For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump, potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory and criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

 

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/donald-trump-alvin-bragg-indictment-charges.html

 

 

READ MORE (no paywall)

Hush money in political circles has been paid for many years going all the way back to Warren Harding, who paid his mistress to stay quiet about their ongoing affair, even while he was still president.  Yet none of them went to the depths that Trump has gone t to create fictitious business records in order to hide the fact he paid money, and how much of Trumps funds for these payments came from his campaign finance money donated by the millions of followers he has instead of out of his own pocket.

Did Trump also try to claim the hush money as a tax deduction?  If so, that's leaning pretty far forward in the fox hole.

 

"But Mr. Bragg also introduced yet another theory, accusing Mr. Trump of falsifying business records as a way to back up planned false claims to tax authorities.

“The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme,” Mr. Bragg wrote in the statement of facts that accompanied the indictment."  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/us/politics/trump-bookkeeping-fraud-taxes.html

Strong? LOL.

That will be decided by the jury, not Mr Bragg.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Strong? LOL.

That will be decided by the jury, not Mr Bragg.

A strong case is what it is based upon the evidence and the indictment.  Yes the jury will decide the outcome.  

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Strong? LOL.

That will be decided by the jury, not Mr Bragg.

What's the point of your post? Mr. Bragg is expressing an expert opinion. That the jury will decide on defendant trump's guilt is something we all know.

If all you have are diversions then better not post....IMHO, of course.

Not the only strong case against Trump. He's toast.

 

Special counsel Jack Smith's criminal investigation into classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is compelling, and a bigger legal threat to former President Donald Trump than the Manhattan Stormy Daniels hush payment prosecution, argued former White House lawyer Ty Cobb on CNN Wednesday evening.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-evidence/

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Strong? LOL.

That will be decided by the jury, not Mr Bragg.

I look forward to your response when the Jury does indeed pass down their verdict.

Trump Calls to Defund Law Enforcement After Arrest

 

Silly me. Here I thought it was horrible libs who said that!

Troll Meme reported and removed.

34 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Trump Calls to Defund Law Enforcement After Arrest

 

Silly me. Here I thought it was horrible libs who said that!

It’s another one of those rightwing accusations that turn out to be confessions.

 

 

Of course it's a strong case or he wouldn't dare move on it.

But just one stealth maga nutcase on the jury who won't consider the evidence and no convictions.

So Trump could fairly easily win this. 

But other indictments are definitely coming.

Smoke and mirrors from the democrats.  Total BS

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course it's a strong case or he wouldn't dare move on it.

But just one stealth maga nutcase on the jury who won't consider the evidence and no convictions.

So Trump could fairly easily win this. 

But other indictments are definitely coming.

If one person was to not go with the rest of the jury in deciding guilty on a charge resulting in no unanimity then these charges would cause what is called a "hung jury". Trump would not win the case if that were to happen. It would result in a mistrial at least for these charges and given that there's about 0% chance that the prosecution would drop them a new trial with a new jury would begin until there is either an acquittal or conviction or plea bargain.

And, as we all know, this is only the least serious of the charges he is facing. The Trump Soap Opera has many episodes to run. And I wonder if, at the end of this particular 'season', with reports of Trump's infidelity, we'll see a divorce application from a 'disappointed' wife in the courts too. And if she's very 'disappointed', imagine the tales she could add to the script.

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

If one person was to not go with the rest of the jury in deciding guilty on a charge resulting in no unanimity then these charges would cause what is called a "hung jury". Trump would not win the case if that were to happen. It would result in a mistrial at least for these charges and given that there's about 0% chance that the prosecution would drop them a new trial with a new jury would begin until there is either an acquittal or conviction or plea bargain.

Well by that time he could be president and you can't touch a president. 

I doubt they would pursue a new trial regardless.

You're technically right but I think most defense teams see hung juries as a kind  of win.

 

Yes it's a very strong case. Of course the other legal side says the opposite. 

Would the charges be magically dropped if Trump promised not to run? 

Documentary and testimonial evidences. Case exceedingly strong. Trump will pay bigly for stiffing David Pecker. . 

Thirty four charges?

All made up and part of the witch hunt?

Some will stick for sure and each carries a four year term but not in the

White House!

19 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Yes it's a very strong case. Of course the other legal side says the opposite. 

Would the charges be magically dropped if Trump promised not to run? 

Votes decide election winners and Americans would not stand for that sort of win

26 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Yes it's a very strong case. Of course the other legal side says the opposite. 

Would the charges be magically dropped if Trump promised not to run? 

No

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Well by that time he could be president and you can't touch a president. 

I doubt they would pursue a new trial regardless.

You're technically right but I think most defense teams see hung juries as a kind  of win.

 

Because in many trials a hung jury means the evidence is really not that convincing or the situation is just not clear. But if the judge sees someone from the jury just going on his own for no apparent reason then he wont take it and call a mistrial. The prosecution in most cases also doesn't lose much by giving up the case and are not sure a new trial would end any different. This is not the situation with this trial. Giving up the case would give Trump a lot of amunition to go after them. With extremely high profile cases you are kinda all-in. A plea bargain would be the only possible solution then imho. Chances are also that the first verdict will be appealed from either side anyways. But yes, if the trial runs so long and Trump gets re-elected things would get very strange. He might then try to pardon himself which again is uncharted territory.

3 hours ago, BTB1977 said:

Smoke and mirrors from the democrats.  Total BS

34 felony charges. No smoke. No mirrors.

Strong or no strong they just don't want him to run for next presidency. 
I'm not his fan though????. 

14 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Strong or no strong they just don't want him to run for next presidency. 
I'm not his fan though????. 

Why would the dems think he could win this time when he got trounced last time and his endorsed candidates almost all lost in the mid terms?

 

I'm not his fan either ????

17 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

nothing novel or weak about this case

????????????????

1 hour ago, The Theory said:

Strong or no strong they just don't want him to run for next presidency. 
I'm not his fan though????. 

Actually, they do want him to run. They are counting on the 75,000,000 who backed him in 2020 to rally around him as the persecuted.  Then they're counting on the 81,000,000 that got counted for P.J Biden to do it again.

One part is for certain - if Mr. Trump is found guilty, you can kiss the 'United' part of the US good bye. No real winners either way, this is one bridge too far for the Dem's.

It's a weak case:

1. Trump has been charged with falsifying business records, a misdemeanor in New York State. 

2. This allegedly happened 6 years ago, so the statute of limitations expired 4 years ago, thus the case should have been thrown out. 

3. However, Bragg claims there's a higher crime that the falsifying enabled, but won't say what this higher crime is. 

4. Most judges would have thrown out this case because Bragg basically says "I don't have to tell you what the higher crime is".

5. As it stands right now, the case is a misdemeanor where the statute of limitations have long since expired.  

6. Bragg insinuates Trump deceived the voters but New York Congressman Santos lied about EVERYTHING, yet not one single charge against Santos has been filed. 

7. The next hearing is Dec 4th, the case should get throw out before then, but New York judges are pretty corrupt so the case could continue..

8..and if the case continues it'll go Federal and then definitely get thrown out by the Feds. 

All these lawyers are going to look kind of stupid when Trump wins the next election.