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 pract…
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."
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.