Ask Me Help Desk - Kangaroo court

Manhattan Grand Jury exiting the court house

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...Hw&oe=642C2C5B

Former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy's take on the indictment

"If reporting is accurate – and note that the reporting is based on information from Trump lawyers after Bragg’s office advised them of the indictment – then the district attorney has charged a whopping 34 counts against Trump. Thirty-four counts … in a case, again, that federal prosecutors decided wasn’t worth charging at all,” “This is a classic abuse of power. Unscrupulous prosecutors will sometimes camouflage with quantity their case’s lack of quality.”
The whopping outrage in Trump's indictment | Fox News

Madam Mimi of course does not get the American Justice system

Nancy Pelosi on Twitter: "The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right." / Twitter

For a basic civics lesson . No one has to prove their innocence . It is the burden of the prosecution to prove his guilt .

This should not surprise anyone who saw her orchestrate 3 kangaroo courts against Trump in 4 years .

No one is beneath the law either . If this were anyone else but Trump there would be no charges. Trump is the victim of ambitious prosecutors who campaigned to get Trump ..... who's campaigns were funded by George Soros ,and who see a conviction of Trump as a stepping stone to higher office.

And she was the House Speaker for several years. Just amazing how little respect for the law some people exhibit.

Quote:

If reports are accurate, he may attempt to “bootstrap” the misdemeanor into a felony (and longer statute of limitations) by alleging an effort to evade federal election charges.
While Trump will be the first former president indicted, he will not be the last if that is the standard for prosecution.
It is still hard to believe that Bragg would primarily proceed on such a basis. There have been no other crimes discussed over months, but we will have to wait to read the indictment to confirm the grounds.
What we do know is the checkered history leading to this moment.
The Justice Department itself declined to prosecute the federal election claim against Trump. There was ample reason to decline.
The Justice Department went down this road before and it did not go well. They tried to prosecute former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on stronger grounds (which I also criticized) and failed. In that case, campaign officials and donors were directly involved in covering up an affair that produced a child.
At the time, Edwards’ wife was suffering from cancer. The prosecution still collapsed. The reason is that you need to show the sole purpose for paying hush money in such a scandal. For any married man, let alone a celebrity, there are various reasons to want to bury a sexual scandal.
For Trump, there was an upcoming election but he was also a married man allegedly involved in an affair with a porn star. He was also a television celebrity who is subject to the standard “morals clause” that’s triggered by criminal conduct or conduct that brings “public disrepute, scandal, or embarrassment.” These clauses are written broadly to protect the news organizations and their “brand.”
Various presidents from Warren Harding to Bill Clinton have been involved in efforts to hush up affairs. They also had different reasons for burying such scandals, including politics. However, scandals are messy matters with a complex set of motivations. Showing that Trump only acted with the future election in mind — rather than his current marriage or television contracts — is implausible. That was likely the same calculus made by the Justice Department.
That is also why the use of the “bootstrapping” theory as the primary charge would be an indictment of the prosecution and its own conduct. The office has already been tarnished by the conduct of the prosecutors who pushed this theory.

The Trump Indictment: Making History in the Worst Possible Way – JONATHAN TURLEY

Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police famously said "show me the person and I'll find you the crime" .

Bragg had added a new corollary to that . He is charging Trump without any specific crime.
He is patching together trivial alleged misdeamenors ,all of which are past the statute of limitiation and claiming they were part of a larger conspiracy to violate election laws .

One obvious problem is that the Feds ,after an extensive investigation decided to not charge Trump Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction of Federal elections and Trump did not run for any NY office.

Bragg is piling on adding quantity to a weak case . His 34 charges is as if a defendent went into a 7-11 and allegedly stole 34 candy packages . No sane prosecutor would charge 34 times , Of course Bragg does not charge looters at all. By loading up an indictment with dozens of charges, he wants to signal to the eventual jury that Trump must be guilty of something. This is abuse of power .

The DOJ is clear on this issue for Federal crimes . But Bragg has a blank check.at the city level .

In order to promote the fair administration of justice, as well as the perception of justice, all United States Attorneys should charge in indictments and informations as few separate counts as are reasonably necessary to prosecute fully and successfully and to provide for a fair sentence on conviction. To the extent reasonable, indictments and informations should be limited to fifteen counts or less, so long as such a limitation does not jeopardize successful prosecution or preclude a sentence appropriate to the nature and extent of the offenses involved.
215. Number of Counts in Indictments | JM | Department of Justice

His post arraignment presser was notable in that he refused to identify to the press the exact statutes Trump is being charged under . Eventually he will have to lay his cards on the table.

The Dems may be doing Snoopy dances today . But this establishes precedence they may regret .
If your opposition is polling well find any charge and let a partisan local DA run with it . The indictment becomes an electioneering tool .

the precent is of course for President campaigns . People of Texas remember the rail roading of Tom DeLay. He was Repub majority whip during Newt's Congress. He was indicted in 2005 on bogus election violations .

He resigned his position in Congress . He was convicted in a Dem district and sentenced to 3 years in prison. He appealed . The Austin Court of Appeals, ruled that "the evidence in the case was 'legally insufficient to sustain DeLay's convictions'", and DeLay was formally acquitted.
But for the Dems it was mission accomplished ,They got a conservative lawmaker out of Congress.

As Reagan secretary of labor Ray Donovan famously said after his acquittal, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

It's a sad day when prosecutors begin to be used in a political fashion. It's going to be interesting to see if Trump is convicted on anything.

Just another day at the office. That was Bragg's contention about the Trump charges. But was it ? According to the records ,Bragg's office rarely make the charges .

The 34 charges are felony in the first-degree falsifying business records with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Braggs office has gone after 8 people since 2019 with that charge. Statewide that charge was made 300 times .

The most common outcome is . . . a guilty plea to disorderly conduct.

Bragg's office has rarely pursued the charges Trump faces (timesunion.com)