In Trump trial, Manhattan DA Bragg’s hocus-pocus case exposed on first day
Fox News comments on the flimsy nature of the accusations against President Trump made by Biden ally and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Hocus-pocus is a meaningless distraction or illusion that is intended to fool. That neatly summarizes District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump. The DA hopes to snooker a Manhattan jury into convicting the former president with a bag of legal tricks.
In most courtrooms, the chicanery would never work. But in this Trump-hating venue the defendant’s jury of purported peers are likely predisposed to accept magic for magic’s sake. They may want to believe there’s no white rabbit behind Bragg’s back, despite the pink ears peaking around his coat.
The first sleight of hand happened the moment the lead prosecutor addressed jurors during opening statements on Monday. Assistant DA Matthew Colangelo (formerly Joe Biden’s number three official at the Justice Department) told the panel, “This case is about a criminal conspiracy.” Really?
Why, then, is Trump not charged with that? Even though Colangelo repeatedly accused the defendant of participating in a criminal conspiracy, the word “conspiracy” can be found nowhere in Bragg’s indictment. It’s not there because there was no criminal conspiracy. But that didn’t stop the prosecutor from deceiving the jury by arguing about an uncharged crime. Like a skilled magician, he hopes his pretense will fool them.
Not content with one canard, Colangelo slipped another one from his sleeve. More than once, he accused Trump of “election fraud,” conveniently ignoring the fact that the Federal Election Commission examined Trump’s payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and determined there was no fraud because the money conferred did not qualify as a campaign donation. Federal prosecutors who investigated reached the same conclusion. So did Bragg’s predecessor. There was no crime.
Undeterred, Colangelo used pejorative terms to portray the Daniels cash as a nefarious scheme without bothering to mention that such non-disclosure agreements are perfectly legal and routine. Also, lawful and quite common was the alleged “catch and kill” device used by the tabloid, National Enquirer. On Trump’s behalf, it bought the rights to Daniels’ story about her supposed relationship with him but declined to publish it. Contractually, it had every right to do that.
(Read more at Fox News)
Let me include my unschooled and possibly ignorant questions here.
I have these questions:
- What authority does a District Attorney from New York City have to prosecute a crime that depends on the violation of a federal election law?
- How can an infraction that depends on bookkeeping that has passed the statute of limitations be upgraded to a felony just because it supposedly breaks some federal election law that the FEC did not take up? Would that not throw a red flag to this being a political prosecution?
- Is Joe Biden so senile that he is blind to the effects of his political prosecutions?
- Since Hillary Clinton claimed in court (in fact, she used as an excuse when questioned on the Steele Dossier) that the monies spent to investigate then candidate Trump were “legal expenses,” why wasn’t she prosecuted for this same infraction?
…
A serial perjurer (Cohen) will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system
The New York Post makes a point far into its article on this flimsy case that has a number of similarities to the way Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier.
Once again, the contrast to other controversies is telling. Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims.
The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias (the FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding).
When a reporter tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.
(Read more at the New York Post)
Are there any records of Hillary passing through a conservative jurisdiction with her Steele Dossier records and funds?
I am just asking for a friend. It’s not that we, unlike rabid liberals, would hunt down and prosecute the former Secretary of State for crimes that normal citizens spent decades in prison after being convicted for committing those crimes. No, never.
Still, I have two more questions
I have two more questions for those who support the prosecution of this case:
- If this is not just an exercise in theatrics, why do all of the references in this case to the state’s side include mention of “porn star Stormy Daniels?” Such is an illicit application of terms for the following reasons:
- “Stormy Daniels” is not the legal name of the woman involved.
- “Porn star,” while pejorative, also elicits undue notoriety and prestige on that woman.
- Furthermore, why do most of the references to the case center on “hush money” rather than the “non-disclosure agreements” which are common to business if this is not meant to be salatious?
…
Mark 1:1 
Before delving into the specifics, it’s crucial to highlight the significance of the initial investigation phase. This stage is marked by a clear indication that a law (or laws) were violated and the identification of a likely perpetrator. Subsequently, a hypothesis is developed, which, if substantiated by facts, evolves into a theory.
In this case, Mr. Bragg concluded that Donald J. Trump conspired with others to violate New York State Election laws. I do not know what the state law says about electioneering fraud. I will say that politicians will say almost anything to get elected, which I suppose lying your ass off is also a form of fraud — and this may explain why a legal expert recently said that this law, when violated, imposes misdemeanor penalties upon conviction.
Except that Bragg asked a grand jury (which typically entertains felonious conduct) for an indictment and got one. They say it is possible to indict a ham sandwich, so I’ve never entirely understood the value of this process. Note that indictment and impeachment are nearly identical in purpose and effect. Bragg asked for a felony indictment and charged him with such because a felony conviction would preclude Trump from running for president. A further offering is that it doesn’t matter that “everyone does it.”
Let’s say that you and I are traveling side-by-side down the interstate. We’re both doing 85 mph in a 70 mph zone. I get pulled over; you don’t. It doesn’t matter that you were speeding, too. It only matters that I received a citation, and I must pay the penalty. Similarly, it only matters that a jury (finding Trump guilty) renders a felony conviction.
Of course, the fact that the indictment was rendered after the statute of limitations does matter upon appeal — unless Bragg can manufacture a charge sheet signed before the statute of limitations ran out. In such cases, I’m told that statutes of limitation are extended indefinitely. Again, we aren’t talking about equal treatment under the law; to my knowledge, such a thing has never existed in this country or England under common law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I want to know how he got indicted, yet everyone says no charges have been filed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not an insider to NY State politics, Ed — I can’t answer your question. But you are right. Someone had to file charges. I simply don’t know who that might have been. The entire issue stinks. Maybe there is some “funny business” going on, but I can’t imagine his lawyers would allow this to proceed to trial if the documents relating to his indictment smelled fishy.
LikeLiked by 1 person