Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s closing down the grand jury proceedings on possible Trump criminal activities reminds me of Pulitzer-Prize-winning Jesse Eisinger’s book, THE CHICKENSHIT CLUB.
The title came from Southern New York Federal Attorney James Comey’s first meeting with his prosecutorial sta…
Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s closing down the grand jury proceedings on possible Trump criminal activities reminds me of Pulitzer-Prize-winning Jesse Eisinger’s book, THE CHICKENSHIT CLUB.
The title came from Southern New York Federal Attorney James Comey’s first meeting with his prosecutorial staff. He asked his prosecutors “Have any of you ever lost a case? If so, please raise your hand.” Not a hand came up. Then Comey said “You are all members of the Chickenshit Club.”
“You are all frightened to take on difficult cases that may blemish your ‘perfect’ records.” Eisinger’s book also described the ‘chickenshits’ in the Department of Justice who chose not to prosecute ‘difficult’ cases.
Keith, thanks. Explaining away Trump's routine escape from prosecution after a lifetime of criminal activity, including sedition in an attempt to overthrow the American government with prosecutorial ambition is a partial explanation.
The most important part of the this story is how two career lawyers spent FIVE years pursuing charges and were in the final grand jury indictment process. That would have wound up pretty soon and the fact that the new NY DA short circuited it is of great importance.
The two lawyers themselves QUIT, after the new DA killed the whole process near the end, in protest so they were willing to take it to the prosecutorial end.
It was a politician, the DA, who killed the final grand jury process.
A more complete hypothesis may include money and fear.
First Money: Trump, or Trump supporters (maybe in Russia) have routinely handed out enough money to insure his absence from prosecution.
It is not just that a DA may want a 100% record, although, many do. It is also that an elected politician, the DA, are more than willing to take money to close the case 10 minutes before charges were produced from the grand jury.
Second Fear: In Trump's case he has been supported by Russian Oligarchs for roughly 30 years.
Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump?
Nobody.
The above observations are hypotheses based on the fact that poor people routinely go to jail for no crime or minor crime mostly because of lack of representation and advocacy. For more info on going to jail innocent if you are poor see....
The corruption in the USA is sky high and so is hurling accusations, which are readily accepted due to bias and or general beliefs on the part of large groups of people. This comment by you Mike would be of more consequence with evidence attached. Why has the IRS not had a case against Trump for all these years? How are our economic and legal systems corrupt - systematically so? They are major contributors to the heinous wealth gap in the country. This needs to be spelled out, so that the MAGA crowd, in addition to everyone else, knows how we have been and continue to be robbed, in part by those who so easily manipulate the American people.
But, Fern, there will not be a public link to an article outlining how John Doe lawyer/DA took money into a secret Swiss Bank account, then, one week later dropped a case against Trump.
So, let me modify my comment to include the words hypothesis.
❤️Bravo. You understood. Eliminating the 'truth' was a forte of you know who. It is one of the oldest games around. It has to be addressed in government and in what comes out of our mouths and what is expressed in our writing. Propaganda isn't limited to one side of an argument.
Fern, it is not propaganda that two career lawyers quit after having pursued the case for five years and were in grand jury indictment proceedings when the new DA called off the whole thing after being on the job a month.
The above is fact.
It is imperative that people who can think then come up with the most probable reasons that the case was dropped when it was so close to producing charges.
Links to payoffs will not be found on the web for posting here Fern.
To kibbitz a bit: Yes, The New York case is fact, and we know it, but for the sake of others who might read it and NOT know it; a citation of the printed information from a trusted source makes us different from talking heads who don’t have to prove anything — but just keep repeating it!
Gus, my intent concerns the value of facts, coming as close to the truth as we can and not indulging in unsupported accusations and the thoughtless use of language. Truth has taken a terrible beating; deep divisions among people encourages biases, finding fault to find fault, mistrusting almost everything and everyone. Standards disappear, incivility grows and 'reality' evaporates. Such behavior are aspects of a collapsing democracy.
I don’t know how I know it’s true, I just know it’s true. Usually takes 20-30 years for any kind of public verification. Hoping for faster verification on the Kennedy/Deutsche Bank connection. So our deliberately molasses-paced legal system is a set up for the mob…
Amen, Fern! The corruption and the wealth disparity of the U.S., as well as the dynamic interaction of the two, is something all Americans should be taught until they understand. Otherwise, those degenerate conditions will continue and progress until we are a truly failed state with the vast majority of Americans becoming serfs with very few rights. It's no wonder that revolution took place in late19th/early 20th century Russia considering that some 80% of the people were serfs or slaves. They had very little to lose by rebelling to get their rights.
We need a Department of Honorable Conduct to serve as a beacon as well as insure honest and moral methods of running a government are established and enforced. Employees would take an oath with serious consequences if they break their oaths. It might be like the Vestal Virgins of ancient Rome who faced death if they betrayed their oaths. Or like Elliot Ness and the Untouchables who were beyond corruption (as I recall). Individually, members of the DoHC could serve in the model of General George C. Marshall who was a person of immense character and ability completely dedicated to serving his country. FDR chose him [above 34 leaders who outranked him] to build the U.S. WWII military. The whole U.S. respected and fully trusted Marshall. We desperately need a George C. Marshall now. Winston Churchill named him "the architect of the Allied victory" in WWII. When Marshall had a stroke and was dying, Churchill visited him. After leaving Marshall's room, Churchill said Marshall was "the greatest Roman of them all." Funny enough, he stood up to Churchill as no one else would. After WWII, President Truman chose Marshall to be Secretary of State where he developed the Marshall Plan. As soldier and civilian, he was one of a kind. (As an aside, my father knew Marshall well [officially] as he had to brief Marshall daily on Soviet Affairs.)
Hayden I consider George C. Marshall the greatest American of the 20th century. He was the lynch pin of WW II, could face down and be highly respected by Churchill, had incredible integrity and professional selflessness, and saved Ike’s ass several times (which Ike neglected to acknowledge when he was campaigning in Wisconsin in 1952.
Forrest Pogue’s 4-volumes on Marshall I find definitive many years later. There was also an 88-minute video (S. C Humanities Council?) that filled in some human spots from Pogue and others. Marshall’s assessment of Western Europe, after he returned from an unproductive meeting with Stalin, was the spark for the Marshall Plan, which couldn’t have been approved by a Republican Congress without Marshall’s robust support. Also, because of Marshall, the House approved the second year of the peacetime draft in 1941 by one vote.
I believe that he was the only general to receive the Nobel Peace prize.
Keith, I'm glad to see another admirer of General Marshall. Yes, Marshall saved Ike's ass on at least a few occasions. I'll mention a lesser-known example of this here. I'll wind around a bit to finally get to that instance.) My father was part of Ike's General Staff in London starting in September 1942 as they planned Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The planners were really rushed for time and worked round the clock, doing in two months which normally would take at least six months. Ike arrived in Algeria in late Nov. or Dec. [after the Op. Torch landing] with half of his staff to set up his HQ in Algiers. The second half of Ike's staff, which included my father, sailed from Scotland on the SS Strathallan with 5,000 British and American soldiers on Dec. 12 headed for Algeria. Also on board were American photographer Margaret Bourke-White and Ike's driver/companion Kay Summersby. After a rough crossing through the Bay of Biscay with 60 ft. waves, the ship passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and into calmer waters. It was the night before their scheduled arrival, and around 1:30-2:00 am, they were torpedoed, and the ship started going down. My father went over the side and ended up in the water clinging to a piece of flotsam and swallowing sea water and oil all night long. He lost everything on the ship and swam [naked] to the beach the next morning. Dad was in hospital for at least a week with horrendous headaches. So, he arrived at the Algiers HQ at the end of December, a few weeks before the Casablanca Conference in January. FDR and Gen. Marshall wanted Ike to come there from Algiers which he did of course.
Now, here's an item which you probably won't find in history books or at least I didn't nor was this item known by the librarian at the Eisenhower Library; and it relates to Ike being saved by Marshall. After Ike went back to Algiers and while the Casablanca Conference was still going on, Ike sent Marshall a telegram, asking him to make a stop in Algiers before returning to Washington, D.C. Ike was having a lot of problems with antagonism between British and American staff members, notably the officers. There had been some serious fights and supposedly one British officer was killed. Ike didn't know how to handle it all since he was really OJT in his command position. Marshall did stop by for a quick meeting with all the staff officers. Gen. Marshall had such presence, and he simply told the American officers that if they didn't behave properly, they'd be sent home, which meant in shame. Marshall's experience and bearing saved Ike in this case.
Ref. the Wisconsin incident, I believe Ike's ambition to be President is what led him to leave Gen. Marshall "out to dry" after Wisconsin's Senator Joe McCarthy had made allegations about Marshall leading a secret communist gathering in Washington. I've read that Ike regretted his behavior in that incident for the rest of his life. The guilt must have been horrendous--that is, to abandon the esteemed Marshall who had given Ike every opportunity to be where he was.
I better stop for now. I really get carried away on this subject. I wrote a book about my parents' journey through WWII ("Buck and Bernice: Love in the Reign of War") in which I wrote a chapter about General Marshall. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that chapter if you write me at: buckandbernice@gmail.com and request it.
Sadly, they don't care. They simply assume "all politicians are the same" and one of the enduring appeals of Trump is he isn't one (amusing, isn't it?)
“Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump? Nobody.” I agree, Mike. I also know that our IRS - as a tool to fight this corruption- has been systemically underfunded for decades making it unable to pursue high net-worth corruption. You need excellence and time to peruse these corrupt power-mongers. IRS cannot afford the best and brightest, nor have they extensive time to deeply untangle the intentionally made knot of secrecy needed to peruse these cases. So paying off Congress, for decades, to underfund the IRS, has crippled our best, first tool fighting corrupt players like trump.
They go after the small fry they have a chance in hell of netting with limited effort OR PUSHBACK. The wealthy, with their tax attorneys on retainer, make a hell scape for IRS white collar investigators. But oh my! The USA is sloshing around in hidden money. Fully funding the white collar crime unit of IRS would reap America billions that its owed.
That's it - so really the only advantage of the West is, that it can lay its hands on Trump - what it will do with that still very much remains to be seen. Do your thing, US of A.
In South Florida there are a lot of Russians. Store signs are written in Cyrillic in Sunny Isles. Also, we have had Russian Mob attacks like throwing acid in ppl's face.
We were staying in Sunnyvale maybe 10 years ago, we were surprised at the number of Russians there. Trump has a hotel/condo there that then seemed mostly empty.
Mike, your arguments make no sense, and as Fern said, you provide no evidence. Heat but no light. The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump. Unless he sees that the case is weak. It lacks hard evidence, as the NYT explained in detail today. There are no emails or correspondence from Trump (he doesn’t use email for this reason, and he tears up all the notes from his meetings) stating that he knows he was cheating on his taxes or on loan applications. There is no credible insider willing to testify (Weisselberg is willing to go to prison rather than turn state’s evidence - he’s the guy who has all the financial info on Trump). The 2 attorneys who have invested 5 years in this case hate to give it up, and don’t want to admit that their case isn’t strong enough. Think about this - if they had the evidence would they still not have indicted Trump after 5 years? I understand that Trump is guilty as sin, a fraud and a con man. But I also get that Trump is slippery enough (trained by Roy Cohn) to leave no evidence and avoid prison. It’s not the new DA’s fault. Can you imagine how bad it would look if the new DA indicted Trump, and the jury found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Nor is there a fix. in. There are far more wealthy people who’d love to see Trump behind bars, if that sort of thing was purchasable. Trump is despised in NYC, and hated by the wealthy elites (with a few exceptions, like My Pillow guy). There’s no conspiracy (leave those to the Qanon wackos).
JR, I think your opening line needs qualification. Mike's comment makes perfect sense, as does yours, which opposes Mike's conclusion. This is exactly why many (if not most) conspiracy theories work. The heart of any conspiracy theory is, "Here is the truth, which makes perfect sense. However, there is no evidence for this truth, because it has been deliberately concealed. And there is no evidence for the concealment, because the people who concealed it were good at their job."
Or the evidence is inherently unknowable. For instance, you state, "The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump." You have no evidence for that statement, and even if you knew the new DA personally, you could have no evidence, because he could be lying to you. You are talking about how another person ranks internal motivations. Hardly anyone living has an especially clear notion of their OWN ranking of motivations, much less someone else's.
One rule used in science is Occam's Razor, which gives preference to simplicity. That works reasonably well with "inanimate" reality, because we assume electrons and gasses don't have "motivations" at all. Move it up to the level of "animate" reality, even at the level of microbes, and you suddenly get "motivations." How, exactly, does a yeast colony work? Certainly not like an ideal gas.
I've dismissed a lot of "hearsay" about Trump and Putin that is, right now, starting to look a WHOLE lot more probable. For instance, John Bolton has said that Putin held off on his invasion of Ukraine because he expected Trump to withdraw the US from NATO in his second term. In 2017, this would have sounded like a completely wild conspiracy theory. In 2022, it makes perfect sense. Is there evidence beyond Bolton's statement? ::shrug:: Time will tell.
Sorry Joe, not buying it. The reason it makes no sense for the DA to kill this case is that doing so likely ends his political career. He is an elected official, in a post that most pursue as a stepping stone to higher, state-wide office. Said DA is being pilloried today by commenters here, in the NYT and elsewhere. Most accuse him of taking bribes or being a secret Trump enabler. All promise to never vote for him again. Others call him a coward. His political career is over. The cowardly, low-risk thing to do for the DA would have been to issue an indictment he didn’t believe in and go to trial. If Trump was declared not guilty, the blame would go to Cyrus Vance, or the 2 career lawyers. The DA could say, “I just got here, I was following their advice”. Or he could blame the judge, or the jury.
Meanwhile, Mike’s saying the case was dropped because of bribes by mythical (Russian or otherwise) billionaires or fear of children being assassinated by Russian oligarchs. You know, logical stuff.
Mike, that’s the silliest conjecture I’ve heard here so far (which is saying something). How about, “Let’s say that Danaerys Targaryan threatened to fry the DA with dragon fire unless he dropped the case.” You’re just making stuff up. We have to be better than the MAGA crowd. No baseless conspiracies, stick to facts.
“I am proposing hypthoses (sic) consistent with surrounding situation yes.” No, you’re not. There’s nothing “consistent” with implying that Alvin Bragg took a $45 million bribe and deposited it in a secret Swiss bank account. You're polluting this board with BS. Please “waste time in review” in the future so you don’t waste our time with ridiculous comments.
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
Two career lawyers with the NY DA office spent five years pursuing this case and at no time indicated they wanted to throw in the towel. They were in the final stages of sorting grand jury indictments. To kill the case BEFORE that outcome is what makes no sense JR.
But, to make sense of what makes no sense, I wrote what I wrote.
The two lawyers on the case, at no time, bagged it or said it was not possible to win indictments.
Then, one month after a new DA was elected, he killed the grand jury standard process.
The US can thank Robert and Diana Mercer for funding Cambridge Analytica's development in Britain, then paying to establish it in the US and paying the Trump campaign to adopt it; then paying for Facebook to use it. The Mercers also paid for Steve Bannon's and KellyAnne Conway's salaries to take over the floundering Trump campaign in 2016 after Manafort resigned.
Then there's the deal Trump made with Sheldon Adelson--always transactional. Just as Trump adopted the Federalist Society List of potential SCOTUS nominees in exchange for money and votes, Trump adopted Adelson's wish list for Israel in exchange for Adelson's money. (not being antisemitic; had friends in ZOA who bragged about the deal.) One more item on Adelson's list: Marion Adelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump.
And all of this took place in plain view of those who are heavily involved in political matters. It's no wonder that our democracy is in peril, and that's not hyperbole.
Republicans not only knew; made crucial introductions and applauded—and voted for Trump. It’s a pivotal moment for the US, as Heather stated with President Biden
I thought the practically synchronized timing of (1) the closing of those grand jury proceedings (and the resulting/nearly immediate resignation of the two attorneys who had invested so much time in the case’s investigation), and (2) the invasion of Ukraine was not coincidental. The news barely covered (1), buried as it was under the rumble of Russia’s invading tankers. That TrumPutin mutual admiration and alliance has never been more suspicious!
It is not only Prosecutorial Fear (the Cs Club); proseccutors need a cohesive team with capable investigatory skills and an experienced Trial Attorney`s knowlege of the "FRE", Federal Rules of Evidence. Much broader use of Pre-Trial motions called motions in limine would help too. Check out the skilled lawyers in the Backroom of the Jan 6th Committee offices. Team members do not have to be lawyers. It's called good legal work.
Bryan Manhattan DA Vance brought in two superbly qualified lawyers to handle the Trump criminal prosecution. They pleaded with DA Bragg to continue the case. When he refused, they resigned the same day. These prosecutors were ready to risk their reputations in trying a ‘difficult case.’
I am well aware of the new DA`s blunder. As to the specific prosecutors who resigned, their sterling reputations & skill are already well known well beyond NY.
Barb As Manhattan DA Bragg has the ultimate authority, as did Vance, to decide whom to prosecute. Only if there were an avalanche of protest to his decision might it be possible to have a reversal. Bragg is elected and, thus, can not be fired.
I’m not completely up to date—I knew the two staff members resigned…but has it now been confirmed Bragg stopped the grand jury activity? If so, what is the reasoning? Is this a final decision after all that work?
Something, as we all know, is wrong with our tax code if people's businesses and money situations are so complex that they can hide and deceive. It pisses me off that us little guys are getting picked on by the IRS because we're easy pickings. To me, this is the heart of the problem. Business accounts must be more transparent, less complex, somehow, so that it does't take a small army working for years to uncover wrongdoing. I hope an in depth investigation to how this Trump thing (and countless others not discovered, I'm sure) will be done and out lawmakers will be pushed to face this issue. I know, good luck.
Kim Spot on! Since 2010 the Republicans have assiduously and sharply reduced the IRS’s personnel and technical resources to investigate the tax returns of fat cats and major corporations. Forensic accounting on any complex tax return could require hundreds or thousands of hours by highly skilled IRS professionals, of which there are only a handful
The game for tax specialists is to spend a few years with the IRS and then go into private practice to earn zillions befuddling their ex-buddies who seek to enforce IRS tax codes. Fat cats against $60,000 a year civil servants—guess who wins?
Keith, I don't know that it was such an open-and-shut case. There were a good deal of questions raised about whether the DA had a strong enough case.
'Mr. Bragg’s choice not to pursue charges is reminiscent of the high hurdle that others have failed to clear over the years as they sought to hold Mr. Trump criminally liable for his practices as a real estate mogul. Mr. Trump famously shuns email, and he has cultivated deep loyalty among employees who might otherwise testify against him, a one-two punch that has stymied other prosecutors in search of conclusive proof of his guilt.' (NYTimes) Link below.
I hope the NYT or WAPO will do an in depth investigation into system. These accountings are so complex, valuations etc. and how does anyone know what the true value is? What went wrong here because we know Trump is guilty. Someone has a humongous super-complex business--it takes so much to pick through and find discrepancies. The IRS is underfunded so they just don't. Meanwhile they pounce on the rest of us.
The IRS has pounced on me, due to an error by my accountant. He's been trying to correct it since last August, cannot get through on the phone, letters ignored and fines increasing. Now the IRS is starting to garnish my social security benefits and I can't seem do a thing about it! The IRS badly needs an infusion of funds and qualified people.
Oh no Sally! I'm so sorry to hear that. I've had a similar debacle and understand that you just cannot get through to them. Their garnishing like that is terrible. They shouldn't have a right to do that.
Two career lawyers believed in the evidence enough spend five years of their lives pursuing charges and were in the final, grand jury process of producing some charges when the DA told them to drop the case.
They quit instead.
So, if two career lawyers felt that the case was worth pursuing, I would not get too excited about a NY Times article supporting Trump getting off again.
NY Times is a for profit entity open to collecting money from whereever.
This comment is too loose for me. Did you read the article? How good is your case against it and the NY Times for publishing it? Two damned good lawyers and five years doesn't prove anything. That the NY Times is a corporation is not proof that they were paid-off to print an article raising issues about the strength of the case, You seem mighty determined to make accusations without evidence. In terms of journalism, I'd go with the NY Times on this one.
Fern, I read the article when it first came out. Yes.
I think that a better approach would have been to let the final stages of the grand jury indictment process move forward rather than Bragg killing the investigation and then giving his opinion to the NY Times on background.
The NY Times echoes what Bragg told them, BUT, they did not spend any time exploring why the two lawyers who QUIT did so.
So, beware of believing in something Fern just because NY Times published it.
You continue to accuse without end. You might think about what you are so fast to dish out. That you tell me to 'beware' of what I think is an insult to yourself. That you assume what I do and don't 'believe' in the NY Times or anywhere else without knowing what my standards are or how much I know about journalism … oh, my. You've got a fast and furious mind, Mike.
When and if I have time, I will expand upon my criticisms of your comments more fully. Your rational for throwing around accusations is that anything is corruptible. Do you wish to elaborate on why I thought that the DA case may not have been open and shut? Do you wish to make a case that I believe in what ever I read in the NY Times? How familiar are you with journalistic standards? As all human beings are fallible, do you think that journalists can be believable? Could you be wrong about anything? Are any of your accusations right or wrong? As you are human how good could your accusations be?
Fern, I, unfortunately, have a long experience with publication in scientific and engineering journals which have, typically, high standards for providing authentic information.
But, this board is not "The Journal For Electronic Engineering" nor is this board the NY Times.
This board is a place were we, anytime we want, can publish our perspective.
And that is what makes this board fantastic.
I understand that you would like to see the board with more policing and have decided to provide that role.
But, this board requires no reviews for submission like Journals and some Newspapers.
So, I don't get all worked up about having all my references in place.
I just post my perspective based on my thinking.
I will continue to do that, and, I hope you continue policing.
Mike, It is unfortunate that we are facing one another with an air of unpleasantness. You continue to falsely accuse me. I questioned the factual basis of your accusations against Bragg and the NY Times. You return not with answers as I understood them, but with more accusations against me. First, you tell me to 'beware' of believing what I read in the NY Times as if you know how I judge what I read, instead you generalize about my opinion of articles in the paper. Now, your are accusing me of wishing to police the forum. Are you unfamiliar with differences of opinion? Is differing with you about the basis of your attacks wanting to police the forum? Now, you think that I'm 'all worked up" and claim it is about your 'references', which it is not. You end with, 'I hope you continue policing'. Really, Mike? I have listened to you and responded as best I can.
Mike, I’m with Fern. I understand that those 2 attorneys were angry that the new DA wouldn’t proceed with an indictment. I also understand that they’ve been running this investigation for 5 years and had yet to build a case convincing enough to go to trial. This came to a head not because they were ready to indict and the DA refused, but because the Grand Jury will soon be shutting down and they were running out of time. They’ve been pitching their case to the Grand Jury for almost a year, and no recommendation to indict has come forward to date. The new DA looked at everything and decided their case is weak.
“They hammered Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne about whether they could show that Mr. Trump had intended to break the law by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements, a necessary element to prove the case.” The key phrase is “intended to break the law”. There has to be evidence that when Trump inflated or deflated his property values he knew it was illegal. Evidence like emails from Trump, notes or correspondence from Trump, or recordings of or testimony from people in meetings with Trump. None of that exists. Trump doesn’t use email. Trump won’t allow recordings or notes to be taken in meetings. Weisselberg, who could bury Trump if he agreed to turn states’ evidence, is willing to go to prison rather than testify. There is no hard evidence of Trump’s intent.
Mike, Bragg didn’t kill the case or stop the grand jury. He just said he wasn’t ready to bring an indictment today. The investigation and grand jury continues. By the way, last fall, before Cyrus Vance stepped down, he also said he wasn’t ready to bring an indictment.
Fern I never implied that was an ‘open-and-shut case.’ (Relatively few high profile cases are.) Manhattan District Attorney Vance initiated this criminal case against Trump, hired two outstanding prosecutors to pursue it, and proceeded with grand jury hearings. Bragg, the young new Manhattan DA considered ‘pausing/shutting’ down the grand jury proceedings. The two distinguished prosecutors argued their position for proceeding and then the DA, after discussions that excluded these two distinguished prosecutors, informed them that the hearings were ‘postponed.’
These two prosecutors apparently interpreted this as ‘case closed.’ I am personally familiar with chickenshit. As a kid I would, with boots on, slosh through chickenshit to recover chicken eggs every morning. Regarding the Bragg incident, if it looks like chickenshit, and smells like chickenshit, then, almost certainly it is chickshit.
Keith, Having walked through so much of a certain brand, you believe yourself to be an expert at spotting it in very different terrain. I don't doubt that your good at it, but that is not the sort of evidence that supersedes all other forms. I'm not making a case for or against Bragg. From what I have read, there are legitimate reasons to think that the case has a couple of important weak spots. The deep need to have Trump pay for his lethal behavior can for some make the case. In fact, I am as enthusiastic as almost anyone to see justice done with reference to Trump and all the other members of his treasonous cabal.
Fern, you find the little "envelope" icon which means "share this article" and click on it, opening an email to send with the "gift" link. Copy that link.
Actually the icon that works for that is the one that looks like a "Gift." It is a black square with a white cross inside and an infinity symbol (ribbon) on top. Clicking on that will start the process -- what you want in this case is "Copy the Link."
Does Merrick Garland belong to the Club? Is he afraid that in the annals of history it will look bad if he is the first to bring charges against an ex-President and then loses? I suspect so but I also think there will NEVER be a risk-free case that could be brought against Trump because of the burdens of proving intent and securing unanimity in a jury. I believe that in the eye of history the failure to at least try (pun intended) will be seen as close to a crime!
Bill You raise a core question. I don’t recall that any ex-president has ever been tried in a criminal court of law. Clearly the House 1/6 Committee is signaling to Attorney General Garland that they are gathering ‘smoking pistol’ evidence against Trump and his Trump Pissers.
Already the word ‘sedition’ has been used in some of DOJ 1/6 indictments. During the House 1/6 Committee’s public hearings, some of the seditionists will be be on center stage. The DOJ may choose to indict the low-hanging fruits. As for the big enchilada, the issue of indicting an ex-president who had 74 million votes in the 2020 could have profound political repercussions with such crazies as the Proud Boys and the Oath Takers.
Personally, I consider Trump guilty of sedition and, with a broad interpretation of the Constitution, treason. At a minimum, he could be an unnamed indictee in the prosecution of others.
Trump is now the heaviest ex-president in American history (William Howard Taft lost 50 pounds before being seated as Chief Justice). With all the prospective trials that are lurking around Tubby Trump (the IRS has a pending $100+ million matter with Trump since 2010 and lots more peccadillos to explore subsequently), perhaps Trump will fall of his own weight.
I don't know how satisfying "unnamed indictee" would be. From what you're saying about Tubby, wouldn't that just be another case of letting the little guys take the fall?
Agreed and that's why I think a trial is needed even if there's a mistrial With the passage of time the vast majority of Americans concluded that OJ did it even though he was acquitted--but without a trial it might not have been so clear
My “Pollyanna” alter ego sees a possible (although admittedly highly unlikely) reason for Bragg to pause the grand jury proceedings. TFG is fighting being deposed in the civil case against him in part because he states it’s a fishing expedition for information that can be used in the criminal investigation. Could it be that the grand jury is being paused (yes, I prefer to think of it as merely paused) to remove this argument and compel TFG and offspring to testify in the civil case?
Cathy Though on occasion I admire Pollyannas (especially when I personally am playing such a role), I don’t believe that what’s happened to the grand jury examining evidence of Trump’s criminality is ‘the pause that refreshes.’ [That was a Coke slogan back when I was an itty bitty boy.]
Keith, I wonder if your comment would have been stronger had you incorporated the bit about the “two superbly qualified lawyers” invested in the case, who resigned when the investigation abruptly was closed.
Barbara Often my fingers function faster than my top-of-head thoughts. I included the abrupt resignation of “two superbly qualified lawyers” in a subsequent post. When two top-flight prosecutors are fighting to continue the criminal case against Trump, it seems that the new Manhattan DA is suffering from chickenshititis.
Unlike this forum, the minder’s at the NYT will not post anything that deviates from their published pov, I've stopped trying, it's not worth the effort. 🤷♂️
Dick I share your frustration with some of my rejected NYT posts. However, I have been surprised at some of my Trump turds that have been published, at times hours after being submitted. I think this partially depends on the luck of the draw with individuals editors. I had one post that was a TimesPick and then was deleted a few hours later. Even for the NYT that it most unusual.
Interesting. But I think there is probably more to this decision than we can see. I don't think they are afraid of Trump. Also I thought I read that it wasn't closed just paused and a new prosecutor was assigned...I could be wrong. Also the new guy gets to work with whomever he wants so just maybe he didn't want to work with them on this. Like I said, we were given no reason for the change of guard.
Martha You may be right that the resignation of two top prosecutors does not necessarily mean that the grand jury (expires in April) investigation of Trump’s criminality will not continue. However, I find merit in the saying “Don’t change horses in mid-stream.”
The NYT rejected my latest comment:
Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s closing down the grand jury proceedings on possible Trump criminal activities reminds me of Pulitzer-Prize-winning Jesse Eisinger’s book, THE CHICKENSHIT CLUB.
The title came from Southern New York Federal Attorney James Comey’s first meeting with his prosecutorial staff. He asked his prosecutors “Have any of you ever lost a case? If so, please raise your hand.” Not a hand came up. Then Comey said “You are all members of the Chickenshit Club.”
“You are all frightened to take on difficult cases that may blemish your ‘perfect’ records.” Eisinger’s book also described the ‘chickenshits’ in the Department of Justice who chose not to prosecute ‘difficult’ cases.
Keith, thanks. Explaining away Trump's routine escape from prosecution after a lifetime of criminal activity, including sedition in an attempt to overthrow the American government with prosecutorial ambition is a partial explanation.
The most important part of the this story is how two career lawyers spent FIVE years pursuing charges and were in the final grand jury indictment process. That would have wound up pretty soon and the fact that the new NY DA short circuited it is of great importance.
The two lawyers themselves QUIT, after the new DA killed the whole process near the end, in protest so they were willing to take it to the prosecutorial end.
It was a politician, the DA, who killed the final grand jury process.
A more complete hypothesis may include money and fear.
First Money: Trump, or Trump supporters (maybe in Russia) have routinely handed out enough money to insure his absence from prosecution.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we
It is not just that a DA may want a 100% record, although, many do. It is also that an elected politician, the DA, are more than willing to take money to close the case 10 minutes before charges were produced from the grand jury.
Second Fear: In Trump's case he has been supported by Russian Oligarchs for roughly 30 years.
Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump?
Nobody.
The above observations are hypotheses based on the fact that poor people routinely go to jail for no crime or minor crime mostly because of lack of representation and advocacy. For more info on going to jail innocent if you are poor see....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Mercy_(book)
Trump: Has PLENTY of people advocating for him with plenty of money.
The corruption in the USA is sky high and so is hurling accusations, which are readily accepted due to bias and or general beliefs on the part of large groups of people. This comment by you Mike would be of more consequence with evidence attached. Why has the IRS not had a case against Trump for all these years? How are our economic and legal systems corrupt - systematically so? They are major contributors to the heinous wealth gap in the country. This needs to be spelled out, so that the MAGA crowd, in addition to everyone else, knows how we have been and continue to be robbed, in part by those who so easily manipulate the American people.
Fern. Thanks for your effort to ensure veracity in published comments.
Here is one quote from Eric Trump outlining the source of Trump's money:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we
But, Fern, there will not be a public link to an article outlining how John Doe lawyer/DA took money into a secret Swiss Bank account, then, one week later dropped a case against Trump.
So, let me modify my comment to include the words hypothesis.
❤️Bravo. You understood. Eliminating the 'truth' was a forte of you know who. It is one of the oldest games around. It has to be addressed in government and in what comes out of our mouths and what is expressed in our writing. Propaganda isn't limited to one side of an argument.
Fern, it is not propaganda that two career lawyers quit after having pursued the case for five years and were in grand jury indictment proceedings when the new DA called off the whole thing after being on the job a month.
The above is fact.
It is imperative that people who can think then come up with the most probable reasons that the case was dropped when it was so close to producing charges.
Links to payoffs will not be found on the web for posting here Fern.
To kibbitz a bit: Yes, The New York case is fact, and we know it, but for the sake of others who might read it and NOT know it; a citation of the printed information from a trusted source makes us different from talking heads who don’t have to prove anything — but just keep repeating it!
Patricia.
This makes sense. I had posted a gift link to this article a week or so ago on these boards when the NY Times first published their article.
I should have looked that up an added it. Agree.
Fern, I will be monitoring my own comments even more for cites and sources than I already do; however, I like the other replies to your reply as well.
Gus, my intent concerns the value of facts, coming as close to the truth as we can and not indulging in unsupported accusations and the thoughtless use of language. Truth has taken a terrible beating; deep divisions among people encourages biases, finding fault to find fault, mistrusting almost everything and everyone. Standards disappear, incivility grows and 'reality' evaporates. Such behavior are aspects of a collapsing democracy.
I don’t know how I know it’s true, I just know it’s true. Usually takes 20-30 years for any kind of public verification. Hoping for faster verification on the Kennedy/Deutsche Bank connection. So our deliberately molasses-paced legal system is a set up for the mob…
Amen, Fern! The corruption and the wealth disparity of the U.S., as well as the dynamic interaction of the two, is something all Americans should be taught until they understand. Otherwise, those degenerate conditions will continue and progress until we are a truly failed state with the vast majority of Americans becoming serfs with very few rights. It's no wonder that revolution took place in late19th/early 20th century Russia considering that some 80% of the people were serfs or slaves. They had very little to lose by rebelling to get their rights.
We need a Department of Honorable Conduct to serve as a beacon as well as insure honest and moral methods of running a government are established and enforced. Employees would take an oath with serious consequences if they break their oaths. It might be like the Vestal Virgins of ancient Rome who faced death if they betrayed their oaths. Or like Elliot Ness and the Untouchables who were beyond corruption (as I recall). Individually, members of the DoHC could serve in the model of General George C. Marshall who was a person of immense character and ability completely dedicated to serving his country. FDR chose him [above 34 leaders who outranked him] to build the U.S. WWII military. The whole U.S. respected and fully trusted Marshall. We desperately need a George C. Marshall now. Winston Churchill named him "the architect of the Allied victory" in WWII. When Marshall had a stroke and was dying, Churchill visited him. After leaving Marshall's room, Churchill said Marshall was "the greatest Roman of them all." Funny enough, he stood up to Churchill as no one else would. After WWII, President Truman chose Marshall to be Secretary of State where he developed the Marshall Plan. As soldier and civilian, he was one of a kind. (As an aside, my father knew Marshall well [officially] as he had to brief Marshall daily on Soviet Affairs.)
Hayden I consider George C. Marshall the greatest American of the 20th century. He was the lynch pin of WW II, could face down and be highly respected by Churchill, had incredible integrity and professional selflessness, and saved Ike’s ass several times (which Ike neglected to acknowledge when he was campaigning in Wisconsin in 1952.
Forrest Pogue’s 4-volumes on Marshall I find definitive many years later. There was also an 88-minute video (S. C Humanities Council?) that filled in some human spots from Pogue and others. Marshall’s assessment of Western Europe, after he returned from an unproductive meeting with Stalin, was the spark for the Marshall Plan, which couldn’t have been approved by a Republican Congress without Marshall’s robust support. Also, because of Marshall, the House approved the second year of the peacetime draft in 1941 by one vote.
I believe that he was the only general to receive the Nobel Peace prize.
Keith, Listening to you and Heydon is close to heaven.
Keith, I'm glad to see another admirer of General Marshall. Yes, Marshall saved Ike's ass on at least a few occasions. I'll mention a lesser-known example of this here. I'll wind around a bit to finally get to that instance.) My father was part of Ike's General Staff in London starting in September 1942 as they planned Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The planners were really rushed for time and worked round the clock, doing in two months which normally would take at least six months. Ike arrived in Algeria in late Nov. or Dec. [after the Op. Torch landing] with half of his staff to set up his HQ in Algiers. The second half of Ike's staff, which included my father, sailed from Scotland on the SS Strathallan with 5,000 British and American soldiers on Dec. 12 headed for Algeria. Also on board were American photographer Margaret Bourke-White and Ike's driver/companion Kay Summersby. After a rough crossing through the Bay of Biscay with 60 ft. waves, the ship passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and into calmer waters. It was the night before their scheduled arrival, and around 1:30-2:00 am, they were torpedoed, and the ship started going down. My father went over the side and ended up in the water clinging to a piece of flotsam and swallowing sea water and oil all night long. He lost everything on the ship and swam [naked] to the beach the next morning. Dad was in hospital for at least a week with horrendous headaches. So, he arrived at the Algiers HQ at the end of December, a few weeks before the Casablanca Conference in January. FDR and Gen. Marshall wanted Ike to come there from Algiers which he did of course.
Now, here's an item which you probably won't find in history books or at least I didn't nor was this item known by the librarian at the Eisenhower Library; and it relates to Ike being saved by Marshall. After Ike went back to Algiers and while the Casablanca Conference was still going on, Ike sent Marshall a telegram, asking him to make a stop in Algiers before returning to Washington, D.C. Ike was having a lot of problems with antagonism between British and American staff members, notably the officers. There had been some serious fights and supposedly one British officer was killed. Ike didn't know how to handle it all since he was really OJT in his command position. Marshall did stop by for a quick meeting with all the staff officers. Gen. Marshall had such presence, and he simply told the American officers that if they didn't behave properly, they'd be sent home, which meant in shame. Marshall's experience and bearing saved Ike in this case.
Ref. the Wisconsin incident, I believe Ike's ambition to be President is what led him to leave Gen. Marshall "out to dry" after Wisconsin's Senator Joe McCarthy had made allegations about Marshall leading a secret communist gathering in Washington. I've read that Ike regretted his behavior in that incident for the rest of his life. The guilt must have been horrendous--that is, to abandon the esteemed Marshall who had given Ike every opportunity to be where he was.
I better stop for now. I really get carried away on this subject. I wrote a book about my parents' journey through WWII ("Buck and Bernice: Love in the Reign of War") in which I wrote a chapter about General Marshall. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that chapter if you write me at: buckandbernice@gmail.com and request it.
Heydon, I had the chills reading your eloquent and historical reply. It is a keeper, and I still have the chills. Thank you.
Thanks, Fern. I appreciate that.
With utmost respect, Heydon.
Sadly, they don't care. They simply assume "all politicians are the same" and one of the enduring appeals of Trump is he isn't one (amusing, isn't it?)
🎯
Gotta ❤️this one, Fern!
We need more heart than ever! Thank you, Marlene. Here's to looking at you❤️🌿❤️🌻❤️!
“Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump? Nobody.” I agree, Mike. I also know that our IRS - as a tool to fight this corruption- has been systemically underfunded for decades making it unable to pursue high net-worth corruption. You need excellence and time to peruse these corrupt power-mongers. IRS cannot afford the best and brightest, nor have they extensive time to deeply untangle the intentionally made knot of secrecy needed to peruse these cases. So paying off Congress, for decades, to underfund the IRS, has crippled our best, first tool fighting corrupt players like trump.
Yes, the IRS has limited funding, but, they DO go after people and they NEVER went after Trump.
They go after the small fry they have a chance in hell of netting with limited effort OR PUSHBACK. The wealthy, with their tax attorneys on retainer, make a hell scape for IRS white collar investigators. But oh my! The USA is sloshing around in hidden money. Fully funding the white collar crime unit of IRS would reap America billions that its owed.
Yes, well TFG and the other so-called millionaires/billionaires as well.
Michelle, totally agree with you.
That the IRS is underfunded is FACT. My thoughtful ‘hypothesis’ is that some of the IRS officials are overfunded....
Gus, very good hypthesis indeed!
That's it - so really the only advantage of the West is, that it can lay its hands on Trump - what it will do with that still very much remains to be seen. Do your thing, US of A.
In South Florida there are a lot of Russians. Store signs are written in Cyrillic in Sunny Isles. Also, we have had Russian Mob attacks like throwing acid in ppl's face.
We were staying in Sunnyvale maybe 10 years ago, we were surprised at the number of Russians there. Trump has a hotel/condo there that then seemed mostly empty.
Thought it had more than a few Russian pregnant girls.
Mike, your arguments make no sense, and as Fern said, you provide no evidence. Heat but no light. The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump. Unless he sees that the case is weak. It lacks hard evidence, as the NYT explained in detail today. There are no emails or correspondence from Trump (he doesn’t use email for this reason, and he tears up all the notes from his meetings) stating that he knows he was cheating on his taxes or on loan applications. There is no credible insider willing to testify (Weisselberg is willing to go to prison rather than turn state’s evidence - he’s the guy who has all the financial info on Trump). The 2 attorneys who have invested 5 years in this case hate to give it up, and don’t want to admit that their case isn’t strong enough. Think about this - if they had the evidence would they still not have indicted Trump after 5 years? I understand that Trump is guilty as sin, a fraud and a con man. But I also get that Trump is slippery enough (trained by Roy Cohn) to leave no evidence and avoid prison. It’s not the new DA’s fault. Can you imagine how bad it would look if the new DA indicted Trump, and the jury found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Nor is there a fix. in. There are far more wealthy people who’d love to see Trump behind bars, if that sort of thing was purchasable. Trump is despised in NYC, and hated by the wealthy elites (with a few exceptions, like My Pillow guy). There’s no conspiracy (leave those to the Qanon wackos).
JR, I think your opening line needs qualification. Mike's comment makes perfect sense, as does yours, which opposes Mike's conclusion. This is exactly why many (if not most) conspiracy theories work. The heart of any conspiracy theory is, "Here is the truth, which makes perfect sense. However, there is no evidence for this truth, because it has been deliberately concealed. And there is no evidence for the concealment, because the people who concealed it were good at their job."
Or the evidence is inherently unknowable. For instance, you state, "The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump." You have no evidence for that statement, and even if you knew the new DA personally, you could have no evidence, because he could be lying to you. You are talking about how another person ranks internal motivations. Hardly anyone living has an especially clear notion of their OWN ranking of motivations, much less someone else's.
One rule used in science is Occam's Razor, which gives preference to simplicity. That works reasonably well with "inanimate" reality, because we assume electrons and gasses don't have "motivations" at all. Move it up to the level of "animate" reality, even at the level of microbes, and you suddenly get "motivations." How, exactly, does a yeast colony work? Certainly not like an ideal gas.
I've dismissed a lot of "hearsay" about Trump and Putin that is, right now, starting to look a WHOLE lot more probable. For instance, John Bolton has said that Putin held off on his invasion of Ukraine because he expected Trump to withdraw the US from NATO in his second term. In 2017, this would have sounded like a completely wild conspiracy theory. In 2022, it makes perfect sense. Is there evidence beyond Bolton's statement? ::shrug:: Time will tell.
Sorry Joe, not buying it. The reason it makes no sense for the DA to kill this case is that doing so likely ends his political career. He is an elected official, in a post that most pursue as a stepping stone to higher, state-wide office. Said DA is being pilloried today by commenters here, in the NYT and elsewhere. Most accuse him of taking bribes or being a secret Trump enabler. All promise to never vote for him again. Others call him a coward. His political career is over. The cowardly, low-risk thing to do for the DA would have been to issue an indictment he didn’t believe in and go to trial. If Trump was declared not guilty, the blame would go to Cyrus Vance, or the 2 career lawyers. The DA could say, “I just got here, I was following their advice”. Or he could blame the judge, or the jury.
Meanwhile, Mike’s saying the case was dropped because of bribes by mythical (Russian or otherwise) billionaires or fear of children being assassinated by Russian oligarchs. You know, logical stuff.
JR. Let's say you were a DA but were offered $45 million to kill the case.
Would you worry much about re-election after the deposit was made in the Swiss Bank account??
:-)
I think not my friend.
Mike, that’s the silliest conjecture I’ve heard here so far (which is saying something). How about, “Let’s say that Danaerys Targaryan threatened to fry the DA with dragon fire unless he dropped the case.” You’re just making stuff up. We have to be better than the MAGA crowd. No baseless conspiracies, stick to facts.
JR. I am proposing hypotheses consistent with surrounding situation yes.
But, as I pointed out to Fern.
This is not the "Jouranal of Electronic Engineering" this is an board that requires no submission or review to post to.
So, I post my perspective. It is TOTALLY OK with me if you or Fern do not share that perspective (for any reason at all).
But, this board is so good because we don't have to waste a bunch of time in review.
“I am proposing hypthoses (sic) consistent with surrounding situation yes.” No, you’re not. There’s nothing “consistent” with implying that Alvin Bragg took a $45 million bribe and deposited it in a secret Swiss bank account. You're polluting this board with BS. Please “waste time in review” in the future so you don’t waste our time with ridiculous comments.
JR. Of course, you are welcome to skip anything I write so as not to pollute your mind.
right?
That's a good argument, given that this is a New York DA. OTOH, if he's a Trumpite....
A Trumpite? Do you know anything about the man?
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
Sigh.
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
So well said, Joseph!
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
Good Lord, I feel like Columbo. (patting pockets)
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Or that something else changed.
Preet Bharara said back in July of 2021 that there probably wasn’t a case against Trump, when Cyrus Vance indicted Trump’s accountant but not Trump himself. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/562537-why-trump-probably-wont-be-indicted
Bharara repeated on 3/1 that it’s likely there’s not a strong enough case in his podcast. https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Stay-Tuned-with-Preet-p1018528/?topicId=170223885
“There’s no slam-dunk case without a cooperating witness”, Preet Bharara.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
Thank you for that clarification! :-)
Joseph. I upgraded to BEST POST OF THE DAY.
:-)
I've heard "Trumpite" used to refer to the Trump cultists.
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
It seems pretty obvious to me.
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Does that clarify?
Joseph.
Yes, Why would the new DA interrupt the grand jury process EVEN if he had a perception different from the people who spent FIVE years on it.
Let it play out like all the rest of them do. If the grand jury produces no indictments, well, there you have it.
BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW now will we.?
Much time and many suppositions would have been unnecessary had you read the article in question. See the link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?searchResultPosition=1
Fern, in a separate post I point out flaws in the NY Times article.
True statement. It's behind a paywall I'm not paying for.
"Makes no sense" is (in my mind) quite distinct from "is not supported by the evidence."
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Bryan, Thank you for the amicus brief. Can I take you with me?
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
Oh, those Sidebars are intoxicating.
Joseph,
Makes perfect sense. I am sure if Trump wins, he will remove us from NATO.
Tucker Carlson will tell Americans what to think about that, and, they will think what Tucker Carlson wants them to think.
Thank you JR for your perspective on this.
JR.
Thanks.
Two career lawyers with the NY DA office spent five years pursuing this case and at no time indicated they wanted to throw in the towel. They were in the final stages of sorting grand jury indictments. To kill the case BEFORE that outcome is what makes no sense JR.
But, to make sense of what makes no sense, I wrote what I wrote.
The two lawyers on the case, at no time, bagged it or said it was not possible to win indictments.
Then, one month after a new DA was elected, he killed the grand jury standard process.
Why?
I've been thinking along the same lines. Trump was never alone in his crimes. He would never have made it into the Oval Office alone.
The US can thank Robert and Diana Mercer for funding Cambridge Analytica's development in Britain, then paying to establish it in the US and paying the Trump campaign to adopt it; then paying for Facebook to use it. The Mercers also paid for Steve Bannon's and KellyAnne Conway's salaries to take over the floundering Trump campaign in 2016 after Manafort resigned.
Then there's the deal Trump made with Sheldon Adelson--always transactional. Just as Trump adopted the Federalist Society List of potential SCOTUS nominees in exchange for money and votes, Trump adopted Adelson's wish list for Israel in exchange for Adelson's money. (not being antisemitic; had friends in ZOA who bragged about the deal.) One more item on Adelson's list: Marion Adelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump.
Yes exactly…😡
And all of this took place in plain view of those who are heavily involved in political matters. It's no wonder that our democracy is in peril, and that's not hyperbole.
Republicans not only knew; made crucial introductions and applauded—and voted for Trump. It’s a pivotal moment for the US, as Heather stated with President Biden
He was a useful idiot, not only to Putin, but also the Republicans, and will continue to be - until he is viewed as a liability.
Correct usage of the “village idiot”.
Head spinning here…
Thanks Mike. After following your link I was hooked. I feel compelled to read it.
Yes indeed.
I thought the practically synchronized timing of (1) the closing of those grand jury proceedings (and the resulting/nearly immediate resignation of the two attorneys who had invested so much time in the case’s investigation), and (2) the invasion of Ukraine was not coincidental. The news barely covered (1), buried as it was under the rumble of Russia’s invading tankers. That TrumPutin mutual admiration and alliance has never been more suspicious!
One of the articles (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html) about Bragg's take over from Vance makes some of the turmoil around the iDJiT investigation appear to be an interoffice kerfuffle.
Pamela, we can assume that new DA provided the information to the NY Times, hence, it is biased to make it look like the new DA's perspective.
The truth is, two career lawyers were in the process of closing out indictments in a grand jury process that needed NO interruption whatsoever.
The DA's keebosh on the case smells so bad I can hardly breathe.
I feel the fire coming from all ends of your body. Oh, it’s mine!
It is not only Prosecutorial Fear (the Cs Club); proseccutors need a cohesive team with capable investigatory skills and an experienced Trial Attorney`s knowlege of the "FRE", Federal Rules of Evidence. Much broader use of Pre-Trial motions called motions in limine would help too. Check out the skilled lawyers in the Backroom of the Jan 6th Committee offices. Team members do not have to be lawyers. It's called good legal work.
Bryan Manhattan DA Vance brought in two superbly qualified lawyers to handle the Trump criminal prosecution. They pleaded with DA Bragg to continue the case. When he refused, they resigned the same day. These prosecutors were ready to risk their reputations in trying a ‘difficult case.’
I am well aware of the new DA`s blunder. As to the specific prosecutors who resigned, their sterling reputations & skill are already well known well beyond NY.
So what happens now? Is there any way to override DA Bragg’s decision?
Barb As Manhattan DA Bragg has the ultimate authority, as did Vance, to decide whom to prosecute. Only if there were an avalanche of protest to his decision might it be possible to have a reversal. Bragg is elected and, thus, can not be fired.
And, I wonder who helped get him elected?
Then Manhattan DA Vance supported Bragg in an election where nomination meant election. Ethics and principles are not hallmarks of New York elections.
Not hardly Keith. In fact, NY City elections have the hallmarks of corruption and manipulation.
How do we let his office know how we feel?
Bragg has been beset with an avalanche of protest surrounding many of his decisions. He might be fired when he’s up for re-election.
If Bragg’s actions might possibly affect his re-election, by then I will be in my 90s. I’m not holding my breathe.
Barb, not a god damn thing. Again we handed Trump something else to put on his silver plate. Disgusting.
Grrrrr. Infuriating and frustrating.
I’m not completely up to date—I knew the two staff members resigned…but has it now been confirmed Bragg stopped the grand jury activity? If so, what is the reasoning? Is this a final decision after all that work?
YES. The two lawyers were in the final stages of grand jury indictment proceedings.
See, Pamela's NYT link above with 3 bylines.
Something, as we all know, is wrong with our tax code if people's businesses and money situations are so complex that they can hide and deceive. It pisses me off that us little guys are getting picked on by the IRS because we're easy pickings. To me, this is the heart of the problem. Business accounts must be more transparent, less complex, somehow, so that it does't take a small army working for years to uncover wrongdoing. I hope an in depth investigation to how this Trump thing (and countless others not discovered, I'm sure) will be done and out lawmakers will be pushed to face this issue. I know, good luck.
Support Yellen's 15% minimum corporate tax. It's needed as much or more in the US than worldwide.
Kim Spot on! Since 2010 the Republicans have assiduously and sharply reduced the IRS’s personnel and technical resources to investigate the tax returns of fat cats and major corporations. Forensic accounting on any complex tax return could require hundreds or thousands of hours by highly skilled IRS professionals, of which there are only a handful
The game for tax specialists is to spend a few years with the IRS and then go into private practice to earn zillions befuddling their ex-buddies who seek to enforce IRS tax codes. Fat cats against $60,000 a year civil servants—guess who wins?
Keith, I don't know that it was such an open-and-shut case. There were a good deal of questions raised about whether the DA had a strong enough case.
'Mr. Bragg’s choice not to pursue charges is reminiscent of the high hurdle that others have failed to clear over the years as they sought to hold Mr. Trump criminally liable for his practices as a real estate mogul. Mr. Trump famously shuns email, and he has cultivated deep loyalty among employees who might otherwise testify against him, a one-two punch that has stymied other prosecutors in search of conclusive proof of his guilt.' (NYTimes) Link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?searchResultPosition=1
That's my fear Fern. But to me, this means there is something very wrong with the system.
I hope the NYT or WAPO will do an in depth investigation into system. These accountings are so complex, valuations etc. and how does anyone know what the true value is? What went wrong here because we know Trump is guilty. Someone has a humongous super-complex business--it takes so much to pick through and find discrepancies. The IRS is underfunded so they just don't. Meanwhile they pounce on the rest of us.
The IRS has pounced on me, due to an error by my accountant. He's been trying to correct it since last August, cannot get through on the phone, letters ignored and fines increasing. Now the IRS is starting to garnish my social security benefits and I can't seem do a thing about it! The IRS badly needs an infusion of funds and qualified people.
Oh no Sally! I'm so sorry to hear that. I've had a similar debacle and understand that you just cannot get through to them. Their garnishing like that is terrible. They shouldn't have a right to do that.
I’ve been hoping for the same
Absolutely!
Fern,
Two career lawyers believed in the evidence enough spend five years of their lives pursuing charges and were in the final, grand jury process of producing some charges when the DA told them to drop the case.
They quit instead.
So, if two career lawyers felt that the case was worth pursuing, I would not get too excited about a NY Times article supporting Trump getting off again.
NY Times is a for profit entity open to collecting money from whereever.
This comment is too loose for me. Did you read the article? How good is your case against it and the NY Times for publishing it? Two damned good lawyers and five years doesn't prove anything. That the NY Times is a corporation is not proof that they were paid-off to print an article raising issues about the strength of the case, You seem mighty determined to make accusations without evidence. In terms of journalism, I'd go with the NY Times on this one.
Fern, I read the article when it first came out. Yes.
I think that a better approach would have been to let the final stages of the grand jury indictment process move forward rather than Bragg killing the investigation and then giving his opinion to the NY Times on background.
The NY Times echoes what Bragg told them, BUT, they did not spend any time exploring why the two lawyers who QUIT did so.
So, beware of believing in something Fern just because NY Times published it.
Being a public link does NOT make it the truth.
You continue to accuse without end. You might think about what you are so fast to dish out. That you tell me to 'beware' of what I think is an insult to yourself. That you assume what I do and don't 'believe' in the NY Times or anywhere else without knowing what my standards are or how much I know about journalism … oh, my. You've got a fast and furious mind, Mike.
Fern,
Naw, nothing fast and furious here I am sad to say. Would that my mind was just so though.
I am afraid, Fern, that I just don't have anything I hold as incorruptible. Least of which would be any news source of any type.
Humans put all that together Fern. The NY Times failed to interview the two lawyers who quit.
As soon as you know that, then, you know they got a one sided version of what happened.
The NYT did interview the two lawyers who resigned. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html
When and if I have time, I will expand upon my criticisms of your comments more fully. Your rational for throwing around accusations is that anything is corruptible. Do you wish to elaborate on why I thought that the DA case may not have been open and shut? Do you wish to make a case that I believe in what ever I read in the NY Times? How familiar are you with journalistic standards? As all human beings are fallible, do you think that journalists can be believable? Could you be wrong about anything? Are any of your accusations right or wrong? As you are human how good could your accusations be?
Fern, I, unfortunately, have a long experience with publication in scientific and engineering journals which have, typically, high standards for providing authentic information.
But, this board is not "The Journal For Electronic Engineering" nor is this board the NY Times.
This board is a place were we, anytime we want, can publish our perspective.
And that is what makes this board fantastic.
I understand that you would like to see the board with more policing and have decided to provide that role.
But, this board requires no reviews for submission like Journals and some Newspapers.
So, I don't get all worked up about having all my references in place.
I just post my perspective based on my thinking.
I will continue to do that, and, I hope you continue policing.
Mike, It is unfortunate that we are facing one another with an air of unpleasantness. You continue to falsely accuse me. I questioned the factual basis of your accusations against Bragg and the NY Times. You return not with answers as I understood them, but with more accusations against me. First, you tell me to 'beware' of believing what I read in the NY Times as if you know how I judge what I read, instead you generalize about my opinion of articles in the paper. Now, your are accusing me of wishing to police the forum. Are you unfamiliar with differences of opinion? Is differing with you about the basis of your attacks wanting to police the forum? Now, you think that I'm 'all worked up" and claim it is about your 'references', which it is not. You end with, 'I hope you continue policing'. Really, Mike? I have listened to you and responded as best I can.
Fern, I don't even feel slightly unpleasant toward you.
Don't mistake a very different perspective than your own as unpleasant feelings.
We just have different approaches to posting on this board is all.
IF, the board requires review and references when I have an opinion I will comply.
But, it does not.
PS The lawyers who resigned were interviewed by the NYTimes. Does the truth matter? Does it exist? What about facts?
Mike, I’m with Fern. I understand that those 2 attorneys were angry that the new DA wouldn’t proceed with an indictment. I also understand that they’ve been running this investigation for 5 years and had yet to build a case convincing enough to go to trial. This came to a head not because they were ready to indict and the DA refused, but because the Grand Jury will soon be shutting down and they were running out of time. They’ve been pitching their case to the Grand Jury for almost a year, and no recommendation to indict has come forward to date. The new DA looked at everything and decided their case is weak.
“They hammered Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne about whether they could show that Mr. Trump had intended to break the law by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements, a necessary element to prove the case.” The key phrase is “intended to break the law”. There has to be evidence that when Trump inflated or deflated his property values he knew it was illegal. Evidence like emails from Trump, notes or correspondence from Trump, or recordings of or testimony from people in meetings with Trump. None of that exists. Trump doesn’t use email. Trump won’t allow recordings or notes to be taken in meetings. Weisselberg, who could bury Trump if he agreed to turn states’ evidence, is willing to go to prison rather than testify. There is no hard evidence of Trump’s intent.
JR. I remain convinced that letting the grand jury process play out was better than short circuiting that process.
Nobody knows if the Grand Jury of (12?) people would have pulled out indictments.
But, what if they did?
Mike, Bragg didn’t kill the case or stop the grand jury. He just said he wasn’t ready to bring an indictment today. The investigation and grand jury continues. By the way, last fall, before Cyrus Vance stepped down, he also said he wasn’t ready to bring an indictment.
JR.
The practical outcome of both lawyers leaving the case is to hamstring the process of indictment by the grand jury.
Sure, the people on the grand jury exist. But, nothing is happening.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, at least not for people who have not been POTUS.
Fern I never implied that was an ‘open-and-shut case.’ (Relatively few high profile cases are.) Manhattan District Attorney Vance initiated this criminal case against Trump, hired two outstanding prosecutors to pursue it, and proceeded with grand jury hearings. Bragg, the young new Manhattan DA considered ‘pausing/shutting’ down the grand jury proceedings. The two distinguished prosecutors argued their position for proceeding and then the DA, after discussions that excluded these two distinguished prosecutors, informed them that the hearings were ‘postponed.’
These two prosecutors apparently interpreted this as ‘case closed.’ I am personally familiar with chickenshit. As a kid I would, with boots on, slosh through chickenshit to recover chicken eggs every morning. Regarding the Bragg incident, if it looks like chickenshit, and smells like chickenshit, then, almost certainly it is chickshit.
Keith, Having walked through so much of a certain brand, you believe yourself to be an expert at spotting it in very different terrain. I don't doubt that your good at it, but that is not the sort of evidence that supersedes all other forms. I'm not making a case for or against Bragg. From what I have read, there are legitimate reasons to think that the case has a couple of important weak spots. The deep need to have Trump pay for his lethal behavior can for some make the case. In fact, I am as enthusiastic as almost anyone to see justice done with reference to Trump and all the other members of his treasonous cabal.
Behind paywall. Can you gift?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DODm4fiOIEGYWP-kDLIrZ5et4rmjWdWtJaLL4gTeBzyekaOkVrSwC0vpKC3ZgMZiwxt4O1G2ks1p3CG7Ak9DugJk-IFNBC_pzt9RSXLGr3RvSflC1weVp49sNifF6t2nwXkqjPGvpyj4UuwfYqUpllFj4BYiaNvqO5XhgvK8zGOk-HknQ-WOBdXTzXn9COuflXIEgJVwWwHD4o6n086dhcJNoWIK_7ShYhc8L5irgRYXd6eMbrX9ZiAtiJyMg59OLFuheOy8GpxvgpFakyvLnMsmqyMV1HW6qZ2cLq7plVZejKCTkyPzTe&smid=url-share
Fern, the above worked! Thank you!
Thank you for letting me know, MLM. Now I know how to do it. Thanks to all.
MLM, Try the link below. I apologize if it doesn't work. Gifting is a issue, which I cannot resolve at this time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?referringSource=articleShare
Does this work? I’ve never gifted an article before.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?referringSource=articleShare
I was able to read the article. Thank you
Good to hear. Thank you for responding.
Thanks, KR. I'll ask MLM to try it.
I didn’t want to steal your thunder but I wanted to learn how to do it!
I am grateful, KR.
It didn’t work ☹️ Do you want to try?
No, it didn’t.
Rats. I don’t know how to fix that. Apologies.
MLM, please try the link that KR provided. Look for her reply to you and let us know. Thanks.
Do you know how I can do it? If so, please reply. I'd be happy to it. The article is too long to copy as a comment.
Fern, you find the little "envelope" icon which means "share this article" and click on it, opening an email to send with the "gift" link. Copy that link.
Actually the icon that works for that is the one that looks like a "Gift." It is a black square with a white cross inside and an infinity symbol (ribbon) on top. Clicking on that will start the process -- what you want in this case is "Copy the Link."
Teacher, Ron Boyd, thank you. 🌿 I am a free-pass giver now!
Thanks, Jeff. My email and the Times don't have a good relationship, but I'll try.
Right. I hope the DOJ does not come up and say, wow, no emails so let him off for attempting overthrow the entire government on live TV.
Does Merrick Garland belong to the Club? Is he afraid that in the annals of history it will look bad if he is the first to bring charges against an ex-President and then loses? I suspect so but I also think there will NEVER be a risk-free case that could be brought against Trump because of the burdens of proving intent and securing unanimity in a jury. I believe that in the eye of history the failure to at least try (pun intended) will be seen as close to a crime!
Bill You raise a core question. I don’t recall that any ex-president has ever been tried in a criminal court of law. Clearly the House 1/6 Committee is signaling to Attorney General Garland that they are gathering ‘smoking pistol’ evidence against Trump and his Trump Pissers.
Already the word ‘sedition’ has been used in some of DOJ 1/6 indictments. During the House 1/6 Committee’s public hearings, some of the seditionists will be be on center stage. The DOJ may choose to indict the low-hanging fruits. As for the big enchilada, the issue of indicting an ex-president who had 74 million votes in the 2020 could have profound political repercussions with such crazies as the Proud Boys and the Oath Takers.
Personally, I consider Trump guilty of sedition and, with a broad interpretation of the Constitution, treason. At a minimum, he could be an unnamed indictee in the prosecution of others.
Trump is now the heaviest ex-president in American history (William Howard Taft lost 50 pounds before being seated as Chief Justice). With all the prospective trials that are lurking around Tubby Trump (the IRS has a pending $100+ million matter with Trump since 2010 and lots more peccadillos to explore subsequently), perhaps Trump will fall of his own weight.
I don't know how satisfying "unnamed indictee" would be. From what you're saying about Tubby, wouldn't that just be another case of letting the little guys take the fall?
Perhaps all this hand wringing about Trump is one of the fundamental limitions of "freedom" and "due process"???
I mean, does anyone question that Trump tried to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the United States on live TV and Twitter??
No. Everyone knows that he did precisely that, but, here we are, wringing our hands about having a case against him.
Honestly, what a mess.
Agreed and that's why I think a trial is needed even if there's a mistrial With the passage of time the vast majority of Americans concluded that OJ did it even though he was acquitted--but without a trial it might not have been so clear
You speak the truth
My “Pollyanna” alter ego sees a possible (although admittedly highly unlikely) reason for Bragg to pause the grand jury proceedings. TFG is fighting being deposed in the civil case against him in part because he states it’s a fishing expedition for information that can be used in the criminal investigation. Could it be that the grand jury is being paused (yes, I prefer to think of it as merely paused) to remove this argument and compel TFG and offspring to testify in the civil case?
Cathy Though on occasion I admire Pollyannas (especially when I personally am playing such a role), I don’t believe that what’s happened to the grand jury examining evidence of Trump’s criminality is ‘the pause that refreshes.’ [That was a Coke slogan back when I was an itty bitty boy.]
Keith, I wonder if your comment would have been stronger had you incorporated the bit about the “two superbly qualified lawyers” invested in the case, who resigned when the investigation abruptly was closed.
Barbara Often my fingers function faster than my top-of-head thoughts. I included the abrupt resignation of “two superbly qualified lawyers” in a subsequent post. When two top-flight prosecutors are fighting to continue the criminal case against Trump, it seems that the new Manhattan DA is suffering from chickenshititis.
Keith. You got the whole thread started. So, thank you.
I had posted the gift link to the NY Times article with my own outrage about a week ago when I first saw it and nobody seemed to care but me.
So, great job. Keep it up.
Excellent! How shocking to see impeachments and court cases ending without ending? There must be a waiting list for the club.
Keith, I’m not surprised at the NYT. Excellent comment! I was unaware of Comey’s ‘Club.’ Thanks!
Unlike this forum, the minder’s at the NYT will not post anything that deviates from their published pov, I've stopped trying, it's not worth the effort. 🤷♂️
Dick I share your frustration with some of my rejected NYT posts. However, I have been surprised at some of my Trump turds that have been published, at times hours after being submitted. I think this partially depends on the luck of the draw with individuals editors. I had one post that was a TimesPick and then was deleted a few hours later. Even for the NYT that it most unusual.
Keith, the NY Times is now playing to the far right hoping to avoid being shut down when Trump becomes President again.
Maybe they think they are The New York Post…
Every day I expect to see an expose of what Bragg did and why. The news is getting lost because of the war in Ukraine.
Interesting. But I think there is probably more to this decision than we can see. I don't think they are afraid of Trump. Also I thought I read that it wasn't closed just paused and a new prosecutor was assigned...I could be wrong. Also the new guy gets to work with whomever he wants so just maybe he didn't want to work with them on this. Like I said, we were given no reason for the change of guard.
Martha You may be right that the resignation of two top prosecutors does not necessarily mean that the grand jury (expires in April) investigation of Trump’s criminality will not continue. However, I find merit in the saying “Don’t change horses in mid-stream.”
I too recall seeing/reading something about the DA assigning a new prosecutor, I think within a week after the 2 attorneys resigned.