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

[Procrustes Stretched]

Poor the dainty. Narcissistic to a fault. But also delusional.

Refuting you, the dainty, has not a thing to do with any derangement syndrome over you.

Learn to consider and accept criticism of your sloppy thinking.

Now, despite your ongoing effort to make yourself the thread topic, I will endeavor to return this thing to the topic.

The Bragg case is an insidious effort to criminalize things which simply aren’t criminal. And it’s done purposefully for nothing more than partisan political reasons.

I know the dainty won’t actually consider or address the point. But it is still true that nothing about the persecutor’s legal “theory of the case” makes sense.

But one of the major problems he has created is this: let’s pretend that any business record was falsified. That’s a misdemeanor. To make it a felony, the persecution has to maintain (and does) that the commission of that misdemeanor was for the purpose of committing some “other” crime (or to conceal such other crime).

However, Persecutor Bragg merely chummed the waters at that point. He offered (largely off the record) a few hypotheticals about the “other” crime or crimes. Therefore, assuming some of the jurors agree that Trump’s “intent” was to commit Federal election fraud but other jurors instead speculate that Trump’s “intent” was to commit a state election law crime and yet others conclude that he had no intent to commit a crime but, instead, only wanted to conceal his purpose.

You could (under those circumstances) wind up with a non unanimous verdict. However, a unanimous verdict is a legal requirement.

Many of the TDS vermin don’t care. Whatever happens someday down the road on an appeal is of very little to no concern for them. Their agenda is much more immediate. A conviction — even one that comes despite the facts and the actual law — is all they care about. Why? Because it’s not about seeking justice. It’s all about partisan political persecution.

Wow! What a screed. DDS on steroids.

Did Dante ever occupy your mind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

~~~~~~
The irony Is the State and City of New York interfering with an election by prosecuting a candidate for election interference.
The more injustice meted out by these Soros funded Marxist Attorneys the more the cirizens more from the City and the State in droves.

The city and the state are not interfering in an election.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow! What a screed. DDS on steroids.

Did Dante ever occupy your mind.

Exactly as expected. The Dainty has been and remains incapable of just posting on topic. He is always willing, however, to display his endless narcissism.

Sorry, the Dainty. You’re still not the topic.

The miscarriage of Justice indictment of Trump in NYC is.

Notice folks. The Dainty cannot bring himself to do it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.

www.nytimes.com

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.

CREW v. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/2017/08/2017-08-11-EMOLUMENTS-Historians-Amicus-Motion.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

The city and the state are not interfering in an election.

Of course they are. It’s all they’re doing.

 

[BackAgain]

Zzz

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump's first criminal conviction. A home run for the American way of truth and justice.

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