ABC anchor shows his true colors when Trump attorney points out inconvenient fact about Trump prosecutor: 'In front of you'

rambot said:

"There is no collusion".

Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for any rational thinking human being.

But don't worry, we'll find the fingerprints eventually too, but I don't need the fingerprint in light of the mass amounts of circumstantial evidence.

You can convict someone for murder without a body, it's just harder. Here, we have the body, no worries.

A2SG said:

My word....a prosecutor campaigning on getting criminals convicted???

Oh my stars and garters....

-- A2SG, good thing he found the time to get that pesky evidence and stuff.....

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm kinda with you on how Bragg ran. He ran on the ability to prosecute high profile cases such as Trump's, but wasn't specifically saying that he would prosecute. I watched a couple of his speeches in full so I feel confident in my personal assessment here.

So I'm not a Republican who worries about his rhetoric when running for office.

What I do think should be pointed to is that after Bragg got into office and saw the evidence in the case that had been considered being brought against Trump, Bragg declined to prosecute, angering many on the far left at the time who felt owed something.

In fact if I recall correctly (and this is memory only so I could be wrong here) Alvin Bragg said at the time he was declining prosecution and that he couldn't imagine a universe he would bring these charges against anyone, saying there was no case to bring.

This position changed quite suddenly after Donald Trump announced he was running for office again in the 2024 presidential election.

3 months after that announcement, suddenly Alvin Bragg is bringing these baseless charges and the Assistant Attorney General of the United States and appointee of the Biden Administration has quit this highly esteemed position and suddenly lead prosecutor in the case against the leading candidate for the opposition party.

It's a bit too coincidental for most thinking people.

In fact, people like myself look at it like the Democratic party owns Bragg, and has taken over where they consider him to have fallen down on the job, in short, this is a political hack being run from the top down.

That's just what it looks like.

In a way I actually feel kinda sorry for Bragg. Whatever they have over him is concrete for sure. Sad someone's life can come to such. He had more promise than that.

Hazelelponi said:

Actually, I'm kinda with you on how Bragg ran. He ran on the ability to prosecute high profile cases such as Trump's, but wasn't specifically saying that he would prosecute. I watched a couple of his speeches in full so I feel confident in my personal assessment here.

So I'm not a Republican who worries about his rhetoric when running for office.

What I do think should be pointed to is that after Bragg got into office and saw the evidence in the case that had been considered being brought against Trump, Bragg declined to prosecute, angering many on the far left at the time who felt owed something.

In fact if I recall correctly (and this is memory only so I could be wrong here) Alvin Bragg said at the time he was declining prosecution and that he couldn't imagine a universe he would bring these charges against anyone, saying there was no case to bring.

This position changed quite suddenly after Donald Trump announced he was running for office again in the 2024 presidential election.

3 months after that announcement, suddenly Alvin Bragg is bringing these baseless charges and the Assistant Attorney General of the United States and appointee of the Biden Administration has quit this highly esteemed position and suddenly lead prosecutor in the case against the leading candidate for the opposition party.

It's a bit too coincidental for most thinking people.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to how accurate your memory of events may or may not be...but the fact remains, based on the evidence provided by the prosecution, a jury did convict Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business documents in the first degree. Whether or not Bragg felt he had a case in the past, he did have one by the time this trial commenced. A solid one, by all accounts, at least going by the verdict.

So he ran for office with the promise of convicting criminals like Trump, and he succeeded. Sounds to me like the voters got what they were promised.

-- A2SG, and everyone's happy....well, except for the convicted criminals, of course....

A2SG said:

based on the evidence provided by the prosecution, a jury did convict Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business documents in the first degree.

Click to expand...

Yes, but firstly each count was for each separate payment, invoice and voucher paid to the attorney Cohen for the 1 single NDA. That's how they get to the number of 34.

So we are talking about a single issue here. That issue is the NDA, and whether it's a felony to list them as personal legal expenses in the state of New York. (I'll give you a clue here, it's not)

The jury instructions were 56 or 58 pages long typed, and the jury had them read to them outloud. They never got to hold these instructions in their hands to peruse them in order to be certain they actually understood the instructions.

We don't know whether or even to what extent they believed they were allowed to say he wasn't guilty. They were given 3 different potential crimes the judge or prosecution thought Trump could be guilty of, told to pick one and there didn't have to be agreement between the jurors as to what crime Trump might have committed.

Multiple choice, pick one leads me to think they weren't really being given the option to find Trump innocent, or at the least would not have felt like it was an actual option to choose.

Right and left we could sit here and poke holes in this case all day long...

There's nothing in the bringing of this case that was according to American law and constitution.

Hazelelponi said:

There's nothing in the bringing of this case that was according to American law and constitution.

Click to expand...

If you're right, the appeal should be a simple matter.

Hazelelponi said:

Circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for any rational thinking human being.
But don't worry, we'll find the fingerprints eventually too, but I don't need the fingerprint in light of the mass amounts of circumstantial evidence.

You can convict someone for murder without a body, it's just harder. Here, we have the body, no worries.

Click to expand...

Hazelelponi said:

We don't know whether or even to what extent they believed they were allowed to say he wasn't guilty. They were given 3 different potential crimes the judge or prosecution thought Trump could be guilty of, told to pick one and there didn't have to be agreement between the jurors as to what crime Trump might have committed.

Click to expand...

He didn't need to be found guilty of any of the 3 crimes to which you are referring. He only had to have allegedly been trying perpetrate one of the crimes for his actual charge to be a felony.

Hazelelponi said:

Yes, but firstly each count was for each separate payment, invoice and voucher paid to the attorney Cohen for the 1 single NDA. That's how they get to the number of 34.

Click to expand...

Yup. That's how counts work in criminal law, one count for each crime. If someone killed 34 people, say, that person would be tried for 34 counts of murder.

Hazelelponi said:

So we are talking about a single issue here. That issue is the NDA, and whether it's a felony to list them as personal legal expenses in the state of New York. (I'll give you a clue here, it's not)

Click to expand...

The issue isn't the NDA. NDAs aren't illegal. The issue is falsifying business documents, which is illegal. And when that's done to conceal another crime, it becomes a felony. When it's done 34 times, well, that's where we got to.

Hazelelponi said:

The jury instructions were 56 or 58 pages long typed, and the jury had them read to them outloud. They never got to hold these instructions in their hands to peruse them in order to be certain they actually understood the instructions.

Click to expand...

Standard practice in NY courts, as I understand it. Also, the judge specified that the jury could have any part of it, or all of it, read back to them as many times as they wanted.

Hazelelponi said:

We don't know whether or even to what extent they believed they were allowed to say he wasn't guilty.

Click to expand...

Of course they were allowed to render a not guilty verdict. It was right there in the jury instructions (page 2): "You are the judges of the facts, and you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty."

What makes you think otherwise?

Hazelelponi said:

They were given 3 different potential crimes the judge or prosecution thought Trump could be guilty of, told to pick one and there didn't have to be agreement between the jurors as to what crime Trump might have committed.

Click to expand...

No, that's not correct. The charge was falsifying business documents in the first degree. That's the crime, and it was clearly laid out at all times, from the indictment onward.

The three potential crimes you refer to were the predicate crimes, those which the falsifying was intended to conceal. It didn't matter which of the three the jurors felt was being concealed, any or all of them would apply.

Hazelelponi said:

Multiple choice, pick one leads me to think they weren't really being given the option to find Trump innocent, or at the least would not have felt like it was an actual option to choose.

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood the situation, and that's why you were led in the wrong direction.

Hazelelponi said:

Right and left we could sit here and poke holes in this case all day long...

Click to expand...

Have fun. The appellate court's decision will be the one that matters, though. Not ours.

Hazelelponi said:

There's nothing in the bringing of this case that was according to American law and constitution.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. You've clearly misunderstood the case.

If you want to check the facts, you have available to you the entire court transcript. It's all public record.

-- A2SG, you don't have to take my word for any of this....

A2SG said:

If you want to check the facts, you have available to you the entire court transcript. It's all public record.

Click to expand...

I’ve perused some, it’s fascinating.

essentialsaltes said:

If you're right, the appeal should be a simple matter.

Click to expand...

Here's a constitutional lawyer from Yale if you're interested in a real legal breakdown of the constitutional matters. He's done a total of 3 videos and addressed people's questions