Alvin Bragg
Posted on 04/24/2024 3:56:22 PM PDT by Libloather
For many of us in the legal community, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump borders on the legally obscene: an openly political prosecution based on a theory even legal pundits dismiss. Yet Monday the prosecution seemed to actually make a case for obscenity.
It wasn’t the gratuitous introduction of an uncharged alleged tryst with a former Playboy Bunny or expected details on the relationship with an ex-porn star. It was the criminal theory itself that seemed crafted around the obscenity standard that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously described in 1984’s Jacobellis v. Ohio: “I shall not today attempt further to define [it]. … But I know it when I see it.”
The prosecution must show Trump falsified business records in “furtherance of another crime.” After months of confusion on just what crime underpinned the indictment, the prosecution offered a new theory so ambiguous and undefined, it would have made Stewart blush.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that in listing payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense,” Trump violated this New York law: “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 Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy, by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer Michael Cohen with other legal expenses.
Confused? You’re not alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I agree.
Black Beria
From The New Yorker (April 12, 2018) - The National Enquirer, a Trump Rumor, and Another Secret Payment to Buy Silence, by Ronan Farrow.
Excerpt:
Late in 2015, a former Trump Tower doorman named Dino Sajudin met with a reporter from American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. A few weeks earlier, Sajudin had signed a contract with A.M.I., agreeing to become a source and to accept thirty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to information he had been told: that Donald Trump, who had launched his Presidential campaign five months earlier, may have fathered a child with a former employee in the late nineteen-eighties. Sajudin declined to comment for this story. However, six current and former A.M.I. employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared legal retaliation by the company, said that Sajudin had told A.M.I. the names of the alleged mistress and child. Reporters at A.M.I. had spent weeks investigating the allegations, and Sajudin had passed a lie-detector test, during which he testified that high-level Trump employees, including Trump’s head of security, Matthew Calamari, had told him the story.Click on the link to read the rest of the story.
-PJ
Thanks.
Alvin Bragg
That’s what I understand, too.
No matter what transpires during the trial, they must be relying on the jury to render a guilty verdict.
I don’t know if a guilty verdict could be appealed. But something must be done to nullify the whole damned thing.
“Does Turley still stare into the Fox camera wearing a pained look on his face”?
What does that have to do with him being right?
You’re sure a bright one. Not.
Black Beria
____ ____ ____
Yes. Evil bastards.
Yeah, Ronan Farrow trying to outdo himself and the Kavanaugh smear.
“Sharon Churcher, one of the lead A.M.I. reporters on the story, told me, “I do not believe that story was true. I believed from the beginning it was not true.” Other employees at A.M.I. had questions about Sajudin’s credibility. In 2014, a Web site registered through a service that obscures the identity of the author claimed that Sajudin had made similar accusations against a Trump Tower resident named Lawrence Penn III, and that those accusations were false. (Penn could not be reached for comment. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to securities fraud, and he is currently serving a six-year prison sentence. Penn’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.) When I reached out to Sajudin, he responded, in an e-mail, “My time is valuable. What’s your offer??” After being told that The New Yorker does not pay sources, Sajudin declined further requests for an interview”
-PJ
After that they can teach monkeys to write the works of Shakespeare.
The Democrats are trying to channel Lavrentiy Beria.
One of the jury members admitted she didn’t like Trump. Weren’t they supposed to screen those people out?
Bragg wants to pretend that "voir dire" works in NY so they have can claim that a change of venue is not necessary. OJ got a change of venue and got off, but Bragg doesn't want a fair trial.
The jury pool comes from an area that voted 10% for Trump in 2020. If the jurors were selected randomly, that would give Trump a better than even chance for one of the 12 to vote not guilty (hung jury). We shall see.
What does that have to do with him being right?
Apparently nothing...
You’re right. Nothing at all. Turley speaks the truth in defense of DJT and a nonsensical statement is made.
Your analysis is spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.