” the misdemeanor into a felony (and longer statute of limitations) by alleging an effort to evade federal election charges and that is why he has played his cards so close to the vest.

3) The DOJ declined to prosecute the federal election claim against Trump.

4) The precedent for this type of case was when the DOJ went after former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on even stronger grounds than Bragg is using against Trump and the DOJ had its head handed to it.

5) Non-disclosure agreements are fairly common even for political candidates. In this case Bragg has set a bar for himself by trying to prove that Donald Trump only did this because of the upcoming election. In other words, the misdemeanor was committed to conceal a federal election law violation.

6) There are supposedly 34 counts of business record falsification. (Are they different or just multiplied?)


The background of the case:

Bragg's predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr began investigating Trump in 2019. Bragg worked with him. They thought they had stumbled upon a gold mine when all of Trump's business records were turned over to them, but after going through the material the effort was abandoned. At that point two prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned from the Manhattan DA's office. Pomerantz then did something that was viewed by many in law enforcement as highly unprofessional and improper. He published a book on the case against Trump. Trump being someone who was still under investigation and not charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. That seemed to have been what lit the fire under the radical DA Bragg.


What are Bragg's chances?

I am certain that Alvin Bragg is betting that a NY jury won't read any further than the name of the accused.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago


It is judgement day, but not for Trump.

GJh6deWbsAIRLsi?format=jpg&name=small  


It is American justice that will be judged.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

business fraud used to hide a federal crime. NY now needs a law to forbid secret service agents from working inside prisons.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Bragg is a federal prosecutor? No he is a DA for the Manhattan district.

The DOJ declined to charge Trump.

Bragg has no damn standing. 

Democrats don't give a shit about rule of law. They will do anything to get Trump; and protect anyone with the all coveted D behind their names.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.2  evilone  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Bragg has no damn standing. 

Bragg does have standing. Whether he can prove his case or not remains to be seen. 

Democrats don't give a shit about rule of law. They will do anything to get Trump; and protect anyone with the all coveted D behind their names.

Right wing populists don't give a shit about the rule of law. They will do anything to excuse Trump and protect anyone that spouts the MAGA cult mantra. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago
business fraud used to hide a federal crime.

It requires a good deal of imagination.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

You were given the chance to discuss the merits.

Evidently none of you can.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.5  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
It requires a good deal of imagination.

No. It only requires copies of the accounting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

Wrong again. It requires proof of INTENT

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.7  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Wrong again. It requires proof of INTENT

First, link to the NY State law supporting your argument of requirement of intent. Second, noting a potentially illegal payment as something else in the accounting is the definition of intent. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

Didn't you read the article?

Don't you know anything about this case?

It only works for Bragg if he can prove that the non-disclosure agreement was because of the election, not for the myriad of other things that it could involve like public embarrassment or jeopardizing a marriage. To get to the federal election violation he has to prove the money was used to win an election and even that may not be enough.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

If nothing else Vic seems to be fine with the fact that Trump was paying a hooker hush money in order to cover up a sexual encounter that occurred  while his wife was pregnant.

Even a moron like trump understands that probably wouldn't look good to the voters

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
seems to be fine with the fact that Trump was paying a hooker hush money

With some, he just can't catch a break, they bitch when he pays his bills and they bitch when he doesn't.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.11  George  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

I don't think anyone is fine with trump paying a hooker and more than anyone should be fine with Biden raping his daughter, but if I had to choose between the 2...........Vote third party.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

'when he pays his bills'

When does that ever happen??????????????????

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.12    3 weeks ago
When does that ever happen??????????????????

Ask the banks that approved his loans that were repaid in full.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.14  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
It only works for Bragg if he can prove that the non-disclosure agreement was because of the election

Between Daniels, Cohen, Pecker and others for the prosecution I don't think it's going to be a difficult hill to climb. 

To get to the federal election violation...

Done. See co-conspirator #1.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1.15  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
You were given the chance to discuss the merits.

Chanel your peeves as being 'merits' all you want. Alas there are none to be found.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
If nothing else Vic seems to be fine with the fact that Trump was paying a hooker hush money in order to cover up a sexual encounter that occurred  while his wife was pregnant.

It is called a non-disclosure agreement. He paid for silence, and she agreed & took the money. And if the reason is as you say: because his wife was pregnant at the time, Bragg loses his case.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.14    3 weeks ago
Between Daniels, Cohen, Pecker and others for the prosecution I don't think it's going to be a difficult hill to climb. 

Cohen as the star witness? I don't think so.

Did you see what JR posted? 

Trump was paying a hooker hush money in order to cover up a sexual encounter that occurred  while his wife was pregnant.

Then he did it for something other than the election. Case closed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.15    3 weeks ago
Alas there are none to be found.

Look up the John Edwards case.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1.19  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    3 weeks ago
Look up the John Edwards case.

Lived thru it, no thanks ... there are far more important things worthy of second visits.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.20  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.17    3 weeks ago
Cohen as the star witness? 

I didn't say he was a star. Only one of several. There is no doubt the defense will paint him as unreliable, but the jury will weigh his testimony along with the others when they make their judgements.

Did you see what JR posted? 

JR will not be involved in the court case. 

Then he did it for something other than the election.

I'm sure that's what you'd like to think. The court will go through the whole timeline from when he hooked up to when he was elected and all the pertinent acts that happened in between.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
I didn't say he was a star.

I know you didn't. I'm saying it. The case is built around someone who once admitted he'd say anything rather than going to jail.


The court will go through the whole timeline from when he hooked up to when he was elected and all the pertinent acts that happened in between.

How does a court decide what was in someone's mind?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.19    3 weeks ago
Lived thru it, no thanks ... there are far more important things worthy of second visits.

This is the sequel.  You have to know the original to know how it ends.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.23  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    3 weeks ago
The case is built around someone who once admitted he'd say anything rather than going to jail.

The case is built around the accounting and timing. 

How does a court decide what was in someone's mind?

The US court system has been doing it since it's inception through various means with some success. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  George @1.1.11    3 weeks ago

I plan to. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 and I won't vote for him this time around. Same for Biden. Neither one are fit to hold a second term in my opinion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @1.1.23    3 weeks ago
The case is built around the accounting and timing. 

Now you're getting it. And convincing everyone that it was only about an election. That is what the DOJ initially walked away from, but the DOJ does have one of its own on this case. So, there is a push and a connection.


The US court system has been doing it since it's inception through various means with some success. 

FALSE.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.26  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.24    3 weeks ago

Tell me what Trump did as President that you don't like.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.27  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    3 weeks ago

The office of president is more than just policies, it is also about character, and trump in my opinion does not have the character to be president. this is my opinion. Ed's reasons are his own. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.28  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

The election of Bill Clinton says otherwise.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  George @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

Thank you. That pretty much sums up my feelings. I do not like Trump but I do feel he is being treated very unfairly by the get rid of Trump at any cost anti Trump leftist lib crowd and the liberal MSM and a blatant double standard of justice is being applied. Leticia James, Alvin Bragg, and Fanni Willis have pretty much priced that. Rule of law is not really being applied to Trump.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.30  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    3 weeks ago
That is what the DOJ initially walked away from, but the DOJ does have one of its own on this case. So, there is a push and a connection.

Hmm... who's your source in the DoJ? Unless you have one you don't know jack.

FALSE.

Now you're in denial. By to your logic no one would be able to get a conviction on 1st or 2nd degree murder without a confession. I'm not saying Bragg will be successful here or not successful. Only that he has standing and merit for a case to proceed. Anything else is blind partisanship.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.31  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Seems far right-wing fascists will stoop as low as they possibly can to protect the insane orange lying fool. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    2 weeks ago
Tell me what Trump did as President that you don't like.

I .   Attempted to steal a presidential election for the first time in USA history by:

  • claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitating his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • trying to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • trying to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • trying to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • organizing fake alternate electors in seven states he lost
  • trying to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encouraging his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweeting that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refusing to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

II .   Obstructed the lawful securing of classified documents by knowingly and willingly :

  • communicating classified contents to an unauthorized source
  • concealing (hiding) classified documents (holding national defense information) to avoid having to return them
  • lying about held classified documents
  • corruptly persuading another person to withhold or hide classified documents rather than return them
  • conspiring to obstruct justice in the return of classified documents

III.   Attempted to falsely keep the economy positive by:

  • lying about the severity, duration of the COVID-19 pandemic
  • lying about likely cures of the COVID-19 pandemic
  • not taking immediate action to mitigate infections   ( I applaud his later efforts to get the vaccines. )

And I could list good and bad regarding policy (e.g. addressing illegal immigration=good, denying and actually working against mitigation of climate change=bad) but my key concerns with Trump are not policy related but more about his demeanor, character, integrity, entirely (historically so) unpresidential face and voice of our nation, and then, especially, his violation of his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and disenfranchise voters as the sitting PotUS.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    2 weeks ago

we have to go through the same shit every day. 

It is 3 1/2 years since the 2020 election and not a single scrap of provable evidence has been presented to show the election was stolen from Trump. 

We literally live in a bizarro world. 

You would think that at some point it would dawn on Trumpsters that they have been duped.   But noooooooooooooooo. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.33    2 weeks ago

The reason, of course, is that Trump is the presumptive nominee for the GOP.   All loyal GOP members have no choice (in their minds) but to vote for Trump to be the next PotUS.   And since they know who they will voting for, they now need to defend their choice.

But any argument in support of Trump becoming the next PotUS is on a foundation of quicksand.   There is no sound argument for putting Trump in the presidency.   And the strength and volume of counterarguments is overwhelming.

In result, we will see strawman arguments, deflection, faux obtuseness, lying, twisting of reality, etc., and of course, pitiful 'arguments'.

And it will grow increasingly worse as we approach November.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.35  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    2 weeks ago
Tell me what Trump did as President that you don't like.

Breathing, to start with

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    2 weeks ago

I do not applaud the former 'president's' later efforts to get the vaccines.  He deserves no credit whatsoever for this.

What choice did he have?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.36    2 weeks ago

It does not help the D cause to NOT give credit to an R PotUS when credit would be given to a D PotUS under the same circumstances.

Trump did not have to do anything to legitimately get credit for the vaccines being developed under his watch.   If a D were PotUS at the time, he would have had no real choice but to get behind the vaccines too.   And if an R objected to the credit, I would give the R the same answer.

The strongest position one can have will be based on objective analysis.   

Fair defense and fair criticism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Yet another case where the Trump side is being argued not on the facts of the conduct but on technicalities of the law.

Trump never argues "I didn't do it",  he always argues ,"so what?"

his entire adult life can be described as someone trying to get away with things that other people can't

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

Will he be judged on the merits of the case?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago

Are you contending Trump did not have an affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels? Did not try to cover it up? Did not illegally disguised the payments to Daniels as deductable legal expenses or campaign expenses and then even attempt to deduct the payoffs on his business tax return? Innocent, is he? Nope...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago

Will Democrats ever follow the laws when charging someone? Just once? Please for the sake of the legal system that most have stopped believing in.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Then why didn't the FEC or DOJ charge Trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

I am contending that Bragg will not be able to twist this into a federal crime.

Anyone else want to discuss the merits?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
Yet another case where the Trump side is being argued not on the facts of the conduct but on technicalities of the law.

The answer is cricket noises?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
entire adult life

He also spent his childhood as a rapist and a thief.

His parents sent him to military school for a reason. It didn't take.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @2.2    2 weeks ago

And never grew up and continued to rape and sexually assault very young girls and women who look like his daughter Ivanka.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3  Right Down the Center    3 weeks ago

Oh the can of worms the dems are opening.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Right Down the Center @3    3 weeks ago

Added to the multitude of others they have opened in last 3+ years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

I put this up for those who always want to discuss the merits of the case. Evidently, they only like to read indictments as if they were written by God.

I believe this is what writers call "the pregnant pause."


Later.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

One final note pointed out by Donald Trump:

Matthew Colangelo left the DOJ as a top official there to come help Alvin Bragg on this "hush money" case. That is not usually where top DOJ officials go after leaving the Department. They usually get a big job somewhere, but every important prosecutor must join the get Trump team.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6  George    2 weeks ago

Trump posted the 175 million dollar bond, I guess the DA won’t get to run on selling trumps property. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7  cjcold    2 weeks ago

Those who defend Trump are just as stupid, ignorant and venal as he is.

Likely the same folk who deny anthropogenic global warming.

Likely the same folk who are anti vaccination.

[deleted][]

 
 

Who is online




85 visitors