DA Allen Bragg Sues Rep Jordon for Interference/Obstruction

[SimplyMe]

Just so it's clear.
The Manhattan DA case that caused Mr. Pomerantz to quit because Bragg was slow to move, was not the hush money inappropriate content star case. It was the case of Trump overstating the value of his properties for loans, and understating them for tax purposes.

​

Which would seem to completely destroy the right-wing narrative that Bragg is inventing charges so that he can prosecute Trump -- otherwise he would have taken that case to a Grand Jury.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well no. They didn't decide there wasn't enough to charge Trump, the prior DA was requested to stand down by the Trump DOJ.
Moreover, Cohen went to jail for being part of this scheme. I am not sure why anyone would be surprised the person named in his indictment as "individual-1" in co-conspiracy acts would be charged as well. I know people use "woke" to mean anything they don't like, but this is just the continuation from where the prior DA left off after he was told to stand down.

It's not my term...the DA is one 9f those new ones that's pro-criminal and anti-justice. There's a bunch of these scattered around major cities.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You realize that link has absolutely zero to do with what was being discussed -- which was the Ku Klux Klan Act. As such, your reference is irrelevant to that discussion. Additionally, your link doesn't actually go to a particular law, much less a federal law. It is a catch all to help people who feel they have been "maliciously prosecuted" to find a lawyer, so they can find out if they have a case in their state.

I don't expect legal scholars in here. I just pointed out why Bragg’s indictment is questionable.

Additionally, there is little chance that a malicious prosecution charge could be brought against Bragg -- for the simple fact that the indictment came through a Grand Jury.

He brought it to a grand jury didn't he?

He chooses the charges.

In this case, a Grand Jury believed there was enough probable cause to indict Trump, which largely insulates Bragg from any type of malicious prosecution lawsuits.

I've never heard that before.

You need to look again. As I previously have pointed out, the decision "not to prosecute" was not the previous DA. Instead, Bragg. From the previously linked NY Times article, "Mr. Pomerantz described his view of Mr. Trump’s actions as plainly criminal, as well as his frustrations with Mr. Bragg when he took office in 2022 and did not charge Mr. Trump. That decision led Mr. Pomerantz and another of the investigation’s leaders, Carey Dunne, to resign."

So the "woke DA" previously chose not to prosecute former Pres. Trump, so once he finds better evidence to create his case he shouldn't be allowed to bring it? That seems to be what you are arguing. And I fail to see how that makes him "woke."

Absolutely. I wasn't aware he had new evidence.


The reason he's woke is he let's violent felons walk free.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Does it make sense now why he's known as a woke DA? He's been going after Trump pretty hard....but career criminals with violent felonies go free.

Again, as I noted above, it really isn't. As I understand the process in NY state for Felony charges, if the DA had just brought the charges himself (not presented the case to a Grand Jury) there would be a probable cause hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to the trial stage. It is only after a probable cause hearing, if it is found there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial, that a DA could be sued for malicious prosecution.

Or if a judge dismisses the case.

Again, DA Bragg went through a Grand Jury -- it is the Grand Jury that produced the indictment. As such, former Pres. Trump will not get a probable cause hearing as the Grand Jury already decided that there is. As such, DA Bragg cannot be "guilty" of Malicious Prosecution (I put guilty in quotes because it is a civil offense, not a criminal one in NY) since it was found by the Grand Jury that probable cause exists.

Do you think a Grand Jury is just brought together for fun and considers what charges if any, to go after Trump with?

As I noted above, and in a previous post on this thread, it was not the "previous DA," it was DA Bragg that didn't bring charges. While I speculate it is because he found better evidence, that is a guess. Again, the Federal Government allegedly (no actual reasons were given on the record, just unnamed sources) did not prosecute because they felt the verdict would rest on the testimony of Trump's Former Lawyer Michael Cohen; and with his previous lies and conviction, they did not believe the jury would find him credible. Allegedly, (again, no on the record sources), DA Bragg has various records and recordings that he believes will support the case, so the case will not rest solely on the testimony of Cohen

Is Cohen testifying for the prosecution?

-- so while he previously declined to prosecute, fearing the jury would not believe Cohen, he now believes with the extra records he can get a conviction.

Now there may be a different reason why Bragg declined earlier and is proceeding now, regardless, the fact remains he didn't prosecute Trump previously, so something has apparently changed such that he is proceeding now -- it doesn't make him "woke" nor does it mean that the charges are "inflated."

I didn't mean to imply charging Trump was what made him woke. The fact that he let's violent criminals walk is.

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't expect legal scholars in here. I just pointed out why Bragg’s indictment is questionable.



He brought it to a grand jury didn't he?

He chooses the charges.

That is rather the point, though. Yes, Bragg selected the charges and then presented the evidence. The Grand Jury, seeing the evidence, determined that there was enough probable cause to go to trial -- which eliminates a key element required for a finding of malicious persecution.

I've never heard that before.

What do you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is? The purpose of a Grand Jury is literally to examine the evidence to determine if probable cause exists to prosecute a person for a crime.

Absolutely. I wasn't aware he had new evidence.


The reason he's woke is he let's violent felons walk free.

What about that makes him "woke," but rather it would seem to make him soft on crime. From what I can see, though maybe you can give me a concise definition, is that "woke" has no real single meaning and, instead, is just a pejorative used -- that any position by a "Leftist" that conservatives don't like is automatically "woke."

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Does it make sense now why he's known as a woke DA? He's been going after Trump pretty hard....but career criminals with violent felonies go free.

Again, no. I've never seen an actual definition of woke where anyone can do a dictionary type definition of the word. There's a clip of an interview of a woman who wrote a book about the "woke movement" who, when asked in the interview, could not give a definition -- the best she could do is claim that she point to the book. If it takes a book to define a word, then the word has no actual meaning.

Or if a judge dismisses the case.

Not unless the judge determines that there was prosecutorial misconduct in regards to the Grand Jury. Again, it was the Grand Jury that determined that there was probable cause and that issued the indictment. Literally, it is the Grand Jury that would need to be "sued" for malicious prosecution -- since they ultimately determined the charges (even if the DA made the suggestion of the charges) and issued the indictment.

Do you think a Grand Jury is just brought together for fun and considers what charges if any, to go after Trump with?

No, again, the DA believed he had evidence that made it appear former Pres. Trump committed a crime. He presented at least some of that evidence before a grand jury. The grand jury looked at the evidence and determined that probable cause of Trump committing a crime existed, and issued an indictment based on that evidence.

Is Cohen testifying for the prosecution?

That is my understanding, though it's claimed that there are numerous documents, and even recordings, that were used to support Cohen's testimony, since he has credibility issues.

I didn't mean to imply charging Trump was what made him woke. The fact that he let's violent criminals walk is.

So have Twitter users who are "woke" prosecutors who are soft on crime? Again, "woke" has no real meaning but is used a pejorative that largely is applied to those that some individuals disagree with. Though maybe you can show I'm wrong, and show me a definition that clearly shows how a person on Twitter arguing about gay rights is "woke" for the same reasons you are claiming Bragg is woke, for being soft on crime?

 

[Belk]

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.

There is no person who is not a member of multiple protected classes. Everyone is protected on race, sex, sexuality, and several other classes. I do agree that civil rights are not based on those stats though. For example, anyone can have the police violate their 4th amendment rights.

 

[BPPLEE]

That is rather the point, though. Yes, Bragg selected the charges and then presented the evidence. The Grand Jury, seeing the evidence, determined that there was enough probable cause to go to trial -- which eliminates a key element required for a finding of malicious persecution.



What do you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is? The purpose of a Grand Jury is literally to examine the evidence to determine if probable cause exists to prosecute a person for a crime.



What about that makes him "woke," but rather it would seem to make him soft on crime. From what I can see, though maybe you can give me a concise definition, is that "woke" has no real single meaning and, instead, is just a pejorative used -- that any position by a "Leftist" that conservatives don't like is automatically "woke."


Again, no. I've never seen an actual definition of woke where anyone can do a dictionary type definition of the word. There's a clip of an interview of a woman who wrote a book about the "woke movement" who, when asked in the interview, could not give a definition -- the best she could do is claim that she point to the book. If it takes a book to define a word, then the word has no actual meaning.


Not unless the judge determines that there was prosecutorial misconduct in regards to the Grand Jury. Again, it was the Grand Jury that determined that there was probable cause and that issued the indictment. Literally, it is the Grand Jury that would need to be "sued" for malicious prosecution -- since they ultimately determined the charges (even if the DA made the suggestion of the charges) and issued the indictment.



No, again, the DA believed he had evidence that made it appear former Pres. Trump committed a crime. He presented at least some of that evidence before a grand jury. The grand jury looked at the evidence and determined that probable cause of Trump committing a crime existed, and issued an indictment based on that evidence.



That is my understanding, though it's claimed that there are numerous documents, and even recordings, that were used to support Cohen's testimony, since he has credibility issues.


So have Twitter users who are "woke" prosecutors who are soft on crime? Again, "woke" has no real meaning but is used a pejorative that largely is applied to those that some individuals disagree with. Though maybe you can show I'm wrong, and show me a definition that clearly shows how a person on Twitter arguing about gay rights is "woke" for the same reasons you are claiming Bragg is woke, for being soft on crime?

Woke is like obscenity. I can’t define it but I know it when I see it

 

[Say it aint so]

It's not my term...the DA is one 9f those new ones that's pro-criminal and anti-justice. There's a bunch of these scattered around major cities.

Yes, that is your term. It's been co-opted to mean just what I said.

 

[SimplyMe]

Woke is like obscenity. I can’t define it but I know it when I see it

As I said, it is things that people dislike politically -- it has no real meaning. After all, obscene is defined as "offensive to moral principles" or "of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency."

Obscenity has a clear definition, what makes opinions as to what is considered "obscene" vary from person to person is a different moral standard. There is no such definition of woke.

 

[BPPLEE]

As I said, it is things that people dislike politically -- it has no real meaning. After all, obscene is defined as "offensive to moral principles" or "of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency."

Obscenity has a clear definition, what makes opinions as to what is considered "obscene" vary from person to person is a different moral standard. There is no such definition of woke.

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an adjectivederived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.[3][4][5]

 

[SimplyMe]

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an adjectivederived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.[3][4][5]

Odd that I see nothing about DA's that are "soft on crime," so not quite sure how that makes Bragg "woke." Again, the current use today is anything that a person on "the Right" doesn't like about the views of a person on "the Left."

 

[BPPLEE]

Odd that I see nothing about DA's that are "soft on crime," so not quite sure how that makes Bragg "woke." Again, the current use today is anything that a person on "the Right" doesn't like about the views of a person on "the Left."

The infiltration of woke DA’s into the justice system will not be easy to fix | Fox News

A new, 'woke' army of activist prosecutors is on the rise and their goal is not the rule of law or even safety

www.foxnews.com

 

[SimplyMe]

The infiltration of woke DA’s into the justice system will not be easy to fix | Fox News

A new, 'woke' army of activist prosecutors is on the rise and their goal is not the rule of law or even safety

www.foxnews.com

If that is what you meant, you should have claimed the prosecutor was trying to use his office for "social justice," not that he was soft on crime.

 

[BPPLEE]

If that is what you meant, you should have claimed the prosecutor was trying to use his office for "social justice," not that he was soft on crime.

You’ve got me mixed up with someone else. You said there was no definition for woke, I provided one then you moved the goalposts.

 

[SimplyMe]

You’ve got me mixed up with someone else. You said there was no definition for woke, I provided one then you moved the goalposts.

My mistake, then the person that was using that claim should have claimed that is what they meant by "woke." Again, it seems that many use the term to mean anything about a "leftist" that they don't like.

 

[A2SG]

If a person is innocent until proven guilty - and is not proven guilty - he is still innocent

Just like OJ.

-- A2SG, maybe Trump will write an "If I Did It" book too......

 

[Hank77]

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.

No, last week the previous DA, Cyrus Vance, said that he halted his case because the federal government asked him to because they were working on a case. I can't remember what that case was but you could do a search on YouTube and find his statement. He has never claimed there wasn't cause to bring the case.

 

[Hank77]

That is my understanding, though it's claimed that there are numerous documents, and even recordings, that were used to support Cohen's testimony, since he has credibility issues.

Mr. Pecker, the National Enquirer guy, that bought Karen McDugals (sp?) story to bury it for Trump has been in for questioning twice and he has made a deal with the DA. I think we'll see him testify as well.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ex-RNC Spokesperson Hits Rep. Jim Jordan With Some Harsh Truths About NYC Stunt​

Tim Miller summed up the Ohio Republican's "field hearing" as “made-for-TV culture war low-calorie nonsense."

“If you are fighting for victims of crime, you will be going out there saying, ‘Oh, hey, we’re proposing reforms, like we’re proposing police reforms.’ Whatever it is. ‘Criminal justice reform we think that will make our streets safer,’” said Miller.

“That is not what this is. This is just a big show, a performative show, to performatively fight Alvin Bragg...."

“He’s not doing any of the hard things,” Miller added. “It’s just all this, ‘Oh, I can do a good tweet or a good, you know, have a good hearing performance that makes fun of somebody that my people hate.’ And that is fighting I guess, in this sort of distorted worldview, and that is the whole party now. And he’s had success within the party because he represents that.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Whatever Pomerantz's beef with Bragg might have been, he knows what Jordan's nonsense is about.

The former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, in an opening statement prepared for his deposition and obtained by NBC News, called the Judiciary Committee’s demand for his testimony “an act of political theater.”

“Fortunately, I do not have to cooperate with the cynical histrionics that this deposition represents,” said Pomerantz.

“We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him,” Pomerantz said.

He added the DA’s office had instructed him to maintain the office’s claims of privilege and confidentiality to protect the integrity of the criminal case against Trump.

And so he didn't answer any questions after reading his statement.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, in an opening statement prepared for his deposition and obtained by NBC News, called the Judiciary Committee’s demand for his testimony “an act of political theater.” “Fortunately, I do not have to cooperate with the cynical histrionics that this deposition represents,” said Pomerantz.
“We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him,” Pomerantz said.
And so he didn't answer any questions after reading his statement.

Don't know the status of the lawsuit, but now that the trial is over, Bragg is only to happy to comply with Jim Jordan's request for testimony.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agrees to testify before Congress following Trump verdict​

Bragg’s office has resisted calls to testify before Congress citing the ongoing case against the former president, but in a letter Friday to GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bragg stated his willingness to testify at a future date.

Jordan, along with House Oversight Chairman James Comer and House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, sent a letter calling for Bragg’s testimony last year ahead of the trial and criticized Bragg’s investigation into the former president as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”