Sorry, but I do not trust Alvin Bragg

[markpkessinger]

An article in yesterday's NY Times, titled "The Legal Intricacies That Could Make or Break the Case Against Trump" (see https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/nyregion/trump-indictment-legal-theory.html?searchResultPosition=10) does a nice job of laying out the legal complexities of Bragg's case against Trump. As the articles notes, DA Bragg "may have to pull off a difficult maneuver, connecting the hush-money cover-up — a potential violation of state law — to a federal election." The article goes on to explain:

The details of any indictment that may be handed up as soon as this week are not yet known, and Mr. Bragg could charge any number of crimes. But there is a possibility that the case will rely on a legal theory that has never been evaluated by a judge.

[ . . . . ]

The case could hinge on the way Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, handled reimbursing Mr. Cohen for the payment of $130,000 to Ms. Daniels. Internal Trump Organization records falsely classified the reimbursements as legal expenses, which helped conceal the purpose of the payments, according to Mr. Cohen, who said Mr. Trump knew about the misleading records. (Mr. Trump’s lawyers deny that.)

In New York, falsifying business records can be a crime, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts. The false business records charge is the bread and butter of the district attorney’s office white-collar practice — since Mr. Bragg took office in 2022, prosecutors have filed 117 felony counts of the charge, against 29 individuals and companies, according to data kept by the office.

But for falsifying business records to be a felony, not a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. That crime could be a violation of election law, under the theory that the payout served as a donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, because it silenced Ms. Daniels and shut down a potential sex scandal in the final stretch of the campaign.

Although the district attorney’s office need not obtain a conviction on the election law violation, or even include it in the indictment, that second crime might be the aspect of the legal theory that is most vulnerable to attack.

So why do I distrust Bragg?

Here's the thing: just over a year ago, two highly experienced prosecutors, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, resigned in protest over Bragg's refusal to proceed with a racketeering case against Trump and the Trump Organization, which they believed was strong and which was ready to go. So how is it that Bragg went from refusing to prosecute a case involving a much more legally significant charge that two much more experienced prosecutors believed was solid and were ready to prosecute, to a year later being willing to try a case based on an untested legal theory, involving a much lesser charge? That really doesn't make much sense, and it makes me wonder what game Bragg might be playing.

[Ohio Joe]

1. So...

Right now the charges and how they will be presented is all speculation... They have not been announced yet. I'll wait till they are before deciding what the chances are they can succeed.

[markpkessinger]

2. My big worry . . .

. . . is that if Bragg proceeds, and is unsuccessful, it will only serve to strengthen Trump, and may make it more difficult to proceed against him with more consequential charges in Georgia or at the federal level.

[Sneederbunk]

3. Only if Harris and Smith sit on their hands.

[FakeNoose]

14. This is an unlikely scenario IMHO

The Georgia indictments (if and when) as well as the federal DoJ indictments (if and when) would be for crimes that Chump committed while in office as the President. The chances for success on those are very real and extremely serious.

However the actions that are under consideration by AG Bragg and the Manhattan grand jury were for things that happened before Chump was President. I believe that NY's case is the iffiest of the three, and yet it still looks like a slam-dunk to those of us who have been paying attention. Even if NY takes a pass and fails to indict, the other 2 cases are very strong. The mountains of evidence against Chump are just piling up everywhere.

[Zeitghost]

15. I Agree

And from everything I can tell with the Stormy Daniels case, as soon as any indictment comes out, it will likely be dismissed due to the statute of limitations running out (2 years for. misdemeanors and 5 for non-violent felonies) in NY State.

[Casady1]

4. I think it is all for Mr. Bragg's glory

He wants to be the person who struck down Trump. I think that this should not be the first case. It is a minor case in the scheme of things and actually will make all the cases coming after his look like a witchunt. The Georgia case should be the lead case.

Remember it is almost equivalent to Clinton and Monica and that no one really cares about someone's personal lives.

[bigtree]

11. first of all, prosecutors don't schedule their work according to some other effort

...in some other state.

They don't coordinate their scheduling, so this is just inanely false, on its face.

What I can't understand is why someone on a Democratic board is talking about 'Clinton and Monica' in the same breath that they're declaring the prosecution of Trump, which we should ALL agree on, as a 'witchhunt.'

This is really remarkably anti Trump-prosecution. It just is, and I think it's garbage.

[Casady1]

17. Thank you for that wonderful analysis.

Maybe I didn't make my opinion understandable. What I mean is if Bragg's case is only a misdemeanor then all of the prosecutions may be jeopardy as far as how the general population will perceive it. As far as Clinton/ Monica I think it is how the general public will perceive it not the people who are emotionally attached to his prosecution which I think you are.

[markpkessinger]

38. I think you may be right n/t

[brooklynite]

5. Well, it's refreshing that Garland isn't the only "he won't do anything" target.

If you imagine that Bragg is "playing a game", why did he bother to impanel a GC and bring a case to them?

[markpkessinger]

7. Could be a response to the heat he got over the two resignations n/t

[brooklynite]

9. He didn't get "heat" except from the blogosphere

As painful as it may be to acknowledge, the average Democratic voter (the ones who voted him into office in 2021) aren't fixated on Trump's prosecution. Bragg campaigned on dealing with local criminal justice issues, and was elected on that basis.

[msfiddlestix]

26. How do you KNOW with such certainty that he didn't "get any heat" from anywhere othr than

"the blogosphere"? And oh by the way, I don't believe you actually know very many "average" democratic voters.

casual or formal acquaintances with a handful is not enough to make this claim.

I'm not waiting with baited breath, but I am a bit fixated and so are my neighbors.

It's why i don't even have to watch it on tv, cuz they're watching instead. and they don't even have online blog accounts to anything other than maybe Next Door. And that's only two out of 48 people in my complex alone.

The rest of my peeps are musicians and we're fairly busy with our work, but not a practice time goes without a mention of the status pertaining to the legal issues going on with tfg.

just a little perspective on what the average democratic voter might likely be thinking about this matter.

From my perch, it seems to me like the "heat" was coming from other professionals in the field.

[brooklynite]

30. I live in NYC and engage in political activity with "real" Democrats...

...the ones who, by the way, elected Eric Adams as Mayor, rather than more progressive choices. I started out as a Ward Committeeman in Philadelphia, and one of the first lessons I learned was not to confuse MY opinions with those of my voters. I know what local voters and elected officials here are thinking of and saying about local issues, and they're not talking about Trump.


nb: the very fact that you're here discussing politics means that you're NOT an "average Democratic voter".

[markpkessinger]

32. "the ones who elected Eric Adams"

Right. The guy who says, "Don't tell me about no separation of church and state."

[brooklynite]

35. Precisely the point...

That pissed off Political activists and progressives, but it didn’t rule his working class base voters. Ministers of central Brooklyn churches were a big part of his turn-out operation.

[msfiddlestix]

36. I'm aware of certain aspects of your political life, as you shared frequently here

Average voters would view your connections as an "insider".. someone who is connected to the party leadership, apparatus or "machine". Your affluence affords you the opportunities the average couldn't even dream of getting close to. You are able to fund raise and make considerable donations to campaigns locally, national office and local/state offices. the country.

Obviously the party needs people such as yourself and the circles you are involved with to succeed and win!

Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Without it "we" would fail. You knew your affluent voters, where you live. People who had the economic means and wherewithall to raise more money for ads, organize volunteers to do the door knocking. etc etc.

My neighbors are not DU members. Nor are they even on line much. We gather, we chat, we cross paths everyday. We have community dinners, weekly breakfast and the occasional community potluck. I'm not sure how many times my neighbors asked me this week if I heard about impending indictments "finally" this week. I come here to skim the headlines specifically on this topic, because it is of great interest to me. and oh yeah my neighbors, who are also voters.

We are not all on line or members of DU, but I can tell you for a fact these very average retired seniors are quite eager to see justice to that psychopath, are just as frustrated as many of us here on DU that it seems to have taken so long, and reflect a certain cynicism regarding the outcome of any of it at the end of the day.

That I do know with certainty.

[brooklynite]

37. I'm not referring to my "connections"

I'm referring to my work with local political groups (New Kings Democrats for example), Community Boards, etc. as well as 45 years of political activity and evaluation of election outcomes before I had the funding to have "connections.

FYI: I listened in on a constituent town hall call with Leader Hakeem Jeffries this week. Nobody raised concerns about Trump and criminal justice.

[msfiddlestix]

44. Fair enough

I know what you mean about issues of concern brought to townhall meetings!

I don't think I ever recall issues brought to one involving what's happening in DC.

Not here anyways. usually complaining about potholes, and protesting the proposed Circle at a the main intersection, or demanding street lights at the intersection, sewage issues, complaints about the planning commission's development zoning issues. where's the bike lines? oh gosh never ending local issues to be sure.

[Joinfortmill]

40. Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.

[hlthe2b]

6. I take your points. But on the current case I constantly hear pundits bemoaning the inability to

tie a state charge with a Federal charge (campaign finance) which would be required to elevate the "intent to defraud" state charge to a felony. However, there are similar STATE election laws that could tie the two together--something I never see mentioned and always from lawyers outside NY citing Federal laws. I am no expert on NY law so I'd like to see it addressed as to whether state election law violations would be sufficient to upgrade the "intent to defraud" charge to a felony. And if not, why? I recognize the lack of precedence for tying it to the Federal campaign laws, but why not state?

[bigtree]

8. he's already sucessfully prosecuted Trump Org., with 5 convictions

...and he's on the precipice of finishing the case.

...question for you is why would you be so concerned about an earlier refusal to prosecute, as Bragg is poised to do just that right now?

If he's 'playing a game' by moving forward, then why isn't that same logic applied to the prosecutors urging him to go forward earlier, presumably without as much evidence as he appears to have gathered now?

It makes no sense to laud those prosecutors who left, while castigating Bragg for doggedly pursuing what we should assume was their ultimate aim, to prosecute this case.

This attack on Bragg is full of contradictions and outright distortions.

[Scrivener7]

12. The Trump Org was fined $1.6 million in that "successful prosecution." That's probably

the annual budget for flowers for the offices. And that was the fine for a conviction of 17 felonies. And it was a fraction of the money swindled during the perpetration of those 17 felonies. So basically, it's a cost of doing business and a slap on the wrist.

And they failed to get Weisselberg to implicate Trump despite trying for a year and a half.

And the racketeering charges, which Pomerantz and Dunne said were a very strong case that was ready to go to court, were abandoned.

I don't think a significant consequence is going to come out of Bragg's office.

Hope I'm wrong.

[bigtree]

13. that's much different from the 'I don't trust Bragg' garbage in the op

...which is little more than a unfounded smear.

It's one thing to complain about the severity of a charge or conviction, even though it's a bizzare thing to complain about holding someone in power as accountable to the law as the rest of us who face almost certain accountability for even the slightest infractions of law in measure with the severity of the crime.

It's quite another to suggest, as the op does, that there's something untoward or 'untrustworthy' in rejecting recommendations from people not charged with the decision to prosecute, and then later coming to the point where this DA apparently believes a prosecution can move forward.

'Failing to get' whoever you list right now in a swirl of ongoing investigations and prosecutions is less determinative than it would be at the actual end of those investigatory efforts. Citing them for 'failing to get Weisselberg to implicate Trump,' is a bit premature, considering Trump Org. is still on the hook in the Stormy affair.

Moreover, Scrivener7, we still don't know what charges are forthcoming from Bragg. They could very well include elements of the fraud he prosecuted in the earlier case. It's more likely with those convictions that they would have access to what they would need to fill out the Stormy effort.

But, as long as it's proceeding, all sorts of stones can be launched their way with the kind of scattershot aim used here in criticism. None of it means much without the actual charges announced.

[Scrivener7]

18. I have to say, though, that the decades of tfg skating in NYC leave a very suspicious taste in my

mouth. He has NEVER faced a consequence.

I personally believe that one of our behind-the-scenes king-makers (which I think is how politics is done here) either has tfg's back, or tfg has something on him. And so tfg has ALWAYS, through many DA's and many years and many crimes, gotten away with everything. You may ask for a link for proof. I have none. Only 40 years of watching him operate.

To me, this continues that trend. There will be something the public can point to as "look! He's been convicted of something!" but in the end, like the Trump Org trial result, it will not be anything that actually hurts him.

If this charge, when it comes, comes down as a significant felony, I will believe the streak has been broken. But the fact that this has gone from racketeering to misuse of election funds does not fill me with hope.

If that's a smear, it's a smear on a system that has been in operation for who knows how long? And Bragg is just a small piece of it. In some places, and I think NYC is one of them, you have to play the game to be able to participate in politics. I don't blame Bragg for doing it. If it isn't him, it would be someone else, and Bragg has a perfectly admirable agenda that will be paid for by playing this game, if that is what he is doing.

[Scrivener7]

25. I am not saying anything about any of the other cases. Just the NYC ones.

There is nothing in my post to suggest I am talking about a group or chain.

I also certainly am not saying anything is resulting from any groundswell from the public. I am actually saying the opposite.

I'm also not saying anything about his "getting his due right now."

Perhaps you were responding to a different post?

I am saying I don't think the remaining NYC case will result in serious consequences for tfg.

And PS: In the US, laws are not meted out evenly and fairly. Never have been.

[bigtree]

28. it's to your wider point, because the NY effort is in it's own universe

...and these prosecutions should be looked at on their individual merit, not just according to whether they give Trump his due or will 'hurt him.'

That's what I was responding to, with a few lines of response that may well not occur to you as relevant to what you wrote. This not our first convo on this, I'll just let all of that stand, fwiw.

[Scrivener7]

29. For what it's worth.

[bigtree]

31. to you

...

[Just A Box Of Rain]

27. Unfortunately, the 1.6 million dollar fine is the maximum allowed under the law.

If you believe the maximum penalties allowed in such cases are insufficiently low, then we have common ground. As it is, NY prosecutors achieved getting a maximum fine imposed.

Numerous commentators have pointed out that the ramifications for the conviction will hit the Trump Org beyond the fines, as most lenders have policies not to fund companies with these sorts of fraud convictions.

That doesn't change my conviction that the current maximum penalties are far too light.

[bigtree]

42. not only that

...Allen Weisselberg is still an active witness for the prosecution, including his testimony in the trial he just plead guilty in.

There are truthful testimony requirements in his plea.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BlackSkimmer]

33. Thank you.

I've had doubts about this from the beginning.

[Casady1]

19. How effective

has the Trump organization guilty verdict been on Trump nationally? IMO it has had almost no effect. Also, those two prosecutor's have great reputations. Substantially better than Bragg. One was at Paul Weiss which is a great law firm and one I talk to all the time.

[bigtree]

23. it's always so insipring to me when people mock justice

...shows they really care.

[Casady1]

24. Thank you for

your wonderful analysis.

[BlackSkimmer]

34. Where is the mocking?

I see someone expressing their opinions, doubts, and thoughts on a discussion board.

[Joinfortmill]

41. There's something we don't know. None of this makes much sense on the face of it.

[Moosepoop]

10. I'm not sure I trust Pomerantz and Dunne

At least not so far as to give them all of the benefit of the doubt.

Here's a timeline and analysis of the Bragg/Pomerantz/Dunne dispute, which I found rather interesting.

https://terikanefield.com/the-trump-ny-criminal-investigation-the-saga-of-mark-pomerantz-alvin-bragg/

There's a lot of food for thought in there.

[BComplex]

16. Everything I heard and saw from Pomerantz screamed of racial undertones.

At first I thought what they were saying was true, because I wanted so badly for trump to be indicted. But the more I learned, the more I doubted, and the less I respected, Pomerantz. Still not sure about Dunne in all of this.

[Casady1]

20. Pomerantz has a stellar reputation

from a great law firm(Paul Weiss).

[OilemFirchen]

21. To his credit, he did get a book deal.

So there's that, I guess.

[Joinfortmill]

39. I hear you. There's something(s) we don't know.

[ripcord]

43. I'm sure DA Bragg stays up at night worried about your lack of trust

[Scrivener7]

47. This quip - that we should not discuss events because people involved in the

event don't care about our discussions - has begun to show up a lot on DU.

Do the people who resort to it think it makes a point? If so, what point?

If you don't want to discuss a subject, then don't. Move on.

[ecstatic]

46. It is weird, you're right. It would be nice if Willis or Jack Smith

pounced first because the New York case is kind of a circus. Though at the end of the day, trump should be held accountable for everything, just like the rest of us.