Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
60,573
7,597
1,840
Positively 4th Street
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.

This is a pretty damn good piece:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.



The author of this opinion piece, JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN, is highly regarded by fellows in his field of expertise. He is a co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v Trump. Shugerman is no ideological warrior, or political hack.


MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE BY
CERTAIN LEGAL HISTORIANS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS
Professors Jed H. Shugerman,1 John Mikhail,2 Jack Rakove,3 Gautham Rao,4 and Simon
Stern5 (collectively, “the Historians”) hereby move, through the undersigned counsel, for leave to
file the accompanying brief of amicus curiae (appended hereto as Exhibit A) in opposition to
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35). Plaintiffs consented to the filing of this brief.
Defendant took no position.

 
And as a public service (sans a paywall):

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.


 
Mr. Trump don't speak and stay at your seat and be here everyday... oh you say you are running for president to damn bad....
What kind of country acts like this with their former leaders?.... this is a sickness.... TDS is real and this judge has it bad...
He should be disbarred....
 
Mr. Trump don't speak and stay at your seat and be here everyday... oh you say you are running for president to damn bad....
What kind of country acts like this with their former leaders?.... this is a sickness.... TDS is real and this judge has it bad...
He should be disbarred....
It's about the law. Lots of countries have held former leaders to account for crimes. We in the USA have a former president who has been accused of crimes.

and please take your whining about some made up tds elsewhere.

westwall
What exactly is fake news here?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Trump don't speak and stay at your seat and be here everyday... oh you say you are running for president to damn bad....
What kind of country acts like this with their former leaders?.... this is a sickness.... TDS is real and this judge has it bad...
He should be disbarred....
Both Bragg and James were handpicked by the Democrats for the sole purpose of legally taking down Trump. Stalin would be proud of the Democrats.
 
It's about the law. Lots of countries have held former leaders to account for crimes. We in the USA have a former president who has been accused of crimes.

and please take your whining about some made up tds elsewhere.
Crimes that are past the statute of limitations?... hush money case???? man everyone can see what this is and who is running this BS and its Biden... he should be in a courtroom not Trump....
And when Justice prevails and it will one day we may see that happen....
 
:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

As I've written in the OP:

I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating...

see the OP - Post #1
 
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.

This is a pretty damn good piece:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.



The author of this opinion piece, JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN, is highly regarded by fellows in his field of expertise. He is a co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v Trump. Shugerman is no ideological warrior, or political hack.




I wouldn’t call it Braggs case, he decided against filing charges. It’s more Obama/Bidens case after they send Coangelo to file it
 
Both Bragg and James were handpicked by the Democrats for the sole purpose of legally taking down Trump. Stalin would be proud of the Democrats.

If your unnamed Democrats actually were able to handpicked lawyers to take down Trump, they could've done far better than Bragg and James. :laughing0301:

please go away with your crazed conspiracy theories
 
I wouldn’t call it Braggs case, he decided against filing charges. It’s more Obama/Bidens case after they send Coangelo to file it
I wouldn't either, but the author and I see it as Bragg's case. It's obvious people like you here have not read the OP link(s). You're just lashing out.

please take your conspiracy theories over to the Conspiracy Theory forum.
 
It's about the law. Lots of countries have held former leaders to account for crimes. We in the USA have a former president who has been accused of crimes.

and please take your whining about some made up tds elsewhere.
Feel free to post up an actual law that was broken
 
A law was changed? You do know only a legislature can 'change' a law?

please, no answer needed here. not from you.
Yes, they ignored the Statute of Limitations.

I thought you had read up on the case?

Furthermore, there is no actual crime listed in the indictment. How exactly does that work?
 
Yes, they ignored the Statute of Limitations.

I thought you had read up on the case?

Furthermore, there is no actual crime listed in the indictment. How exactly does that work?
"Crimes" are listed in the indictment. How do we know this? One has to list a crime in order to indict somebody.

and please, read the indictment rather than keep mentioning it, and follow the trial.
 
:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

The author of this opinion piece, JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN, is highly regarded by fellows in his field of expertise. He is a co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v Trump. Shugerman is no ideological warrior, or political hack.

 

Forum List

Back
Top