Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
-- 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 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.
I've never heard that before.
Absolutely. I wasn't aware he had new evidence.
The reason he's woke is he let's violent felons walk free.
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.
Or if a judge dismisses the case.
Do you think a Grand Jury is just brought together for fun and considers what charges if any, to go after Trump with?
Is Cohen testifying for the prosecution?
I didn't mean to imply charging Trump was what made him woke. The fact that he let's violent criminals walk is.
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.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.
Woke is like obscenity. I can’t define it but I know it when I see itThat 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?
Yes, that is your term. It's been co-opted to mean just what I said.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.
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."Woke is like obscenity. I can’t define it but I know it when I see it
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]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]
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."
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.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 safetywww.foxnews.com
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.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.
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.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.
If a person is innocent until proven guilty - and is not proven guilty - he is still innocent
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.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.
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.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.
Whatever Pomerantz's beef with Bragg might have been, he knows what Jordan's nonsense is about.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?