DA Allen Bragg Sues Rep Jordon for Interference/Obstruction

[A2SG]

As for the "they're trying to get him to not run because they're scared of him" meme, there's nothing that prevents someone charged with, or even convicted of, a crime (other than insurrection) from running for or holding office.

True enough. An interesting piece of Massachusetts history: when James Michael Curley ran for his fourth term as mayor of Boston (nonconsecutive, he'd been governor and a US representative since his third term as mayor) he was indicted for mail fraud (for the second time, no less), he still managed to win with 45% of the vote. During his term, he was convicted and sentenced to prison. He remained as mayor, and returned to the job after President Truman reduced his sentence, with a crowd of thousands celebrating his return.

So an indictment, even a conviction, doesn't necessarily prevent anyone from holding office.

-- A2SG, so much for that bit of obfuscation.....

 

[HTacianas]

Again, Trump can try and sue Bragg for a violation of his civil rights. It does not give Jordan the right to oversee an indictment, much less the information the prosecutor has, that is from a state court.

Beyond that, if you notice, your example uses a civil rights class. On what basis is Bragg violating Trump's Civil Rights -- religion, gender, race? I'm sorry, Real Estate mogul and ex-President aren't protected classes for civil rights protections.

You do not need to be a member of a protected class to have your civil rights violated. To assert that is to assert that anyone who is not a member of a protected class has no civil rights.

 

[disciple Clint]

says who and exactly how is he doing that, in what ways.

 

[USincognito]

You do not need to be a member of a protected class to have your civil rights violated. To assert that is to assert that anyone who is not a member of a protected class has no civil rights.

What civil right is being violated? Are you seriously suggesting that holding people accountable for criminal activity is a violation of civil rights? Come on man! Listen to yourself.

There is no civil right to run for office, but that's irrelevant because:
Donald only announced that he's running because he thought it would prevent him from being indicted.
Donald's indictment isn't preventing him from running.
Donald being convicted in Manhattan won't prevent him from running or serving.

 

[HTacianas]

What civil right is being violated? Are you seriously suggesting that holding people accountable for criminal activity is a violation of civil rights? Come on man! Listen to yourself.

There is no civil right to run for office, but that's irrelevant because:
Donald only announced that he's running because he thought it would prevent him from being indicted.
Donald's indictment isn't preventing him from running.
Donald being convicted in Manhattan won't prevent him from running or serving.

Trump is not being held accountable for any criminal activity. If he was we would know what the criminal activity was.

 

[USincognito]

Trump is not being held accountable for any criminal activity. If he was we would know what the criminal activity was.

A. I see you didn't answer my question about which of his civil rights is supposedly being violated.
B. The feigned ignorance shtick is getting old.

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

manhattanda.org

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.​

​

TRUMP is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.​

​

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”​

 

[Always in His Presence]

And just like that we have all become experts in law…..

Jordan has not subpoenaed Bragg, but his predecessor. Perhaps to find out why he resigned from the case and get some background information on an issue that the Feds reviewed and found no cause, the former DA reviewed and found no cause and the Bragg ran his campaign specifically on prosecutions he is going after right now.

 

[HTacianas]

A. I see you didn't answer my question about which of his civil rights is supposedly being violated.
B. The feigned ignorance shtick is getting old.

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

manhattanda.org

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.​

​

TRUMP is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.​

​

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”​

I already answered your question as to civil rights. You either didn't read my answer or you didn't understand it.

But anyways, I have no interest in continuing this war of attrition with you.

 

[SimplyMe]

And just like that we have all become experts in law…..

Jordan has not subpoenaed Bragg, but his predecessor. Perhaps to find out why he resigned from the case and get some background information on an issue that the Feds reviewed and found no cause, the former DA reviewed and found no cause and the Bragg ran his campaign specifically on prosecutions he is going after right now.

Care to try again? Pomerantz is not a former DA, but a lawyer who worked in the DA's office, worked under Bragg on the Trump case, so you can quit pretending this isn't directly related to the current prosecution of Donald Trump. Beyond that, Jordan also subpoenaed a current senior counsel in the NY DA's office, Matthew Colangelo. That isn't just getting "background info."

Further, unless you are claiming Jordan is lying, he has stated on Fox News that these are merely the "opening salvo" -- after his initial letter demanding the documents and communications about any prosecution of Donald Trump, both those used for the indictment and communications between his office and the DoJ about Donald Trump. Of course, we know Bragg also refused to turn over those documents.

Of course, the truly ironic thing about this, DA Bragg's lawsuit relies on Trump v Mazers USA, the Supreme Court case that was brought by Trump to quash their subpeonas. In this decision, the Supreme Court laid out that Congress does not have an unlimited right to issue subpoenas, but instead gave a four-point test that would determine if a subpoena issued by Congress is valid.

 

[SimplyMe]

I already answered your question as to civil rights. You either didn't read my answer or you didn't understand it.

But anyways, I have no interest in continuing this war of attrition with you.

You really didn't. Your claim was related to the Ku Klux Clan act, the part that has been rescinded, and where it relates "...to prevent any person from accepting or holding...". As has been shown, though, even if that section wasn't rescinded by Congress, there is still the issue that this doesn't prevent former Pres. Trump from "accepting or holding" office.

So, no, you've never been able to articulate what civil right is being denied.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Care to try again? Pomerantz is not a former DA, but a lawyer who worked in the DA's office, worked under Bragg on the Trump case, so you can quit pretending this isn't directly related to the current prosecution of Donald Trump.

No one is pretending this is completely related to the case against Trump - The local DA who ran on going after the former President - the case that the Federal Government did not find cause for charges - the case that the former NY DA chose not to pursue - that case.

Please don't pretend this is exclusively a political move to keep the man out of running for political office. The American Public in general is seeing the hypocrisy and it is shown in part by Trump's increasing support with hundreds of thousands of first time donors.

Please don't serve us a mud sandwich and tell us it is peanut butter -

 

[Always in His Presence]

Further, unless you are claiming Jordan is lying, he has stated on Fox News that these are merely the "opening salvo" -- after his initial letter demanding the documents and communications about any prosecution of Donald Trump, both those used for the indictment and communications between his office and the DoJ about Donald Trump. Of course, we know Bragg also refused to turn over those documents.

Two words: Congressional Oversight

Remember those words - very important when the Democrats were in charge - still are today.

Of course, the truly ironic thing about this, DA Bragg's lawsuit relies on Trump v Mazers USA, the Supreme Court case that was brought by Trump to quash their subpeonas. In this decision, the Supreme Court laid out that Congress does not have an unlimited right to issue subpoenas, but instead gave a four-point test that would determine if a subpoena issued by Congress is valid.

I am not an online legal expert and I don't play one in real life -

But I know this. If the courts find that the subpoena's should be "quashed" I am comfortable in the system to reluctantly agree. Question: Are you as trusting if the courts allow the subpoena's to stand?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Swalwell's Attempt to Defend Alvin Bragg from Jim Jordan Backfires So Badly He's Pretending It Never Happened

From California or a Washington, D.C., office building, this might have seemed smart. But Swalwell should have looked at a map, too.

www.westernjournal.com

Eric Swalwell can’t stop making a fool of himself.​

​

The California congressman, best known for a failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 and a suspicious relationship with a Chinese spy, has become his party’s point man for attacking the Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.​

​

But his latest attack on Rep. Jim Jordan backfired so badly Swalwell apparently had to delete his own Twitter post.​

 

[Arcangl86]

Two words: Congressional Oversight

Two words. States' RIghts.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Two words. States' RIghts.

And that is what we have the courts to decide. I am content with the courts outcome no matter who they side with, as I am sure you are also.

 

[SimplyMe]

No one is pretending this is completely related to the case against Trump - The local DA who ran on going after the former President - the case that the Federal Government did not find cause for charges - the case that the former NY DA chose not to pursue - that case.

So he's subpoenaing the attorney that quit because Bragg wasn't prosecuting Pres. Trump? That logic doesn't seem to fit.

Also, the Federal Government chose not to prosecute, they never claimed there was no grounds to prosecute. Though it has never given the reasons, allegedly it was because they did not believe Trump committed a crime but rather they worried if they could get a conviction, based on how much of the conviction would depend on the testimony of Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, who went to jail for these same charges. So please quit misrepresenting the facts.

Also, as has been pointed out multiple times, the former DA had been requested not to pursue the case while the Federal Prosecutors were still working on it.

Please don't pretend this is exclusively a political move to keep the man out of running for political office. The American Public in general is seeing the hypocrisy and it is shown in part by Trump's increasing support with hundreds of thousands of first time donors.

Please don't serve us a mud sandwich and tell us it is peanut butter -

It has been stated here that a conviction would not prevent Pres. Trump from running for political office -- that in fact a conviction would not prevent him from running for President. Perhaps you can show us the evidence that proves this is false? It appears to be you that is trying to serve us a "mud sandwich."

It also ignores the fact, if this is all just a "political move" and has no basis in fact, then Trump should have no issue either in getting the charges dropped or being found not guilty -- and that would likely backfire on Bragg. Why, if the case is so weak and politically motivated, do Trump and Jordan feel they need to attack the DA; particularly when Trump, after the fact, could sue (one of Trump's favorite things to do) Bragg for "malicious prosecution?'

More to the point, this entire point seems to be an attempt to distract from the actual topic, that of Congressman Jordan being sued because he is attempting to interfere with Trump's prosecution. That he's doing it after being specifically asked by Donald Trump to do it (so basically is Trump trying to obstruct his own prosecution) and that Jordan has implied that he is specifically doing this for Donald Trump and to punish NY DA Bragg.

 

[SimplyMe]

Two words: Congressional Oversight

Remember those words - very important when the Democrats were in charge - still are today.

I am not an online legal expert and I don't play one in real life -

But I know this. If the courts find that the subpoena's should be "quashed" I am comfortable in the system to reluctantly agree. Question: Are you as trusting if the courts allow the subpoena's to stand?

Why should I have an issue with letting the courts decide? I will be interested in their reasoning, whichever way they rule. I'm also interested, given how much of the "legal commentary" from both sides is "politically motivated," to see how well the Prosecution in Trump's case proves their case.

As this appears to be the weakest of the potential cases against Trump, I'm also interested to see what other indictments we might still see, from either/both from Georgia and the Special Prosecutor.

 

[HTacianas]

You really didn't. Your claim was related to the Ku Klux Clan act, the part that has been rescinded, and where it relates "...to prevent any person from accepting or holding...". As has been shown, though, even if that section wasn't rescinded by Congress, there is still the issue that this doesn't prevent former Pres. Trump from "accepting or holding" office.

So, no, you've never been able to articulate what civil right is being denied.

No, actually I have. You simply made the unsubstantiated claim that the law isn't in effect anymore.

And it is patently obvious to anyone that Bragg is simply harassing Trump. He charged him with a litany of misdemeanors that the statutes of limitations have expired on. Then to try to get around that he elevated the charges to felonies without explaining what precisely the felonies were. The entire world is laughing at him for even bringing the charges. And has been said before, after all the time and expense he has wasted on this with only that to show for it, Trump must be the most honest businessman in New York.

 

[USincognito]

I already answered your question as to civil rights. You either didn't read my answer or you didn't understand it.

You did not and please don't try to gaslight me.

But anyways, I have no interest in continuing this war of attrition with you.

I understand.

 

[Always in His Presence]

As this appears to be the weakest of the potential cases against Trump, I'm also interested to see what other indictments we might still see, from either/both from Georgia and the Special Prosecutor.

There is always hope - the cases and investigations and inquiries against Trump stand at o and 1,260 - but hey! There is always hope something might actually succeed.