‘This Is Embarrassing’: Turley Says He Is In ‘Utter Disbelief’ Over Bragg Trial Opening Statements

[berryberry]

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he is in “utter disbelief” over the opening statements of the trial brought forth by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
.
.
“What is clear is in this case, Trump is right,” Turley said. “I mean, this is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief. I mean, the arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You know, you had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out. This is going back to the 2016 election. And they zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.”
.
.
Fox News’ John Roberts pointed out that the prosecution is “being led in part” by Michael Colangelo, who served as the U.S. Associate Attorney General under President Joe Biden’s administration, then left his position to become a state prosecutor for Bragg’s office. Turley said Colangelo’s role supports Trump’s accusations that the case is “coordinated.”

[Salty Again]

... The best thing for Bragg and his mates is that the LOSE this case.
The Appeals Court is gonna have a royal holiday picking this apart.
Not to mention the lawsuits coming Next Year. ...

#### Salty

[CreatedInSpace]

This is a state charge, I’m not sure if it can go to the federal Supreme Court. Regardless of that, it’s simply impossible for Trump to sit in front of an unbiased jury. I doubt you can find 12 people not still in diapers that have no preconceived opinion of him anywhere in the world. He’s the most recognizable person to have ever walked the earth.

[eyecu2]

Soon to be walking the halls of Rikers.

[berryberry]

Senile Biden and the commie Democrats have turned the USA into a tinpot dictatorship

This is how unjust this communist Senile Biden show trial in Manhattan really is. The Republican nominee for president has been removed by force from the campaign trail by a local Democrat prosecutor and local Democrat judge working in conjunction with Senile Biden's DOJ preventing Trump from campaigning for president, fundraising, or from aiding in the retake of the Senate or control of the House.

A partisan Democrat prosecutor and judge has subordinated the entire election and the rights of every voting citizen with this sick hoax of a trial.

When Trump wins, these Democrats should be tried for treason

[winn dixie]

Lol at the rage
Turdley is only projecting his far biased beliefs.

[CreatedInSpace]

Rage is justified when the campaign message is vote wrong and you’ll be imprisoned.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

Rage is justified when the campaign message is vote wrong and you’ll be imprisoned.

Ladies and gentlemen, a new contender for Hyperbole of the Year has arisen.

[CreatedInSpace]

LOL. That was semi tongue in cheek but I’ll take the award either way.

What would be helpful in understanding today’s politics is an explanation of the coexistence of a guy on trial for paying off a bimbo and a (taxpayer funded) congressional slush fund for paying off bimbos. This seems incongruous unless there’s a rule against paying off bimbos with your own money

[HDGristle]

The question isn't about paying off a bimbo with your own money or someone else's. It's about whether there was a criminal falsification of records associated with the payment in order to conceal them.

Typically a misdemeanor in NY. But, here, charged as a felony because they are alleged conduct was to help further another crime.

It's going to be an interesting trial and likely an interesting appeal if there's a conviction. It's pretty messy.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...eople-v.-trump

[Smarty1]

HDGristle

What you posted was true but incomplete. Bragg could not charge Trump with the simple misdemeanor falsification of records charge because the statute of limitations had expired. It HAD to be charged as conduct that was in pursuit of a felony or the case legally could not be brought.

Which leads to the $64 question: what was the felony and why was Trump not charged with this felony that he was allegedly using the falsified business records to commit? The payment of a non disclosure agreement may be seen as illicit or scummy, but it is not even illegal, let alone a felony. Failing to disclose that you might have had an affair with a woman is likewise mot a crime, even if you are a candidate for office. It isn’t election interference to try to withhold unfavorable information from going public during a political campaign. If it were, just about EVERY politician would be a felon by now.

So where is the underlying crime and why is Trump being tried for a misdemeanor instead of the underlying felony? It seems to me that Bragg’s whole case depends on the answer to this question. Without a satisfactory answer, the case is invalid.

[HDGristle]

Check the link I provided, Smarty

[CreatedInSpace]

It’s a fun read, if you’re a believer in thought crimes.

Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

So it’s appropriate to prosecute someone for a crime that was never committed. It’s a brave new world, one that should scare the hell out of everyone.

[Salty Again]

.... Me political "Insiders" have mentioned that the state
of Arkansas is preparing to do something similar as NY state.

Allow "sexual assault" crimes from the past to be brought forward
so abusers can face BOTH criminal and civil charges.

... If NY can do this - so can other states! ...

#### Salty

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

It’s a fun read, if you’re a believer in thought crimes.

Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

So it’s appropriate to prosecute someone for a crime that was never committed. It’s a brave new world, one that should scare the hell out of everyone.

The prosecution has to connect the dots. The defense needs to poke holes.

What you or I think doesn't actually matter.