Irregularities in NY v. Trump Trial: The Case (Part 4)

LIST OF IRREGULARITIES BEHIND THE PROSECUTION OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP Case: New York v. Trump, No. 71543-23

PART 4: THE CASE

No Crime • Trump charges are obscure, unprecedented, and are seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. Details: here • There is nothing unlawful about purchasing negative information to suppress its publication Details: here • Hush-money (Non Disclosure Agreement) payments are not campaign expenditures. NDAs per se are perfectly legal and common in civil-law settlements of claims. Former FEC chairman Brad Smith: – They are ‘personal use’ expenses and are not to be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Details: here, here, here • NYT: Only 2 Other Cases in Manhattan Similar to Trump’s With No Underlying Crime Details: summary

The Trick • NYT: Manhattan Trump Case Hinges on Untested, Novel Theory The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. (…) …hush money is not inherently illegal… Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. Details: here • The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had expired CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor: Details: here • To get around the statue of limitation for the misdemeanor, Bragg claims that the misdemeanor was committed in the furtherance of a felony, but he refuses to say what felony FNC legal analyst Gregg Jarrett: Alvin Bragg, the [district attorney] claims that Trump falsified records, which is a mere misdemeanor. The statute of limitations expired four years before the indictment. So to get around that, [Bragg] claims that the misdemeanor was committed in the furtherance of a felony, but he refuses to say what felony. He sort of vaguely refers to: “Trump Violated election laws.” OK. What laws? What statutes? Well, Bragg won’t say, because in a federal election he has no authority to prosecute a federal crime. He is a local prosecutor. He has no jurisdiction. So he is sort of cleverly playing ‘hide the crime.’ Details: here • Bragg bootstrapped “a federal election violation onto state law by claiming Trump falsified the business records to conceal campaign finance crimes,” and that the charges were “even more pathetic than anticipated.” Details: here

Experts: The Case is Terrible, Dubious, Baseless, Absurd • 12 Anti-Trump Pundits And Lawmakers Who Think Bragg’s Case Is Terrible Details: here • Experts called case dubious and baseless Details: here, here • GWU law professor Jonathan Turley slammed the case as “absurd” Details: here

Bragg Has No Authority to Enforce Federal Law • New York local DA doesn’t have the authority to enforce federal law Former SCOTUS clerk Chris Landau: Details: here • Bragg Refuses to Say What Election Law Trump Violated, Because He Has No Authority to Prosecute a Federal Crime Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett: Details: here • As a local DA, Bragg has no jurisdiction to pass judgment on federal campaign laws Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin: Details: here

OTHER AUTHORITIES DECLINED TO CHARGE TRUMP • Others declined to charge Trump (SNDY, previous DA, FEC) No other authority — not the federal prosecutors, not the previous Manhattan district attorney, not even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) — thought that what Trump did was unlawful or that it broke any rule. Details: here

DEMOCRATS NOT PROSECUTED • Hillary Clinton was Fined but Trump Indicted for Misreporting Spending Details: here, FEC letter • Hillary Clinton & other Democrats orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election but were not punished for their Russia-collusion hoax/propaganda Details: here • Democrat John Edwards not convicted on similar case Details: here, here • Biden & Blinken need to be indicted for election inference in 2020 Details: here, here, here

MORE – PART 1: THE JUDGE – PART 2: THE PROSECUTORS & BIDEN – PART 3: THE TRIAL – PART 4: A WEAK CASE

###

This post will be updated later on.