mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/24/alvin-bragg-has-his-trump-trial-all-he-needs-now-is-a-crime/ For many of us in the legal community, the case of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former president Donald Trump borders on the legally obscene: an openly political prosecution based on a theory that even some liberal pundits have dismissed. Yet, this week the prosecution seemed like they were actually making a case for obscenity. No, it was not the gratuitous introduction of an uncharged alleged tryst with a former Playboy bunny or planned details on the relationship with a former porn star. It was the criminal theory itself that seemed crafted around the standard for obscenity famously described by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it] … But I know it when I see it.” After months of confusion of what crime they were alleging in the indictment, the prosecution offered a new theory that is so ambiguous and undefined that it would have made Justice Stewart blush. 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. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself. 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. ... As with James, Bragg saw it in Trump. His predecessor did not see it. He declined charging on this basis. Bragg did to. He stopped the investigation. However, after a pressure campaign, Bragg might not be able to see the crime but he certainly saw the political consequences of not charging Trump. 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. t 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 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. mspart

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-trump-prosecutors-contorted-law-case-unjustified-mess CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized the New York criminal case against Donald Trump as an "unjustified mess" in a scathing analysis piece, saying prosecutors "contorted the law" to ensnare the former president. ... "Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place," he continued. "'But they won' is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to 'win,' now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later." Honig then laid out "undeniable facts" about NY v. Trump. "The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy,’" Honig wrote. "Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to ‘Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!’? Absolutely not." The CNN legal guru then noted that Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did," Honig wrote. Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented." "In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever," Honig wrote. https://cafe.com/elies-note/trump-manhattan-da-trial-bragg/ An essay written by Elie Honig: First: paying hush money is not a crime. In fact, a hush money agreement, though seedy, is legally no different than any other contract between private parties. So the fact that Trump knew about the Daniels payoff – and he clearly did – is merely a starting point here, and insufficient to prove anything criminal. The charged New York state crime here is falsification of business records. The DA alleges that Trump had the hush money payments fraudulently recorded in his internal books as “Legal Expenses” (rather than, I don’t know, “Hush Money to Porn Star”). If proven, that’s merely a misdemeanor – a low-level crime virtually certain to result in a non-prison sentence. For comparison, under the New York code, falsification of business records has the same technical designation as shoplifting less than $1,000 of goods. The proof on the falsification point is mixed. On one hand, Trump plainly knew about the payments, and he signed some of the checks to reimburse his former attorney (turned-star-prosecution-witness) Michael Cohen for the payoffs. But it’s not entirely clear whether Trump was involved in the actual logging of those payments in the internal records of his business – and, remember, that’s the crime. In fact, when Cohen secretly recorded his then-client talking about a hush money payment to another woman in 2016, Trump seems clueless about the accounting mechanism; Cohen explains to Trump that “I’ve spoken with [Trump Organization CFO] Allen Wiesellberg about how to set the whole thing up.” Later, when Trump asks if they’ll pay cash, Cohen responds, “No, no, no, no, no. I got it.” So Trump’s team will argue that the lawyer (Cohen) and accountant (Weisellberg) – not Trump – handled the booking of the payments. Cohen surely will testify that Trump was in on not just the payments, but also the internal bookkeeping around them. mspart

I gave the eggregious issues that should have not let the judge on the case and not allowed to case to move forward. Since the NY Bar says no judge can give political contributions, Merchan was in flagrant violation. Since the NY Bar states that a judge with real or construed conflicts of interest are barred from the case. Merchan by his D donations and daughter with D fundraising job is the definition of a conflict of interest. The indictment was not specific as to the crime, the means of the crime, nor the documents that prove the crime. It was an empty dissertation of why Trump should be convicted but not the specific allegations of why. You can't just prosecute someone because you don't like him and he probably did something bad. You have to allege exactly what he/she did and then prove it. There was no such allegation so therefore no case. It should not have been tried. mspart

That would be good but does not really resolve the issue. There are plenty of candidates that win with less money. Money is an advantage and it should be taken away from Incumbents. But they have name recognition and can raise more money just from that. The answer is term limits but Congress will never go for that and neither will State legislatures. Hence we are where we are. Surprise! It was Congress that initiated term limits for the Pres, but they didn't do that for themselves at that same time. mspart

I can't answer that, they would have to. But I think any honest lawyer would look at the indictment and say this isn't a case. Any outside honest observer would have to say Merchan should not have been the judge. He presided over 3 other Trump affiliated type cases. No way was he randomly picked a 4th time. Any outside honest observer would say Merchan had too many conflict of interests (donations and daughter) to move forward with this trial. All of these show the trial should never have happened (the indictment shows this) the rest shows the judge should not have been there trying to run the farce. mspart

Yes, WA is all vote by mail now. Pros and cons to that. mspart

Well, the incumbent will get his party's vote mostly. And the challenger will get his. And usually the incumbent wins. We need stronger challengers in the primaries that can oust those incumbents. We have Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Both should be out by now. But we just voted back in Murray for her 5th or 6th term. She is no good. But no one will challenge her in the D party. And being that WA is mostly D, she gets elected. mspart

The trial should never have happened. I wrote a long dissertation on this and my browser crashed. I will not re type it up. Suffice to say the indictment was not specific as to what Trump did. The DOJ and FEC did not prosecute after investigating. The state charged Trump with federal election law violation. Judge was not randomly picked, nor was he eligible to preside as he contributed to Biden and Democratic causes. Judge was also eligible because of conflict of interest with his daughter who works for the Ds as a fundraiser. The trial, as performed, was a joke. Judge was obviously against the defense and for the prosecution. The prosecution in the closing statement disregarded rules the judge had laid down but the judge did not stop them. The judges instructions to the jury essentially said they did not have all agree on what Trump did, they could find different things Trump did and as long as all of them thought he did something, that was a unanimous decision. Since when is there such glaring vagueness in the indictment, charges, or jury instructions. The case should never have been brought. The case should not have had the judge it did. There should have been no trial held nor verdict read out. This was a sham and a joke of a trial. This did not do NY legal system any favors. Elie Honig and Jonathon Turley are agreed on the above as well as others. mspart

Hochul didn't get the memo apparently. mspart

No, I actually want an answer to my question . Not a no and yes. That is not an answer. All I actually want is for you to answer the question. Is that too difficult? mspart

When ME countries and Israel agreed to the Abraham Accords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords#:~:text=Israel's initial agreement with the,Islam in the prophet Abraham. That's when. mspart

Give it up UB. You have gotten answers and you just keep on saying I actually want you to answer the question. Here's a question for you. And I actually want you to answer the question. Did Israel deserve to be attacked by Hamas on Oct 7? I'll give you a hint of how to answer. If you answer NO, then Hamas is getting what they deserve and their use of civilians as human shields is their responsibility. It is not Israel's responsibility to save the civilians. Even though they make Herculean efforts to do so. If you answer YES, then you are the Israel hating Hamas supporting scumbag we have been saying you are for quite some time. Remember, I just actually want you to answer the question. mspart

Rasta is right that we the people can change our Congress people anytime we want. But we don't. Hence all the incumbency. The parties don't really give us that choice. It will take independent folks to primary challenge the incumbents or party favorite. But what sane person wants to do that. Too much intrusion in to personal lives makes it not worth the effort. Fundraising also makes it not worth the effort. mspart

Term limits for Congress would be good but it takes an Constitutional Amendment to do that, and guess who is not going to do that? Congress of course. From the Constitution: Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Congress ain't supporting any of this. And the states already tried to limit congressional terms and were turned away by SCOTUS. So 2/3 of the states have to get a convention going and 3/4 of them have to agree on the amendment. Tall order. mspart

This. mspart