Bragg’s Pursuit of Trump Violates the Sixth Amendment

[WorldWatcher]

It is the duty of the DA to explain / list the charges against the accused at the arraignment.

As legal experts have opined, Bragg seriously failed to do so.

He did, the charges against him were listed in the Indictment.

The DA is NOT required to layout their whole case an arraignment.

WW

 

[WEATHER53]

It is the duty of the DA to explain / list the charges against the accused at the arraignment.

As legal experts have opined, Bragg seriously failed to do so.

Deliberately failed to do so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No specification and essentially no actually occurred crime that he committed but rather what he tried to do or may have done later.

Actually there were 34 specifications and the listing of the actual crime that was committed in the indictment.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

It’s English . Impact dodge noted and defeated

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

WW

 

[easyt65]

No, the law said if you falsified business documents with intent to conceal a crime. Does not have to be your crime.

Hillary stole TS/SCI documents, by definition committed Espionage - according to Comey, and in an attempt to hide the evidence she lied to Congress, illegally destroyed classified govt phones & devices, and attempted to illegally wipe her hard drive ... but, again according to Comey, she did not have 'INTENT' to commit those crimes.




How is it that only sleazy, corrupt, proven criminal Democrats believe THEY have the ability to READ MINDS and determine 'INTENT'?!

 

[leftwinger]

Actually there were 34 specifications and the listing of the actual crime that was committed in the indictment.

WW

If so, then you should have no trouble cutting/pasting and showing it all right here?

 

[Nostra]

He did, the charges against him were listed in the Indictment.

The DA is NOT required to layout their whole case an arraignment.

WW

Nope. No underlying crime listed.

 

[leftwinger]

Hillary stole TS/SCI documents, by definition committed Espionage - according to Comey, and in an attempt to hide the evidence she lied to Congress, illegally destroyed classified govt phones & devices, and attempted to illegally wipe her hard drive ... but, again according to Comey, she did not have 'INTENT' to commit those crimes.




How is it that only sleazy, corrupt, proven criminal Democrats believe THEY have the ability to READ MINDS and determine 'INTENT'?!

That was small potatoes to how she sold favors while SOS to get foreign donations to the Clinton Crime Foundation.

 

[easyt65]

He did, the charges against him were listed in the Indictment.

The DA is NOT required to layout their whole case an arraignment.

WW

No one said he was required to lay out the entire case - he is required to list / explain the criminal charges being brought against the defendent.

He failed to adeuately do that.

 

[WEATHER53]

Actually there were 34 specifications and the listing of the actual crime that was committed in the indictment.

WW

The charges listed invoices and bill pay info only. Not what was illegal about each nor any elaboration. A laundry list of supposition

 

[Marener]

Oh, so since they were reps, they chose to let him go.... I see...

So it was a coincidence that the two Republicans voted to stop the investigation?

 

[OldFlame]

The Fed's charging Trump are irrelevant to charges under State Criminal Code.

You will have to research yourself on why the FEC didn't charge him.



Cohen criminally charged and convicted on Federal Campaign Finance laws.

Conspiracy for Trump, Pecker, Weisslberg (Sp?), and Cohen for Cohen to make the payment through a shell company, then improper invoicing as "legal fees" the repayment.

There may be an aspect to tax law involved (which I'm no expert in), but the "Legal Fees" would be tax deductable for the Trump Organization as an expense, however "porn star payments" would not. So if the money was invoice (see Statement of Facts) improperly as legal fees which would normally be tax deductible, but were not. Then the Trump Org deducted as operating expenses items which did not qualify. That would be tax fraud.

WW

So it's irrelevant that the feds chose not to indict? I disagree that it's irrelevant, it's totally relevant.

Hmmm... so maybe the feds chose to pass since they couldn't prove that Trump had anything to do with the details of how she was paid. Why, if it was perfectly legal to have her sign an NDA and pay her, would they choose an illegal means of paying her? You don't think the Trump enterprise has had anyone else they've paid to sign an NDA? So they've waited all of these years to suddenly decide to indict, and at the state level instead of the federal level, conveniently right as he is running for office again, and will take up a span that goes all the way up to election day. Yeah, totally on the up and up.

 

[OldFlame]

So it was a coincidence that the two Republicans voted to stop the investigation?

According to your article is was a 4-1 vote?

The dems use the FBI to collude with social media to hush up a newsworthy story (Biden laptop), and they own the media so don't even have to worry on that front. Wonder where the money is coming from to keep the media in lockstep with them?

 

[leftwinger]

"You are under arrest, come with us". "for what"? "we will tell you later"?
They can only hold them 24 hours w/o charges or so I had heard on TV?

 

[Marener]

According to your article is was a 4-1 vote?

The dems use the FBI to collude with social media to hush up a newsworthy story (Biden laptop), and they own the media so don't even have to worry on that front. Wonder where the money is coming from to keep the media in lockstep with them?

However, the FEC said that it failed by a 2-2 vote to prove any of the parties violated campaign of finance law.

Republican Commissioners James “Trey” Trainor and Sean Cooksey voted to dismiss the matter. Republican Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson recused himself, while independent Commissioner Steven Walther did not vote.

Keep reading the article.

Your narrative about the FBI and the laptop is false, not to mention it’s been years and the Republican media hasn’t been able to figure out what is newsworthy about it.

Maybe you missed the part of this story where the National Enquirer would buy stories harmful to Trump in order to bury them. What is that if not collusion?

 

[WorldWatcher]

If so, then you should have no trouble cutting/pasting and showing it all right here?

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

They are listed in the indictment.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. No underlying crime listed.

There is no requirement that an "underlying crime" be included in the indictment. However the Statement of Facts does include the background logic.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The charges listed invoices and bill pay info only. Not what was illegal about each nor any elaboration. A laundry list of supposition

Correct. Because this is an indictment and arraignment, it is not trial.

Not supposition, this is based on evidence presented to the Grand Jury and the jury voting to indict.

WW

 

[OldFlame]

However, the FEC said that it failed by a 2-2 vote to prove any of the parties violated campaign of finance law.

Republican Commissioners James “Trey” Trainor and Sean Cooksey voted to dismiss the matter. Republican Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson recused himself, while independent Commissioner Steven Walther did not vote.

Keep reading the article.

Your narrative about the FBI and the laptop is false, not to mention it’s been years and the Republican media hasn’t been able to figure out what is newsworthy about it.

Maybe you missed the part of this story where the National Enquirer would buy stories harmful to Trump in order to bury them. What is that if not collusion?

Failed by a 4-1 vote, you linked the article.

And at the rest of your post.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So it's irrelevant that the feds chose not to indict? I disagree that it's irrelevant, it's totally relevant.

It's a free country you are welcome to disagree, if there was no disagreement these boards would get boring real quick.

Hmmm... so maybe the feds chose to pass since they couldn't prove that Trump had anything to do with the details of how she was paid. Why, if it was perfectly legal to have her sign an NDA and pay her, would they choose an illegal means of paying her? You don't think the Trump enterprise has had anyone else they've paid to sign an NDA? So they've waited all of these years to suddenly decide to indict, and at the state level instead of the federal level, conveniently right as he is running for office again, and will take up a span that goes all the way up to election day. Yeah, totally on the up and up.

Again, paying to sign an NDA was not illegal.

The illegal aspect involved Cohen - at the direction of Trump - mortgaging his house, setting up a shell companies, making the payment out of personal funds. Then after the election "invoicing" the money to be paid back over a years timeframe as "legal expenses" in 2017 for no work performed in 2017 (the shell company and payments were made in 2016). "Legal Expenses" being deductible for taxes as a valid business expense, however payments to porn starts - while legal - are not deductable.

WW