Dershowitz Says Trump Will Lose In NY

[Chillicothe]

"What he actually said was that a NYC jury would convict even though there is no case."

Alternatively, there is a sentiment that DA Bragg does have a strong case. Reportage indicates that 'falsifying records' cases are sort of routing bread&butter prosecutions for that particular office given that they are in the financial capital of the world with many players driven by pure and condoned greed. The temptation to play games with the paperwork is ever present. And the DA's office is charged with investigating and prosecuting such.

Reportage indicates that since Bragg took over the office ..less than two years ago.....the office has prosecuted 115 'falsifying records' cases. Clearly, this is a ball-field that the team has played on before with lesser defendants.
And the case is not necessarily 'weak' as some pundits are opining on social media or in media in general.
For example, the New York Times offered this perspective on Tuesday:


"We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong"

"So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would have to rule that Mr. Trump is covered by neither state nor federal campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will embrace that Catch-22.

Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

The indictment is therefore anything but political. If anything, the more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so much scrutiny. Mr. Bragg appears to have the backbone to avoid such considerations in charging decisions. Good for him — and for the rule of law."

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Billiejeens]

Alternatively, there is a sentiment that DA Bragg does have a strong case. Reportage indicates that 'falsifying records' cases are sort of routing bread&butter prosecutions for that particular office given that they are in the financial capital of the world with many players driven by pure and condoned greed. The temptation to play games with the paperwork is ever present. And the DA's office is charged with investigating and prosecuting such.

Reportage indicates that since Bragg took over the office ..less than two years ago.....the office has prosecuted 115 'falsifying records' cases. Clearly, this is a ball-field that the team has played on before with lesser defendants.
And the case is not necessarily 'weak' as some pundits are opining on social media or in media in general.
For example, the New York Times offered this perspective on Tuesday:


"We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong"

"So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would have to rule that Mr. Trump is covered by neither state nor federal campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will embrace that Catch-22.

Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

The indictment is therefore anything but political. If anything, the more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so much scrutiny. Mr. Bragg appears to have the backbone to avoid such considerations in charging decisions. Good for him — and for the rule of law."

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

Literally no intelligent person believes that.

 

[BackAgain]

For a very long time the people have been condemning that. Trump called those people SOB's.

Link?

 

[BackAgain]

Alternatively, there is a sentiment that DA Bragg does have a strong case. Reportage indicates that 'falsifying records' cases are sort of routing bread&butter prosecutions for that particular office given that they are in the financial capital of the world with many players driven by pure and condoned greed. The temptation to play games with the paperwork is ever present. And the DA's office is charged with investigating and prosecuting such.

Reportage indicates that since Bragg took over the office ..less than two years ago.....the office has prosecuted 115 'falsifying records' cases. Clearly, this is a ball-field that the team has played on before with lesser defendants.
And the case is not necessarily 'weak' as some pundits are opining on social media or in media in general.
For example, the New York Times offered this perspective on Tuesday:


"We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong"

"So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would have to rule that Mr. Trump is covered by neither state nor federal campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will embrace that Catch-22.

Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

The indictment is therefore anything but political. If anything, the more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so much scrutiny. Mr. Bragg appears to have the backbone to avoid such considerations in charging decisions. Good for him — and for the rule of law."

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

Your posting style is still narcissistic.

But large fonts and bold and italics don’t change the lack of substance of why you say.

A standard falsifying business records charge is just a misdemeanor. To Jack it up to a felony requires that the alleged falsification of business records have been with the INTENT to conceal another crime.

There is no underlying crime. It is legal to obtain and pay for an NDA. Furthermore, the payment for the NDA wasn’t made with any intent to conceal a crime. It isn’t a crime to want to avoid bad press. It shields one’s reputation and it shields one’s family from having to read such bullshit.

 

[Chillicothe]

To Jack it up to a felony requires that the alleged falsification of business records have been with the INTENT to conceal another crime........There is no underlying crime.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what fact or lack of facts suggests to the earnest poster BackAgain that there was no 'underlying crime'?

In short, how does he know?

 

[SavannahMann]

Alan Dershowitz, the former Trump lawyer, says nobody can get Trump off in the New York criminal case.
Alan says he wouldn't help the guy because he only helps a client one time. I guess that's Alan's way of saying he, himself, is a crappy attorney.

"During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to represent Trump following Tuesday's arraignment in New York City"

"Well, I have a policy of only representing somebody once," he explained. "I don't think I could get this case dismissed so easily. I don't think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge's life would be over."

Maybe MAGA Macho Man should chime in after that OP of his last Sunday where he posited Alan as the man.
In reality, Alan Dershowitz is all mouth and a perverted old shell of a pathetic useless man.

Alan Dershowitz on Trump charges: 'I think he probably will be convicted'

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted former President Donald Trump would be convicted of falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to...

www.rawstory.com

I’ve been predicting a hung jury in every case. My reasons are simple. There is essentially no way to get twelve people at random to serve in the jury without at least one being a die hard Trump Fanboy (or Fangirl). The Fanboy wouldn’t convict if Trump was on tape quoting chapter and verse of which law he wanted broken.

Equally true. There can’t be twelve without at least one being an equally die hard Trump Hater. They wouldn’t acquit if the hand of God appeared and wrote on the wall that Trump was innocent.

So the end result in my opinion is a hung jury.

 

[Chillicothe]

To Jack it up to a felony requires that the alleged falsification of business records have been with the INTENT to conceal another crime........There is no underlying crime.

-----------------------------------------------------
"There is no underlying crime"??

And the sincere poster BackAgain knows that how?

 

[blackhawk]

The comment a little more in detail.
There's no way he can get a fair trial," he told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "I don't care if Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thurgood Marshall defended Trump in New York, he wouldn't win this case. Hung jury? Maybe. Acquittal? Never. This is what most people have been saying weak case but in very blue New York Bragg can probably get a guilty verdict and that verdict will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. Bragg I suspect knows this but doesn’t care because this case is and always has been about politics.

 

[pknopp]

Link?

Do you not pay attention?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/poli...-kneel-erin-burnett-outfront-cnntv/index.html

 

[BackAgain]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what fact or lack of facts suggests to the earnest poster BackAgain that there was no 'underlying crime'?

In short, how does he know?

It’s ok to direct your question directly to me.

We know because we heard the nonsense spewed by Bragg after the arraignment in his news conference.

None of what he said about the “underlying crime” makes the slightest bit of sense. When he tries to invoke federal election laws, he is (a) overstepping his jurisdiction and (b) there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump tried to squelch bogus allegations against him (by the Ho or by the playmate) for any reason other than a desire to avoid the usual efforts to smear his reputation and/or to avoid subjecting his family to more of that crap.

As for the alleged purpose (not spelled out in the indictment itself) of evading any NYS tax laws liability, that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Even if he knew about allegedly “false business entries” (which further presumes that they were actually false entries), that wouldn’t establish that his intent was to evade taxes. Instead, it seems far more likey that his purpose and intent would be to further obscure the fact of the payment for an NDA at all. And again, paying for an NDA isn’t a crime.

Flip it around.

Most of the alleged evidence is already in the public record. As far as we know none of it speaks to Trump’s intent. How exactly will the prosecutor prove that his alleged “intent” was for the commission of ANY crime?

It’s also a crock of a prosecution anyway because Bragg campaigned on indicting Trump. It’s a political persecution. Plain and simple and very wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

-----------------------------------------------------
"There is no underlying crime"??

And the sincere poster BackAgain knows that how?

On what does insincere poster, chilliconcrap, base his own views that there was an underlying crime?

 

[BackAgain]

Do you not pay attention?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/poli...-kneel-erin-burnett-outfront-cnntv/index.html

Bait and switch duly noted.

The discussion had been about an allegedly corrupted legal system. Your idiotic comment was that he called “these people” SOB’s.

False.

Your own link establishes that he was referring to pampered football players taking a knee during the playing of our National Anthem.

 

[pknopp]

Bait and switch duly noted.

The discussion had been about an allegedly corrupted legal system. Your idiotic comment was that he called “these people” SOB’s.

False.

Your own link establishes that he was referring to pampered football players taking a knee during the playing of our National Anthem.

People from many walks was kneeling. It was about a broken justice system.

You still can't acknowledge that.

 

[whitehall]

Dershowitz doesn't speculate on the merits of the case but rather the crooked politically entrenched NY political structure.

 

[BackAgain]

People from many walks was kneeling. It was about a broken justice system.

You still can't acknowledge that.

Not it wasn’t. And Trump was not talking about the alleged motivation of the NFL kneelers, anyway. He was talking about the fact of kneeling during the National Anthem.

 

[pknopp]

Not it wasn’t. And Trump was not talking about the alleged motivation of the NFL kneelers, anyway. He was talking about the fact of kneeling during the National Anthem.

Protests. Trump didn't like them unless they were about him. Just like with everything.

Protest, bad. Unless it's about Trump.

Pleading the 5th? You are guilty, unless Trump decides to do it.

 

[BackAgain]

Protests. Trump didn't like them unless they were about him. Just like with everything.

Protest, bad. Unless it's about Trump.

You’re babbling. He wasn’t discussing protests in general. He was objecting to kneeling during the National Anthem.

And everybody (even you) knows it.

Pleading the 5th? You are guilty, unless Trump decides to do it.

Wrong. He made a specific ignorant and erroneous statement about that. But then he discovered the real reason for the fifth amendment right against having to speak to any law enforcement. And he said so. He may have learned the hard way, but he did learn it and he did withdraw the stupid comment.

 

[Chillicothe]

"On what .........base his own views that there was an underlying crime?"

Ummm, Adult Swim rules here, sincere poster BackAgain.
It was you who made the allegation, assertion....that there was "no crime."

And the reasonable and legitimate question was posed to BackAgain...."How would he know there was no crime".

He will not, or cannot, or, at any rate, has not ---chosen to respond to that query.

 

[BackAgain]

Ummm, Adult Swim rules here, sincere poster BackAgain.
It was you who made the allegation, assertion....that there was "no crime."

And the reasonable and legitimate question was posed to BackAgain...."How would he know there was no crime".

He will not, or cannot, or, at any rate, has not ---chosen to respond to that query.

Ah, poor befuddled Chilliconfuzed. I did answer. I heard what Bragg said in his press conference. Weren’t you listening?

I’m sorry you find words so difficult. And logic. Life must be hard for you.

 

[pknopp]

You’re babbling. He wasn’t discussing protests in general. He was objecting to kneeling during the National Anthem.

And everybody (even you) knows it.

But trashing the Capital, all good.

Wrong. He made a specific ignorant and erroneous statement about that. But then he discovered the real reason for the fifth amendment right against having to speak to any law enforcement. And he said so. He may have learned the hard way, but he did learn it and he did withdraw the stupid comment.

Erroneous. LOL. Odd it took him almost 80 years to figure out the 5th. Not a scholar on the Constitution obviously.