CNN Panel Stuns Viewers, Shreds Alvin Bragg’s Case against Trump

[NorrinRadd]

Could one of the anti-Trump legal experts explain what incompetent, disingenuous, often-wrong Turley gets wrong here? Then, pretty please, go to his site and educate him in the Comments section. It's been several weeks, and I didn't see anyone there showing the poor imbecile the error of his ways.

Article.

New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that one of the crimes that Trump allegedly committed in listing the payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense” was New York Law 17-152. This law states “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

So they are arguing that Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy. He did this by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer with other legal expenses.

Confused? You are not alone.

It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.

...

As with James, Bragg saw it in Trump. His predecessor did not see it. He declined charging on this basis. Bragg did to. He stopped the investigation. However, after a pressure campaign, Bragg might not be able to see the crime but he certainly saw the political consequences of not charging Trump.

...

The misdemeanors in this case, including falsifying these payments, expired with the passage of the statute of limitations. But Bragg (with the help of Matthew Colangelo, a former top official in the Biden Justice Department) zapped it back into life by alleging a federal election crime that the Justice Department itself rejected as a basis for any criminal charge.

So now there is a second crime that is hard for most of us to see, at least outside of New York. Trump is accused of conspiring to promote his own candidacy by mislabeling this payment, even though it was part of a larger legal payment to his former counsel, Michael Cohen.

...

It is not clear if Trump even knew how this money was characterized on ledgers or records. He paid the money to his lawyer, who had put together this settlement over the nondisclosure agreement. Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.

In addition to running for president, Trump was a married host of a hit television show. There were ample reasons to secure a NDA to bury the story. Even if money was paid to bury these stories with the election in mind, it is not unusual or illegal. There was generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because they were not a campaign contribution in the view of the federal government.

It is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records. What if the Trump employee put “legal settlement in personal matter” or “nuisance payment”? Would those words be the difference

[Sam]

Could one of the anti-Trump legal experts explain what incompetent, disingenuous, often-wrong Turley gets wrong here? Then, pretty please, go to his site and educate him in the Comments section. It's been several weeks, and I didn't see anyone there showing the poor imbecile the error of his ways.

Article.

New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that one of the crimes that Trump allegedly committed in listing the payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense” was New York Law 17-152. This law states “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

So they are arguing that Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy. He did this by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer with other legal expenses.

Confused? You are not alone.

It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.

...

As with James, Bragg saw it in Trump. His predecessor did not see it. He declined charging on this basis. Bragg did to. He stopped the investigation. However, after a pressure campaign, Bragg might not be able to see the crime but he certainly saw the political consequences of not charging Trump.

...

The misdemeanors in this case, including falsifying these payments, expired with the passage of the statute of limitations. But Bragg (with the help of Matthew Colangelo, a former top official in the Biden Justice Department) zapped it back into life by alleging a federal election crime that the Justice Department itself rejected as a basis for any criminal charge.

So now there is a second crime that is hard for most of us to see, at least outside of New York. Trump is accused of conspiring to promote his own candidacy by mislabeling this payment, even though it was part of a larger legal payment to his former counsel, Michael Cohen.

...

It is not clear if Trump even knew how this money was characterized on ledgers or records. He paid the money to his lawyer, who had put together this settlement over the nondisclosure agreement. Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.

In addition to running for president, Trump was a married host of a hit television show. There were ample reasons to secure a NDA to bury the story. Even if money was paid to bury these stories with the election in mind, it is not unusual or illegal. There was generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because they were not a campaign contribution in the view of the federal government.

It is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records. What if the Trump employee put “legal settlement in personal matter” or “nuisance payment”? Would those words be the difference

I think most everything here has been pretty fully covered already. What specifically do you consider to have not been addressed?

Regarding the statute of limitations, Turley's ostensible confusion arises from the fact that, while the associated misdemeanor has a two-year clock, the statute of limitations for making a felony charge is five years but that doesn't include "tolling" — time added onto the statute of limitations for the period a person is "continuously out of state". Because Trump has been continuously outside of New York for extended periods of time between Dec. 2017 and when he was indicted in 2023, the clock was "tolled" and the statute of limitations didn't run out.

-Sam

[Ronson]

A pretty consistent theme with these tu quoques is folks on the right introducing a what-about-this example and being told "Yes, if the evidence credibly demonstrated the comparison is similar, that holds". But they themselves routinely respond to both tu quoques and factual refutations with something along the lines of "It doesn't matter because it's all a witch hunt/sham/farce/leftist plot against us".

It's the asymmetrical warfare that runs the modern right wing, where moral principles don't even have a hypothetical hold.

I didn't mean to pull your string. Honestly, I couldn't care less. I don't care about any Daniels hush money, or Biden's battery against Reade, or Bill Clinton's string of molestations, or JFK's infidelity. And that goes for any jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk Trump may have done in the past.

What matters to me is which one of these people is more likely to aid my country, or likely will destroy it. These lawsuits and legalities that you dissect down to the smallest molecule really only matters to people who think there is something partisan to be gained by it. In the vast scheme of things, like which person would make a better president and preserve this country for my children and grandchildren, these sexual exploits and ridiculous prosecutions are irrelevant.

[Sam]

I didn't mean to pull your string. Honestly, I couldn't care less. I don't care about any Daniels hush money, or Biden's battery against Reade, or Bill Clinton's string of molestations, or JFK's infidelity. And that goes for any jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk Trump may have done in the past.

What matters to me is which one of these people is more likely to aid my country, or likely will destroy it. These lawsuits and legalities that you dissect down to the smallest molecule really only matters to people who think there is something partisan to be gained by it. In the vast scheme of things, like which person would make a better president and preserve this country for my children and grandchildren, these sexual exploits and ridiculous prosecutions are irrelevant.

I actually think someone who rapes women, defrauds his countrymen through massive tax evasion, and corruptly attempts to influence elections via criminal conspiracies is actually more likely to destroy the country I seek to maintain for my children and grandchildren than someone who doesn't do those things.

So the factual basis of criminal or corrupt allegations actually means a great deal to the concept of citizenry, from my view.

-Sam

[Ronson]

I actually think someone who rapes women, defrauds his countrymen through massive tax evasion, and corruptly attempts to influence elections via criminal conspiracies is actually more likely to destroy the country I seek to maintain for my children and grandchildren than someone who doesn't do those things.

So the factual basis of criminal or corrupt allegations actually means a great deal to the concept of citizenry, from my view.

No, the person who sells his influence or sells out his country for personal gain (or to profit his family) or for globalist ideals is a traitor to the Americans who voted for him to preserve and protect THIS country, not the globe. Not bureaucrats in the U.N., the E.U. or NATO, he is beholden to American citizens only, who pay taxes that he squanders through his Ukraine slush fund, and brings the U.S. to the brink of a nuclear war all for the sake of the Military Industrial Complex.

So, the Left can bring on all the petty lawsuits they wish, they will do them no good. Thanks to whistleblowers and the slow dawning of realization, the voters in this country are beginning to see through the mainstream propaganda machine. They know persecution when they see it, they know injustice when they see it.

[Sam]

No, the person who sells his influence or sells out his country for personal gain (or to profit his family) or for globalist ideals is a traitor to the Americans who voted for him to preserve and protect THIS country, not the globe. Not bureaucrats in the U.N., the E.U. or NATO, he is beholden to American citizens only, who pay taxes that he squanders through his Ukraine slush fund, and brings the U.S. to the brink of a nuclear war all for the sake of the Military Industrial Complex.

So, the Left can bring on all the petty lawsuits they wish, they will do them no good. Thanks to whistleblowers and the slow dawning of realization, the voters in this country are beginning to see through the mainstream propaganda machine. They know persecution when they see it, they know injustice when they see it.

Well, we're right back to it: I agree with your principle! If Biden was shown to have "sold out his country for personal gain", I'd agree he'd be unfit to serve. I'd argue that Trump attempted to do so in conditioning aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival but I'd agree on the principle.

But when I say "people who sell out their country for personal gain through massive tax evasion are unfit to serve", the response question isn't "Well, do we have convincing evidence of a candidate having done so?" but rather "I don't care about that, it doesn't matter, it's part of the propaganda machine". The actual principle doesn't really matter (we did not hear this kind of concern over nuclear war when Trump was threatening "fire and fury" against a nuclear-armed adversary): what matters is a personal policy preference that holds priority over any ethical principle.

-Sam

[CivilDiscourse]

Well, we're right back to it: I agree with your principle! If Biden was shown to have "sold out his country for personal gain", I'd agree he'd be unfit to serve. I'd argue that Trump attempted to do so in conditioning aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival but I'd agree on the principle.

-Sam

So...let's for the sake of argument, agree that Trump did withhold aid from Ukraine unless they investigated his personal rival.

I'll agree that this is a corrupt act, but please explain how withholding foreign aid, is "Selling out his country"?

[Ronson]

Well, we're right back to it: I agree with your principle! If Biden was shown to have "sold out his country for personal gain", I'd agree he'd be unfit to serve. I'd argue that Trump attempted to do so in conditioning aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival but I'd agree on the principle.

But when I say "people who sell out their country for personal gain through massive tax evasion are unfit to serve", the response question isn't "Well, do we have convincing evidence of a candidate having done so?" but rather "I don't care about that, it doesn't matter, it's part of the propaganda machine". The actual principle doesn't really matter (we did not hear this kind of concern over nuclear war when Trump was threatening "fire and fury" against a nuclear-armed adversary): what matters is a personal policy preference that holds priority over any ethical principle.

Regarding Ukraine, I read the transcript of Trump's phone call. There were no strings attached. For him to ask Zelensky to look into possible corruption is a perfectly reasonable request since Ukraine was doing business with our government.

Regarding "massive tax evasion", care to elaborate?

Regarding "fire and fury", it was bluster, easily understood as such within context of Trump's comments. The same as saying "Don't mess with us, or else ..." That's talk and not action. With Biden, he is doing the bidding of the Military Industrial Complex through propping up a war that cannot be won, funneling weapons/money to a regime that is fighting a nuclear power that has ICBMs aimed all throughout our country. And now NATO states are talking about putting troops in Ukraine, which drags us into the fray even deeper and more dangerously.

So, yes. I believe Biden's loyalties are to enriching himself and to support globalism - at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and strength.. Trump doesn't need to be enriched, he can't be bribed, and is actually losing money fighting the deep-state machine that wants to keep him out of the White House because he rattles the status quo. I hate the status quo because it is a downward trajectory.

[Sam]

So...let's for the sake of argument, agree that Trump did withhold aid from Ukraine unless they investigated his personal rival.

I'll agree that this is a corrupt act, but please explain how withholding foreign aid, is "Selling out his country"?

USA had/has a national security interest in Ukraine's integrity. There was a military and diplomatic interest in providing Ukraine defensive weaponry to deter or repel a Russian attack, as well as a financial interest in avoiding a larger conflict (i.e., now).

Trump apparently agreed with this, at least enough to agree to the provision of Javelin missiles. By conditioning that provision on an investigation into his political rival, he placed the interests of USA below his personal interests, thereby selling out the country.

If Trump didn't agree that the weapon transfer was in US interests then he misused US assets in order to bribe a foreign official for a personal benefit, which would also amount to selling out the country.

-Sam

[CivilDiscourse]

USA had/has a national security interest in Ukraine's integrity. There was a military and diplomatic interest in providing Ukraine defensive weaponry to deter or repel a Russian attack, as well as a financial interest in avoiding a larger conflict (i.e., now).

Trump apparently agreed with this, at least enough to agree to the provision of Javelin missiles. By conditioning that provision on an investigation into his political rival, he placed the interests of USA below his personal interests, thereby selling out the country.

If Trump didn't agree that the weapon transfer was in US interests then he misused US assets in order to bribe a foreign official for a personal benefit, which would also amount to selling out the country.

-Sam

So, is it your opinion that any corrupt act that deals with foreign aid to another country is "Selling out your country?

But why limit it to foreign aid?
Though, I would say that ANY corrupt act at the federal level could be, using the above general reasoning is "selling out your country". For example, it is in the US national interests that candidates obey campaign finance laws. By mislabeling the funding for the Steele Dossier, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign put their personal/political interests ahead of the US national interests, thereby selling out their country.

[Sam]

Regarding Ukraine, I read the transcript of Trump's phone call. There were no strings attached. For him to ask Zelensky to look into possible corruption is a perfectly reasonable request since Ukraine was doing business with our government.

Regarding "massive tax evasion", care to elaborate?

Regarding "fire and fury", it was bluster, easily understood as such within context of Trump's comments. The same as saying "Don't mess with us, or else ..." That's talk and not action. With Biden, he is doing the bidding of the Military Industrial Complex through propping up a war that cannot be won, funneling weapons/money to a regime that is fighting a nuclear power that has ICBMs aimed all throughout our country. And now NATO states are talking about putting troops in Ukraine, which drags us into the fray even deeper and more dangerously.

So, yes. I believe Biden's loyalties are to enriching himself and to support globalism - at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and strength.. Trump doesn't need to be enriched, he can't be bribed, and is actually losing money fighting the deep-state machine that wants to keep him out of the White House because he rattles the status quo. I hate the status quo because it is a downward trajectory.

Trump was demanding a public declaration of an investigation into Biden; much like what he eventually got from Republicans in the House, the up-front value for Trump was to be able to say that Zelensky was investigating Biden for corruption in office.

A NYT investigation in 2018 convincingly found that the Trump family had avoided taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars through the decades:

Source: Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father. David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Ross Buettner. The New York Times. 2018.10.02

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

© Copyright Original Source

The Trump Organization was also found guilty of evading taxes last year.

Source: Trump’s Company Gets Maximum Punishment for Evading Taxes. Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum. The New York Times. 2023.01.13

Former President Donald J. Trump’s family real estate business was ordered on Friday to pay a $1.6 million criminal penalty for its conviction on felony tax fraud and other charges, a stinging rebuke and the maximum possible punishment.

The sentence, handed down by a judge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, caps a lengthy legal ordeal for Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, which was convicted in December of doling out off-the-books perks to some of its top executives. One of the executives who orchestrated the scheme, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty and testified at the company’s trial. He was sentenced on Tuesday to serve five months at the notorious Rikers Island jail complex.

© Copyright Original Source

Saying that you care about the possibility of nuclear war and dismissing Trump threatening a historically-unpredictable adversary who had just developed nuclear-armed ICBMs that could hit US soil with "bluster" does not really show that the threat of nuclear war actually sits high on your list of priorities.

[Sam]

So, is it your opinion that any corrupt act that deals with foreign aid to another country is "Selling out your country["]?

That's not what I wrote, no.

-Sam

[Ronson]

USA had/has a national security interest in Ukraine's integrity. There was a military and diplomatic interest in providing Ukraine defensive weaponry to deter or repel a Russian attack, as well as a financial interest in avoiding a larger conflict (i.e., now).

Trump apparently agreed with this, at least enough to agree to the provision of Javelin missiles. By conditioning that provision on an investigation into his political rival, he placed the interests of USA below his personal interests, thereby selling out the country.

If Trump didn't agree that the weapon transfer was in US interests then he misused US assets in order to bribe a foreign official for a personal benefit, which would also amount to selling out the country.

But it wasn't "conditioned."

[Sam]

But it wasn't "conditioned."

It was:

Source: Trump impeachment: The short, medium and long story. BBC News. 2020.02.05

President Trump says he called his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July 2019 to congratulate him on his election victory. Mr Zelensky, a former TV star with no political experience, had been elected president three months earlier.

But an anonymous whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, felt there was something more serious in their exchange, and explained why in a formal complaint on 12 August.

The whistleblower admitted having not directly heard the call but said accounts shared by other officials had painted a consistent picture. For context, about a dozen people are reported to have listened in on the conversation, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The call occurred days after Mr Trump blocked $391m (£316m) in military aid to Ukraine. Critics argued this was used as a bargaining chip, but Mr Trump denied this.

...

The Democrats launched a formal inquiry into the Ukraine affair and a number of officials were called to testify. They included the US government's special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who turned over a trove of text messages and other communications.

The acting ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the inquiry that Mr Trump had made the release of the military aid conditional on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens' dealings. He also said there was "an irregular, informal channel of US policymaking" in the country more generally. The White House denied this was the case.

The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. He has been central in pushing the allegations against the Bidens. Mr Pompeo has also been served with a subpoena.

But the most dramatic testimony came from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union. He told Congress that he was working at the "express direction" of the president when pressure was put on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Mr Sondland added that an offer of a White House visit for Ukraine's president was conditional on the country publicly announcing a probe.

He also implicated Mr Pompeo and former National Security Adviser John Bolton in the Ukraine dealings.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

[Ronson]

Trump was demanding a public declaration of an investigation into Biden; much like what he eventually got from Republicans in the House, the up-front value for Trump was to be able to say that Zelensky was investigating Biden for corruption in office.

A NYT investigation in 2018 convincingly found that the Trump family had avoided taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars through the decades:

Source: Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father. David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Ross Buettner. The New York Times. 2018.10.02

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

© Copyright Original Source

Nobody pays taxes that they don't have to pay. He didn't have to pay them, so he didn't. To call it "tax evasion" conjures up illegality, and if that was the case the IRS would have dogged him. So this is a partisan nothingburger.

The Trump Organization was also found guilty of evading taxes last year.

Source: Trump’s Company Gets Maximum Punishment for Evading Taxes. Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum. The New York Times. 2023.01.13

Former President Donald J. Trump’s family real estate business was ordered on Friday to pay a $1.6 million criminal penalty for its conviction on felony tax fraud and other charges, a stinging rebuke and the maximum possible punishment.

The sentence, handed down by a judge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, caps a lengthy legal ordeal for Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, which was convicted in December of doling out off-the-books perks to some of its top executives. One of the executives who orchestrated the scheme, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty and testified at the company’s trial. He was sentenced on Tuesday to serve five months at the notorious Rikers Island jail complex.

© Copyright Original Source

Your own link shows one person pleaded guilty in Trump's company. If an investigation had pointed any blame at Trump - or even the tiniest suspicion - Leftoid prosecutors would have been camped out on his lawn.

Saying that you care about the possibility of nuclear war and dismissing Trump threatening a historically-unpredictable adversary who had just developed nuclear-armed ICBMs that could hit US soil with "bluster" does not really show that the threat of nuclear war actually sits high on your list of priorities.

Trump was talking about North Korea, not Russia or China. And yes, it was bluster, similar to rhetoric most presidents have uttered. And it was also in response to a threat first offered by Kim. Would you rather Trump had said "Don't. Please."

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen … he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”