|
Author
|
Topic: Is Bragg Looking For A Way Out?
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 169625
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2023 07:07 PM
  
With revelations made to the grand jury that Bragg used the Jan. 6 method of evidentiary procedure, i.e., cherry picking 6 out-of-context emails out of a total of 321 emails, he faces the possibility of being investigated by the NY Bar Association. He wants to reverse course. Badly. And Cohen (and person prosecuted due perjury) is his main witness? WTF? President Trump for the win. Again. Liberal heads explode. Again. And what if it does go to trial? Slam dunk for President Trump. This is probably the flimsiest case in the history of the legal world—both on merit and legal principle. I can’t wait to see how Bragg gets out of this.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 18539
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2023 07:26 PM
Bragg is screwed no matter which way he tries to go.The NY state statute of limitations on this kind of misdemeanor issue is 2 years and long past. If Bragg attempts to make this a federal felony prosecution, the statute of limitations on that kind of issue is 5 years and again, long past. Further, Bragg has no authority to prosecute a federal felony. "What [Bragg] has done is rummage through every conceivable statute and regulation and creatively tried to mesh a New York misdemeanor statute with a federal felony statute to create out of whole cloth a crime that doesn’t exist; a one plus one equals eleven.”
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2023/03/ 23/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-alvin-bragg-created-crime-that-doesnt-exist-to-get-prep-walk-trump/ IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 169625
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2023 07:53 PM
Right on all counts (as usual), Jwhop. Plus, the test for a campaign finance violation is an objective one. Paying hush money is not one of the expenditures that would be considered to be related to furthering a political campaign. In contrast, one might think buying an expensive suit might be; however, that still isn’t allowed by the objective standard. So, if President Trump had used campaign funds, Bragg might have a legal leg to stand on (just in that singular area) because everyone can agree that paying off a porn star is not a typical campaign finance expenditure, but personal funds were used, so no law was broken. In addition, Cohen already testified in 2021 that President Trump was not a knowing participant or a party to the transaction. Finally, Bragg would have to prove the element of intent, i.e., that President Trump was thinking of only the campaign when he reimbursed his lawyer, Cohen. Of course, there are many other alternative possibilities, the most likely of which was to avoid personal and family embarrassment. But as you pointed out, there are other legal fallacies which stop this bogus case dead in its tracks. The SOL alone should be a no brainer. This pathetic attempt fails at every level. But the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the grand jury definitely puts Bragg's law license in jeopardy.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 18539
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2023 12:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Right on all counts (as usual), Jwhop. Plus, the test for a campaign finance violation is an objective one. Paying hush money is not one of the expenditures that would be considered to be related to furthering a political campaign. In contrast, one might think buying an expensive suit might be; however, that still isn’t allowed by the objective standard. So, if President Trump had used campaign funds, Bragg might have a legal leg to stand on (just in that singular area) because everyone can agree that paying off a porn star is not a typical campaign finance expenditure, but personal funds were used, so no law was broken. In addition, Cohen already testified in 2021 that President Trump was not a knowing participant or a party to the transaction. Finally, Bragg would have to prove the element of intent, i.e., that President Trump was thinking of only the campaign when he reimbursed his lawyer, Cohen. Of course, there are many other alternative possibilities, the most likely of which was to avoid personal and family embarrassment. But as you pointed out, there are other legal fallacies which stop this bogus case dead in its tracks. The SOL alone should be a no brainer. This pathetic attempt fails at every level. But the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the grand jury definitely puts Bragg's law license in jeopardy.
As usual Randall, you nailed it to the barn door. Brady material cannot be withheld from defendants or their attorneys by prosecutors. "Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant's guilt." I agree that Bragg is guilty of withholding Brady material from the defense, should be disbarred and lose his license to practice law. IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 23851
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2023 09:35 AM
Good morning and Happy Friday to everyone who is wondering where are all of the responsible, law-abiding Republicans who should be lining up to condemn the threats of violence against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.They demanded special protection at the homes of Supreme Court Justices for far less than this. Pretty sure threatening a prosecutor is at least obstruction of justice, and calling for "death and destruction" is beneath a former president. The glaring cowardice from the GOP should not be overlooked, forgotten, or forgiven. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 169625
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2023 01:33 PM
No, teasel, we demanded arrests for those illegal “protests.” Get it right. No Republican is defending death threats. That would be the Dem playbook.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 169625
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2023 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
As usual Randall, you nailed it to the barn door.Brady material cannot be withheld from defendants or their attorneys by prosecutors. [b]"Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant's guilt." I agree that Bragg is guilty of withholding Brady material from the defense, should be disbarred and lose his license to practice law. [/B]
He’s toast. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
