Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Which parts do we disagree on?  I'm sure we don't disagree that Trump is getting due process.  Do you think Bragg is wholly without anti-Trump bias?  That would be extraordinary for any human being whether he is a prosecutor or not.  My point, if I failed to make it, is that even if Bragg is biased against Trump, I have confidence that he is trained to set that aside and only bring indictments he feels strongly are supported by the evidence.

My guess of a plea deal is not really going out on a limb.  That is how criminal prosecutions often end.  Of course this case is different.  Still, Trump will hire lawyers, and if they tell him that he is likely to be convicted, I hardly see Trump taking it to a jury as a matter of principle.   He would be more likely to plea, and then spin spin spin the plea as a win for him.

Jim  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

And therein lies the issue.....a biased and or corrupt prosecutor can present the GJ with whatever he likes whether it be provable or not. They can also use information taken out of context (and or misleading) and present it in a manner that doesnt hold water in the light of day. We already know this one is connected to Soros. So we agree that a prosecutor can get an indictment whether it will hold up or not if they really want one. I AM saying it is more likely than not that in this case the jury was manipulated. 

Were I a betting man I would bet $100 to a plug nickel the goal here was to get indictments and HOPE they can make something will stick. Come on....30+ charges? Pretty obviously the shotgun method.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

Not sure when we will find out, but I am more skeptical than you of the legal peril being "severe."  We'll know soon enough.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And of course it was exactly as what every person on the right side of the political aisle said it was.

He's trying to make a crime out of engaging in an NDA, and nothing more.  

So now for all those who were here claiming that we needed to wait to see what the charges were, when we pretty much knew exactly what he was going to charge him with, it was the same that we on the right said it would be.

So all the cautions about "Jumping the gun" was a joke. 

BYE!  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Alvin Bragg stated that the felony charges were because he falsified documents to cover up a 2nd crime.

What was the 2nd crime?

Originally Posted by James Brown

The statement of facts is here:  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741595-read-trump-indictment-statement-of-facts-related-to-hush-money-payment

The indictment is here:  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741577-read-trump-indictment-related-to-hush-money-payment

The indictment is boring and repetitive.  The statement of facts seems to me to be thin soup.  Interestingly, Richard in his own charming way, has identified what will be the big issue.   The big issue sort of is, "what is the second crime?"  The big issue is more specifically, "Can any second crime Bragg intends to prove even be relied upon to support the felony version of the NY false business records statute?"  It is apparently a wide open novel issue under NY law whether an alleged federal crime (campaign finance laws or tax laws for instance, see below) are eligible to be the "second crime" under New York's business records statute.  The image below is from paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts.

Here is a commentator from the uber-lefty Vox site who says, "Probably not."  https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg  Seems like well thought out analysis to me.  

Sorry Rod, this might just be shaping up to be my worst nightmare of an incompetent prosecutor ultimately strengthening Trump.  Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

This is all just bollox. Moral equivalent of Clinton lying in a deposition about sex.

On a much brighter note, I watched a little faux news to get their spin, and was extremely happy to hear Pompeo give a full-throated defense of Ukraine and our support of them and NATO, harsh.y condemning Putin. My God, has it come to this that this isn’t a given in the GOP…

Originally Posted by James Brown

Seriously, this is how you read my statement, ""Probably not." Seems like well thought out analysis to me." 

I've been thinking about it.  There are a lot of hurdles for this prosecutor, and I do think that more likely than not he loses on every felony count.  He has to convince a judge that the felony version of the NY business records law even covers federal tax fraud or federal campaign finance laws as the second crime.  Then he has to convince the NY court of appeals.  Then he has to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that this interpretation is not unfair to the accused (that last bit is from the Vox article).

Only after that does he get to try to prove that Trump authorized the business records fraud and that it was in furtherance of federal crimes that the feds chose not to prosecute.   The start witness is a disgraced lawyer.  Trump has hired a team of lawyers.  In my own opinion, I think the indictments are likely to fail.  Even though I think the Vox article was fair, the author too thinks this is a prosecution that is likely to fail.   At least the Vox headline writer sure thinks so.  Jim

p.s.  I supposed Bragg could be referencing state election laws and state tax laws.  I bet that is clarified tomorrow.

Originally Posted by James Brown

"Probably not" is my assessment of the gist of the article of course.  The word "dubious" in the headline is a good starting point.  Then the article goes on with things like, "And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him..."  "So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct."  

And lots more.  I think my summary of "probably not" is reasonable.  My assessment was certainly nothing like: "The indictments are destined to fail."

Key point is that Bragg has to be successful on every facet of the case to convict.  He has to convince the trial and appeal courts that his interpretation of the felony business records statute even applies to Trump's behavior.  Then he has to prove his case factually, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I was expecting more in the indictments and statement of facts.

Aren't you a little disappointed?