Bragg’s Pursuit of Trump Violates the Sixth Amendment

[jc456]

That’s some real shitty logic even for you.

well what's the underlying crime? no one knows. Are you suggesting Bragg told you? hahahahahaahahaahahaha can't make it up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then he has squat.

Maybe. Don't know and we won't know until the trial begins and we see the court presentation of evidence.

Can't say either way.

WW

 

[jc456]

Cite it then.

He's implying Bragg's called him and told him!!! wow huh?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Basically, a judge is making an assumption on trumps expenditures without evidence, and is using this mere assumption to bully him into court to “get” him politically, counting on the leftist MSM to smear and brand him before trial. Even if the case is thrown out tomorrow, the optics and damage has been done. This is how leftists abuse power.

Most people understand what’s going. The media sure doesn’t though.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[WorldWatcher]

How's that on trump? still don't know the pretzel you're trying to configure.

He facilitated aid and concealment of Cohen's crimes, which falls under NYS Penal Code 175.10 as a felony.

WW

 

[jc456]

Basically, a judge is making an assumption on trumps expenditures without evidence, and is using this mere assumption to bully him into court to “get” him politically.

Most people understand what’s going. The media sure doesn’t though.

some did at the presser. I was actually shocked the question actually came up.

 

[g5000]

III. The Investigation into Lawyer A and the Defendant’s Pressure Campaign​

35. On or about April 9, 2018, the FBI executed a search warrant on Lawyer A’s residences and office. In the months that followed, the Defendant and others engaged in a public and private pressure campaign to ensure that Lawyer A did not cooperate with law enforcement in the federal investigation.

36. On the day of the FBI searches, Lawyer A called to speak with the Defendant to let him know what had occurred. In a return call, the Defendant told Lawyer A to “stay strong.”

37. On or about April 21, 2018, the Defendant publicly commented on Twitter encouraging Lawyer A not to “flip,” stating, “Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if . . . it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see [Lawyer A] doing that . . . .”

38. In mid-April 2018, Lawyer A was also approached by an attorney (“Lawyer C”), who offered to represent him in the interest of maintaining a “back channel of communication” to the Defendant. On or about April 21, 2018, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A, highlighting that he had a close relationship with the Defendant’s personal attorney (“Lawyer D”) and stating, “[T]his could not be a better situation for the President or you.” Later that day, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A again, writing, “I spoke with [Lawyer D]. Very Very Positive. You are ‘loved.’ . . . [Lawyer D] said this communication channel must be maintained. . . . Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places.”

39. On or about June 14, 2018, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A a news clip discussing the possibility of Lawyer A cooperating, and continued to urge him not to cooperate with law enforcement, writing, “The whole objective of this exercise by the [federal prosecutors] is to drain you, emotionally and financially, until you reach a point that you see them as your only means to salvation.” In the same email , Lawyer C, wrote, “You are making a very big mistake if you believe the stories these ‘journalists’ are writing about you. They want you to cave. They want you to fail. They do not want you to persevere and succeed.”

40. On August 21, 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty in the federal investigation. The next day, on or about August 22, 2018, the Defendant commented on Twitter, “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of [Lawyer A]!” Later that day, the Defendant posted to Twitter again, stating, “I feel very badly for” one of his former campaign managers who had been criminally charged, saying, “nlike [Lawyer A], he refused to ‘break’ – make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’”

 

[g5000]

IV. Lawyer A and AMI Admit Guilt in Connection with Payoffs of Woman 1 and Woman 2​

41. Ultimately, other participants in the scheme admitted that the payoffs were unlawful.

42. In or about September 2018, AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with AMI’s payoff of Woman 1, admitting that “[a]t no time during the negotiation or acquisition of [Woman 1’s] story did AMI intend to publish the story or disseminate information about it publicly.” Rather, AMI admitted that it made the payment to ensure that Woman 1 “did not publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”

43. In August 21, 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with his role in AMI’s payoff to Woman 1, admitting in his guilty plea that he had done so at the Defendant’s direction: [O]n or about the summer of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office, I and the CEO of a media company at the request of the candidate worked together to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign from publicly disclosing this information. After a number of discussions, we eventually accomplished the goal by the media company entering into a contract with the individual under which she received compensation of $150,000. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election. (emphasis added).

44. Lawyer A also pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with his payoff of Woman 2 to secure her silence, again at the Defendant’s direction. Lawyer A admitted as part of his guilty plea: [O]n or about October of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, the same candidate, I arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign to keep the individual from disclosing the information. To accomplish this, I used a company that was under my control to make a payment in the sum of $130,000. The monies I advanced through my company were later repaid to me by the candidate. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.

 

[nomadic5]

Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying business records (a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations) and the “intent to commit a future more serious crime” (the unarmed felony).

Trump has a right to know what this unnamed future crime he intends to commit is. Otherwise, the Democrats could arrest me, and every Trump voter, on the grounds that we intend to commit a felony in the future.

The case against Trump is unconstitutional and should be tossed. Bragg should be disbarred for using the power of his office, along with his personal hate for a citizen, to violate that citizen’s Sixth Amendment Rights. And Biden should be insisting on that, instead of that evil smile when asked about it.

Sixth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

I totally concur... and thanksfor reminding us of the evil smile

"Smiling faces... show no traces

of the evil that lurks within"

Fortunately we see far more than "traces" of it when it is in the WH

 

[OldFlame]

Then go back and read the thread, I've explained it.

If you have a new question I'll be happy to help. (If I can.)

WW

No you haven't, you've just repeated the same thing over and over again. You insinuated Cohen's case played into it, please expound on how that works, I'm all ears.
He committed crimes to cover up a crime, but they're not indicting him for the original crime? Which charge in Cohen's case was the original crime? Election fraud? If so, please detail the election fraud charge, give it some flesh. What exactly did Trump do?

 

[OldFlame]

He facilitated aid and concealment of Cohen's crimes, which falls under NYS Penal Code 175.10 as a felony.

WW

Why isn't/wasn't he charged with that at all, let alone the same time that Cohen was charged? Why this loop hole process?

 

[Marener]

well what's the underlying crime? no one knows. Are you suggesting Bragg told you? hahahahahaahahaahahaha can't make it up.

You don’t know, but that’s expected.

 

[Nostra]

Let’s review how twisted board Dimwingers have to get to defend this abortion of an indictment:

Bragg has listed no underlying crime by Trump required to make these long ago expired misdemeanors turn into felonies.

Board Dimwingers claim the underlying crime was committed by someone else. This someone else has testified under oath that Trump did not direct him to do it, and did not reimburse him for doing it. In short, Trump had nothing to do with this crime by someone else.

So their theory is Bragg is using a crime Trump had nothing to do with to resurrect expired misdemeanors into felonies and charge Trump with them.

This situation was investigated by the DOJ, the NY AG, Bragg’s predecessor, and even Bragg himself. And all passed.

Then Bragg did a 180 and presented his shit show to the court yesterday. What changed? Oh yeah, Trump announced he was running in 2024.

can’t wait for the spin…..

 

[Marener]

Cite it then.

Read the statement of facts for the case.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[okfine]

When did I say the election should be postponed? Waiting and delaying justice to keep the leading Republican nominee tied up with a bogus indictment is BS.

The US DOJ has a "60 day rule" that they follow concerning an election. No law, a rule. If NY follows the same "rule" I have no idea.

 

[Nostra]

Read the statement of facts for the case.

So you can’t cite it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No you haven't, you've just repeated the same thing over and over again. You insinuated Cohen's case played into it, please expound on how that works, I'm all ears.
He committed crimes to cover up a crime, but they're not indicting him for the original crime? Which charge in Cohen's case was the original crime? Election fraud? If so, please detail the election fraud charge, give it some flesh. What exactly did Trump do?

Yes I have.

The 175.10 in the First Degree is predicated on aiding or concealing another crime. The Trump charges are based on aiding and attempting to conceal Cohen's actions. Cohen's actions were a violation of federal law in regards to campaign finance. When Trump arranged for that crime to occur, is later falsification of business records then fell under NY State law. That is what he is being charged with.

Again read the Indictment and Statement of Facts if you want further answers.

Recognize we are not at the trial stage were the specifics you sealion for are in the public sphere. That information will be presented at trial, if the case gets that far.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why isn't/wasn't he charged with that at all, let alone the same time that Cohen was charged? Why this loop hole process?

Because Local DA's don't charge federal crimes - that would be United States District Attorney's, the ones that charged Cohen. Local DA charge State crimes.

WW