Posted on 04/25/2024 6:28:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An adage learned early in the career of a trial attorney is, “if the law is not on your side, argue the facts, and if the facts are not on your side, argue the law, but if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make sure you get your fee up front and in cash,” because you are almost certain to lose your case.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is paid by Big Apple taxpayers regardless of whether he wins or loses a case, but he deserves to lose the so-called “hush money” case against former President Donald Trump because neither the law nor the facts justify this prosecution.
Although the trial in the case, styled “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK against DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant,” is in its early stages, any reasonably objective analysis of the applicable facts and the law leaves one with far more doubt than could be considered “reasonable” that the 45th President of the United States committed even a single one of the 34 criminal acts alleged by Mr. Bragg.
Media attention focuses on virtually every real or perceived aspect of what happens inside the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan, down to and including the thermostat setting and Trump’s posture; such irrelevancies are fodder for media pundits on both sides of today’s ever-present partisan political divide.
It is, of course, not surprising that conservative media outlets believe Trump to be absolutely and unquestionably innocent, while their liberal counterparts can hardly contain their glee at the former President’s predicament and wish him a speedy trip to Riker’s Island. Much of the ongoing news coverage of the trial reflects this divide, while offering little in terms of meaningful legal analysis.
Taking the time to sift through the Red vs. Blue media coverage, however, rewards one with an occasional piece that is educative. The best of these I have found is a New York Times Guest Essay by Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman – “I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake”. If the reader only scans the title, they very well might conclude the essay is just another in a long line of superficial analyses of the hush money trial by a supporter of the former President, and skip over it. This would be a mistake.
Shugerman’s piece is anything but superficial, and I have no idea whether he is Republican or Democrat, a Trump hater or MAGA true believer. I could care less. What I do care about is the lucidity with which the professor analyzes the theory or theories on which Bragg’s case appears founded and the manner by which it is being presented to the judge and the jury.
The overarching thesis at the heart of Shugerman’s argument that Bragg is on the wrong prosecutorial track, lies in what appears clearly to be a misguided effort (“crusade” could be a more apt term) by the prosecutor to fit what might at best be seen as a series of falsely characterized business records into a broad “election fraud” scheme through which Trump intended to unlawfully interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The proverbial effort to fit a square peg into a round hole.
The fact that the 2016 election is a federal matter and not a New York state matter, and therefore outside the prosecutorial jurisdiction of a local New York state prosecutor, appears to have been a technicality beyond Bragg’s ken. It nonetheless is a serious defect in the case. Notwithstanding this jurisdictional roadblock, Bragg and his assistant prosecutor Matthew Colangelo employ the “[federal]election interference” theory as a trampoline from which to jump onto the election fraud bandwagon that has fixated so many Republicans and even Democrats for eight years.
Calling a case of nothing more than a series of misdemeanor false business filings felonious “election fraud” does not make it so. Even Colangelo’s opening statement, which good litigators use as a roadmap laying out the case for the jury with the clarity and simplicity that wins jurors to their side was, again as appropriately noted by Shugerman, short on specifics and long on vagueness – indicative of a dangerously, if not fatally weak case.
The only legal wrong occurred when Stormy Daniels violated her non-disclosure agreement, which is a breach of contract.
Save it fatso.
Oops wrong Barr.
I’ve been looking at this case and cannot help but conclude that the BOTTOM LINE is — This is going to boil down to a non-payment of taxes to New York State.
The charges allege that Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to make the payments, and that he then reimbursed Cohen through a series of falsified retainer payments.
The falsification of business records charges stem from the alleged concealment of the true nature of these transactions in Trump’s business records.
So, if business records were falsified, it boils down to non-payment of taxes he owed to the state.
Tell me I’m wrong.
.
I don’t think the law and facts even matter when you’re trying to utterly destroy your enemy, like the Obama/Biden regime is trying to do.
Yeah, I said Obama/Biden, because that’s where all of this suck in everything is coming from. I hope to God I live to see Obama swing.
Bfl
“prosecutors are being dishonest & are conflating independent expenditures meant to help a candidate, with in-kind campaign contributions received and used by a campaign, eg, a plane, staff, free TV air time, hotel rooms, etc. Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, newspaper endorsements are could be called things of value or in kind campaign contributions. The John Edwards case was decided and made public and Trump cannot claim ignorance of the law, but neither can the prosecutors and judges claim ignorance of the law—-which was the John Edwards decision that was 9-0. Friends paying hush money to a mistress is not a legitimate campaign expense and not illegal as an in kind campaign contribution. t is an independent expenditure.
Michael Cohen testified under oath that neither did Trump order the payment nor did he know about it before Cohen made it public. Rudy Guilliani then went on national TV holding a check in his hand, and said the Trump campaign did not solicit nor receive any campaign contributions, but was self financed. He said if Cohen is claiming he gave to the Trump campaign without its knowlege , then Trump was reimbursing Cohen for his expense. However it was booked by Trump, this payment was made public, its intent was made public and it did not interfere with any election nor was meant to conceal anything. This trial is an extended smear by Trump’s enemies, just like the rigged impeachment was, going into an election year. It is meant to interfere with his finances, call him a creep and liar and take the focus off Biden, who did far worse. It’s meant to make Trump tired and tied down . All about abortion, really. “
Tell me I’m wrong.
******************
OK. You’re wrong.
RE: OK. You’re wrong.
Then Please elaborate. I’m all ears.
I'm trying to understand your hypothesis.
How is it that Trump owes taxes?
I just did a quick search and New York does require lawyers to charge a sales tax on legal services.
Without the other crime, Trump's business records are ordinary book-keeping entries. Even with another crime, they are still ordinary book-keeping entries. If Bragg thinks the book-keeping should have recorded the payments as campaign expenses, then he should have been pursuing a campaign finance violation charge, but he's not.
Bragg can't bring campaign finance violation charges because:
That leaves Bragg with fraudulent records in furtherance of another crime. Bragg's problem is that he can't define that other crime beyond a reasonable doubt (he may get away with defining the crime within a New Yorker's doubt).
Bragg is also saying that Trump and Pecker used the National Enquirer to pay informants for information to plant negative stories about Hillary Clinton to harm her candidacy. Before Trump was elected, that used to be called "opposition research."
Hillary Clinton funneled cash payments through Marc Elias at the Perkins Coie law firm to pay former British agent Christopher Steele for the "Steele Dossier" and then planted that story in the American media. Nobody charged Clinton with falsifying records at Perkins Coie in furtherance of another crime, or conspiring with Perkins Coie and Buzzfeed.
-PJ
Tell me I’m wrong.
.................
Cohen had an ongoing expense account with Trump predating the Stormy thing. He would do legal errands and tap into the expense account.
The Stormy payoff was just part of Cohen’s regular services.
BTW she owes Trump more than half a million.
RE: Cohen had an ongoing expense account with Trump predating the Stormy thing.
OK thanks. Back to the tax issue I was alluding to ... is that expense account taxable in New York? If so, who is responsible for reporting taxes on it?
The leftists want the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a set of rules - a process - by which, the Department of Justice shall exercise Chief Executive administrative power OVER the President of the U.S.A.
Thereby, there will no longer be The [Name of President] Administration. Rather, there will be the competing:
[Name of President] Administration vs. Dept. of Justice Administration:
The President versus The Self-Important Lawyers $/& Judges of The Socialist Administrative State.
Bill Barr cannot carve out a way to immunize himself from his part in destroying the Executive Branch - replaced by lawyer-judicial fiat.
This case is a poor attempt to say Hillary Clinton was robbed of her coronation in 2016 because, then candidate Trump, paid hush money to Stormy, and that affected other states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These were places where Hillary didn’t campaign because she thought the election fraud would be enough to giver her the wins.
Note: When 2020 rolled around the Democrats had fixed the election fraud to guarantee Biden the win without even campaigning either.
Note: Congress has “hush money” tax dollars set aside to pay off congress member activities below the belt.
One other note: Trump got off easy ($135,000 out of Cohen’s pocket), because Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones nearly $800,000.
President Trump has not been charged with any NYS tax code violations.
OK you can tell me if I’m wrong. As far as I know, he’s not being charged with non payment of taxes in this case. Notice I said “as far as I know” which means I may be wrong. So how can it boil down to that issue if that’s not one of the charges?
President Trump has not been charged with any NYS tax code violations.
**********************
That was also my rationale for saying Seek was wrong.
RE: Not charged with non-payment of taxes
Yes, but he is being charged with falsification of business records.
Why do people falsify business records if not to avoid paying more money to the government? That was what I think it boiled down to.
I mean what the heck is the LEGITIMATE legal interest of Alvin Bragg in bringing this case?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.