Soros-Backed/Placed Prosecutor Alvin Bragg dropped tons of criminal charges on pro-Hamas extremists when they attacked Columbia.

[Mr. Friscus]

They were known. I showed you the link and you ignored it. Post 47.

Exactly. “They”. That’s my point, and where the law precedent is against you.

There has to be one secondary crime that is set. Not “here’s 3 crimes and you can pick any of them but they all amount to the same thing”.

I’ve said this over and over, and you keep not getting it.

That’s not how these types of trials have worked up until now. If you can support radically breaking from legal precedent, be my guest. Just don’t expect the clear political motives to be ignored. Bragg ran on getting Trump. The judge donates to the democrats, his daughter runs an organization that supports the left. These are facts. Why should anyone think this isn’t politically motivated on Braggs claims alone?

You wouldn’t if the roles were reversed, nor should you.

Let me guess. They were interviewed on Trump friendly media programs or they are historically Trump friendly lawyers?

Most were Democrats who oppose trump, but admit this is a sham trial and wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t Donald Trump.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Trump attacked everyone and everything right from the beginning.

Twitter

I thought you were leaving.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I thought you were leaving.

He promised her dinner … but they didn’t have dinner. He told her she reminded him of his daughter … then stripped down to his boxers and a T-shirt while she was in the bathroom. He said he could help her career with a spot on his TV show … then scolded her, “I thought you were serious,” when she tried to leave.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Exactly. “They”. That’s my point, and where the law precedent is against you.

There has to be one secondary crime that is set. Not “here’s 3 crimes and you can pick any of them but they all amount to the same thing”.

I’ve said this over and over, and you keep not getting it.

I showed you otherwise over and over.

Post a link of this supposed law please.

That’s not how these types of trials have worked up until now.

Yes they have. Many of them. For decades.

Why do you think Trump gets special legal privileges?

If you can support radically breaking from legal precedent.

The precedents for this were in the screen shot I posted taken from the link I posted of the decisions and orders page. Post 57.

Why do you keep ignoring the legal facts I present you?

be my guest. Just don’t expect the clear political motives to be ignored. Bragg ran on getting Trump.

It's actually ok for district attorney to run in prosecuting crimes.

Most of them do.

The judge donates to the democrats, his daughter runs an organization that supports the left. These are facts. Why should anyone think this isn’t politically motivated on Braggs claims alone?

Irrelevant.

Do you have precedent for someone being removed from a case because one of their kids donated to or fund raised for a political party?

Please link it.

You wouldn’t if the roles were reversed, nor should you.

Yes I would. If someone is found guilty of an investigation I always will accept it.

Its the rule of law. As a vet I served in support of our rule of law.

Most were Democrats who oppose trump, but admit this is a sham trial and wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t Donald Trump.

Yawn. These thots and feels are not relevant to legal matters.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Yes I would. If someone is found guilty of an investigation I always will accept it.

Wow, I’d advise you to use your brain and put so much faith in the state. But then again, that’s probably why you’re on the side of the aisle you’re on in the first place.

This Democrat Lawyer breaks down Much of the legal malpractice that went on, many references to high level legal experts

Trump was found guilty in a sham case DA Bragg never should have prosecuted

Bragg's charges against the former president were a stretch, and legal experts were skeptical from the moment the Trump indictment was released.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wow, I’d advise you to use your brain and put so much faith in the state. But then again, that’s probably why you’re on the side of the aisle you’re on in the first place.

This Democrat Lawyer breaks down Much of the legal malpractice that went on, many references to high level legal experts

Trump was found guilty in a sham case DA Bragg never should have prosecuted

Bragg's charges against the former president were a stretch, and legal experts were skeptical from the moment the Trump indictment was released.

www.usatoday.com

I see nothing in that article that reflects an abuse or misuse of law.

It's just some opinions that are wrong.

Can you paste the part you think is compelling evidence the case is nonsense?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I see nothing in that article that reflects an abuse or misuse of law.

It's just some opinions that are wrong.

Can you paste the part you think is compelling evidence the case is nonsense?

They made several detailed points. You must have not read beyond the first paragraph

 

[Catsnmeters]

They made several detailed points. You must have not read beyond the first paragraph

Then paste one.

I didn't see it.

It's not my job to search out your arguments for you.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Then paste one.

I didn't see it.

It's not my job to search out your arguments for you.

1. Bragg needed to prove that Trump’s actions were intended to defraud voters. No other reason, such as concealing such a scandalous story from his wife and children, applies. Bragg's argument is that Trump acted to conceal this information from voters through fraud, making these crimes felonious.

Legal experts were skeptical of this theory from the moment the indictment was released. "This explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems," wrote Fordham law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman in The New York Times. "I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime." Even legal scholars typically hostile toward Trump weighed in against the prosecution strategy. "Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law," wrote Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser.

2. The reality is that Bragg has no authority to enforce federal crimes but was allowed to use a federal crime Trump was never convicted of to justify upgrading a state crime to a felony. The Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission have both declined to prosecute Trump over this matter, making Bragg’s decision even more baffling. Enabled by an extremely sympathetic judge being assigned to the case, Bragg chose to hinge his prosecution on a federal crime the agencies governing over chose not to prosecute Trump for.

The legal community is kind of scratching their heads on this one. There were many irrational jumps, stretches, and precise hoops Bragg and judge Murcheon performed to get this through.

From the outside looking in (which you aren't).. there are so many massive red flags of political lawfare. I know you want it to be some ironclad case because you hate Trump, but it's just not. I don't expect you to be intellectually honest here, I don't think you're capable, you're in a "get Trump by any means necessary" bubble.. so we can just leave it at that.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Then paste one.

I didn't see it.

It's not my job to search out your arguments for you.

1. SCOTUS doctrine that specifically prevents prosecutorial overreach.. in the “primary jurisdiction doctrine", which says that a court should stay or dismiss a claim when it implicates issues within the special competence of a federal administrative agency. In this case, federal campaign finance violations are within the special competence of the FEC, not the Manhattan DA. Thus, the right thing to do is for Bragg to defer to the federal government on statutes it enforces. The Supreme Court, in first articulating the primary jurisdiction doctrine in 1950, was concerned about state courts invading the authority of the federal government. If a state court instructs a jury about a federal enforcement scheme that was never actually enforced, it not only undermines congressional authority, but also deprives a defendant of the right to have the federal government adjudicate whether a federal statute was violated. Bragg is doing exactly that by circumventing the FEC to go after Trump. If the FEC were to decide that no campaign finance violation occurred, the Manhattan Criminal Court would have to order the Bragg indictment dismissed, for there would be no underlying crime. If the FEC were to determine that Trump did commit campaign finance violations, then it would be up to the Department of Justice to determine whether to indict him in federal court. Only after exhausting the federal process could Bragg get his bite at the apple.

2. The Bragg case threatens due process by allowing state prosecutors to enforce federal law without the procedural protections afforded by the federal government.

3. It sends the signal that when Congress passes laws, zealous state prosecutors can enforce them at will without accountability. And if it can happen to a former commander in chief, it can happen to anyone.

Bragg’s prosecution of Trump violates this important legal doctrine - Washington Examiner

The Manhattan Criminal Court must stay Alvin Bragg’s criminal proceeding and refer his allegations against Donald Trump to the FEC.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Catsnmeters]

1. Bragg needed to prove that Trump’s actions were intended to defraud voters. No other reason, such as concealing such a scandalous story from his wife and children, applies. Bragg's argument is that Trump acted to conceal this information from voters through fraud, making these crimes felonious.

He did prove that. I am guessing that Trump saying if they could stall stormies payments until after the election because then it wouldn't matter was pretty compelling evidence.

That is part of the reason Trump was found guilty.

Legal experts were skeptical of this theory from the moment the indictment was released. "This explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems," wrote Fordham law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman in The New York Times. "I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime."

So? Their are a plethora of precedents of this case being used with other predicate crimes. Each one of those was a first at one time.

These experts think that just because it is a predicate crimes nobody had attempted before, that it's off limits?

That doesn't even make sense.

Even legal scholars typically hostile toward Trump weighed in against the prosecution strategy. "Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law," wrote Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser.

It is clear. The law does not specify which types of crimes. It just says intent to commit other crimes.

2. The reality is that Bragg has no authority to enforce federal crimes but was allowed to use a federal crime Trump was never convicted of to justify upgrading a state crime to a felony.

This is correct. Bragg was not charging Trump with federal crimes so it doesn't matter.

The Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission have both declined to prosecute Trump over this matter, making Bragg’s decision even more baffling. Enabled by an extremely sympathetic judge being assigned to the case, Bragg chose to hinge his prosecution on a federal crime the agencies governing over chose not to prosecute Trump for.

Braggs decision isn't baffling.

He said himself earlier in that he wasn't ready yet.

Guess what? He finally got ready.

The legal community is kind of scratching their heads on this one. There were many irrational jumps, stretches, and precise hoops Bragg and judge Murcheon performed to get this through.

Nope. Just precedent.

From the outside looking in (which you aren't).. there are so many massive red flags of political lawfare.

For example?

I know you want it to be some ironclad case because you hate Trump, but it's just not. I don't expect you to be intellectually honest here, I don't think you're capable, you're in a "get Trump by any means necessary" bubble.. so we can just leave it at that.

Sure. You can leave it at that if you want.

I'm just pointing out the facts as rendered by the courts using mostly precedent and court documents.

You have some opinions that don't really site anything specific.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

He did prove that. I am guessing that Trump saying if they could stall stormies payments until after the election because then it wouldn't matter was pretty compelling evidence.

That is part of the reason Trump was found guilty.



So? Their are a plethora of precedents of this case being used with other predicate crimes. Each one of those was a first at one time.

These experts think that just because it is a predicate crimes nobody had attempted before, that it's off limits?

That doesn't even make sense.



It is clear. The law does not specify which types of crimes. It just says intent to commit other crimes.




This is correct. Bragg was not charging Trump with federal crimes so it doesn't matter.



Braggs decision isn't baffling.

He said himself earlier in that he wasn't ready yet.

Guess what? He finally got ready.



Nope. Just precedent.



For example?


Sure. You can leave it at that if you want.

I'm just pointing out the facts as rendered by the courts using mostly precedent and court documents.

You have some opinions that don't really site anything specific.

I think you'll have trouble convincing anyone who doesn't hate Trump that:

1. Bragg's clear political motives isn't suspect
2. Murcheon's political donations aren't suspect
3. The high ranking Biden federal DOJ official who took a demotion to be in Bragg's state system just before the prosecution began isn't suspect
4. The elevation of a state misdemeanor crime from 2016-2017 that was past limitation statues isn't suspect, especially with Bragg's political declarations and motives.
5. The fact that federal bodies didn't charge but Bragg did isn't suspect.
6. The fact that the judge ordered in his jury instructions that which secondary crime was committed could be non-unanimous isn't suspect
7. The fact that Stormy Daniels admitted no affair happened yet was allowed to testify that it did is suspect.
8. The fact that Michael Cohen claimed he was paid off for his silence in his salary yet his salary was the same that year as it was in previous years isn't suspect.

The list goes on. Add it all up and nobody outside of the "I hate Donald Trump" that you're in thinks this is legit. You feel some obligation to try to explain everything away and make this some landmark ironclad case. It's not. This was planned, calculated, and not a normal act of law.

And I think your Democrats are going to pay for it. You're abandoning norms and trying to jail your chief political rival here. Hell, you had a Biden DOJ federal top official take a major demotion into Bragg's state system to coordinate things just before the charges were brought. That's shady AF to anyone who doesn't hate Trump. I think it's entirely plausible that the DNC/Biden campaign is in on this, why wouldn't they be?

 

[Catsnmeters]

I think you'll have trouble convincing anyone who doesn't hate Trump that:

1. Bragg's clear political motives isn't suspect

His motives was to prosecute someone who committed a crime.

2. Murcheon's political donations aren't suspect

Agreed. His superiors knew of these contributions and he was scolded.

3. The high ranking Biden federal DOJ official who took a demotion to be in Bragg's state system just before the prosecution began isn't suspect

Why would it be?

He stated long ago he was done working in the DoJ.

4. The elevation of a state misdemeanor crime from 2016-2017 that was past limitation statues isn't suspect, especially with Bragg's political declarations and motives.

He wasn't charged with misdemeanor crimes so you are not making any sense.

5. The fact that federal bodies didn't charge but Bragg did isn't suspect.

So? I guess they didn't have the evidence like Bragg did.

6. The fact that the judge ordered in his jury instructions that which secondary crime was committed could be non-unanimous isn't suspect

Trump wasn't charged with the secondary crimes so the jury did not have to agree.

Again, I linked you the document that includes the precedent.

7. The fact that Stormy Daniels admitted no affair happened yet was allowed to testify that it did is suspect.

She admitted it because she was under an NDA. Lol.

She had to.

8. The fact that Michael Cohen claimed he was paid off for his silence in his salary yet his salary was the same that year as it was in previous years isn't suspect.

Link?

The list goes on. Add it all up and nobody outside of the "I hate Donald Trump" that you're in thinks this is legit. You feel some obligation to try to explain everything away and make this some landmark ironclad case. It's not. This was planned, calculated, and not a normal act of law.

Just because someone hates someone doesn't mean that person is above the law.

And I think your Democrats are going to pay for it.

I'm an independent.

You're abandoning norms and trying to jail your chief political rival here.

Trump abandoned norms when as a presidential candidate he committed a felony.

Has anyone done that before?

Hell, you had a Biden DOJ federal top official take a major demotion into Bragg's state system to coordinate things just before the charges were brought.

Yeah. Good hire on Bragg's part.

The guy did a good job in the case from what I understand.

That's shady AF to anyone who doesn't hate Trump. I think it's entirely plausible that the DNC/Biden campaign is in on this, why wouldn't they be?

Sounds like you got an air tight appeal here.

Trump's lawyers can go to the judge and say, your honor, Trump committed the crime but I suspect a lot of things.

I hope it works out for Trump's team.

Why do you think Trump lied to you about not knowing the crimes, when his team was notified of them in February?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

His motives was to prosecute someone who committed a crime.

Nope. He ran on getting Trump, and then searched to find a way to get him. If you know the law at all, you know the saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they truly want to. This was activism, not justice

Sounds like you got an air tight appeal here.

Trump's lawyers can go to the judge and say, your honor, Trump committed the crime but I suspect a lot of things.

I hope it works out for Trump's team.

I’m talking about the optics and public perception, genius.

Why do you think Trump lied to you about not knowing the crimes, when his team was notified of them in February?

I haven’t heard Trump speak on this, just people in legal circles who likely have more experience than you.

But, you’re way in the radical here if you think this is some ironclad case.

You sound like the Roe v Wade folk who had to think that it was an ironclad decision when made.. when in reality it was easily the most controversial example SCOTUS activism, as it wasn’t near the majority, and historically that’s how these things work. honest Legal experts will admit it was a flimsy case even if they agree with it personally.. activists say it was ironclad.

That’s how you come off.. very radical, having a narrative first and just trying to make ends meet legally around it

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nope. He ran on getting Trump, and then searched to find a way to get him. If you know the law at all, you know the saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they truly want to. This was activism, not justice

Yep. Good thing too. One less felon getting away with crimes.

You can indict a ham sandwich but you can't convict one.

I’m talking about the optics and public perception, genius.

The law doesn't consider optics or public perception. It considers the law.

I haven’t heard Trump speak on this, just people in legal circles who likely have more experience than you.

Trump tweeted he didn't know what the crimes were.

He lied. Why would he do that?

I'm sure the paid pundits do have more experience but I'm not being paid to tell viewers what they want to hear.

But, you’re way in the radical here if you think this is some ironclad case.

Not sure it's ironclad but I don't see a legitimate reason to overturn.

You sound like the Roe v Wade folk who had to think that it was an ironclad decision when made.. when in reality it was easily the most controversial example SCOTUS activism, as it wasn’t near the majority, and historically that’s how these things work. honest Legal experts will admit it was a flimsy case even if they agree with it personally.. activists say it was ironclad.

Supreme court decisions are not based on the majority when interpreting constitutional rights.

That is what a constitutional republic is, the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority by the constitution itself.

That’s how you come off.. very radical, having a narrative first and just trying to make ends meet legally around it

It's not a narrative.

It's based on court documents and precedent.

It's you that has a narrative because it based on the opinion of paid pundits.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's not a narrative.

It's based on court documents and precedent.

I don’t think you know the history of how laws are applied. Most legal folk I’ve heard said this is unprecedented. Are they all lying?

It's you that has a narrative because it based on the opinion of paid pundits.

Paid pundits on networks are people I don’t hold as credible, so you’re wrong there

 

[Foxfyre]

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office dropped the majority of criminal charges that were filed against pro-Hamas extremists earlier this year after they stormed Columbia University.

Bragg — who prosecuted former President Donald Trump in a highly controversial case because he claimed that no one is above the law — dismissed the trespassing charges against 31 of the 46 defendants.

“Lack of evidence?” one police officer responded. “Apparently body-worn camera wasn’t enough?” Another said: “We have a DA giving them what amounts to a mandate to push the envelope further now.”

A popular conservative attorney responded to the news by posting on X that it was “impossible to ignore the fact that his office pursues political vendettas while giving actual criminals a pass.”

Senior CNN political commentator Scott Jennings highlighted the contrast in how Bragg decided to go after Trump vs. the pro-Hamas extremists. “Trump – filed the wrong sex paperwork / 34 felonies! Vandals and terrorist sympathizers – meh, go about your business.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-prosector-alvin-bragg-drops-most-criminal-charges-against-pro-hamas-extremists-at-columbia-university

I think whether it's state courts or the SCOTUS, someone will step in and try to retain judicial sanity from these clear radical judges on the left. Being a judge/prosecutor doesn't mean you get to try to abuse your power to harass the candidate that you disagree with or hate. Bragg made his intentions clear and loud. He hates Trump and wants to take him down, that was his main statement throughout his campaign to become elected as prosecutor.

Now, he just "happened" to bring subjective charges against the man he publically opposes/hates.

Wow, what a coincidence guys!

And the glaring massive double standard marches on.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I don’t think you know the history of how laws are applied. Most legal folk I’ve heard said this is unprecedented. Are they all lying?

No, they aren't wrong.

It is unprecedented that a presidential candidate committed a felony and was convicted of it.

Has either happened before?

Paid pundits on networks are people I don’t hold as credible, so you’re wrong there

Good for you.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No, they aren't wrong.

It is unprecedented that a presidential candidate committed a felony and was convicted of it.

Has either happened before?

We’ll see if the process was legit. That’s the whole issue, not the end result.

A single judges subjective perspective of what constitutes a felony is not the same as committing an objective felony.

Trump supposedly broke state law, and even that is disputable

Good for you.

 

[Catsnmeters]

We’ll see if the process was legit. That’s the whole issue, not the end result.

Yep.

A single judges subjective perspective of what constitutes a felony is not the same as committing an objective felony.

It wasn't subjective. It was based on court precedent.

The judge can't change the laws, he can only apply them.

Trump supposedly broke state law, and even that is disputable

He didn't supposedly break state law, he did break state law.

34 times.