XPost: misc.legal, alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: lynching@coming.soon   
      
   On 4/24/2024 2:00 AM, useapen wrote:   
   > By Jed Handelsman Shugerman   
   >   
   > Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Boston University.   
   >   
   > About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney,   
   > indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and   
   > called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and   
   > should lead to long delays in federal courts.   
   >   
   > After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still   
   > think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague   
   > allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential   
   > election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of   
   > state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime   
   > or a valid theory of fraud.   
      
   Alvin Bragg, black.  Letitia James, black.  Fat Fani Willis, black.   
   Kamala Harris, pretends to be black.  No left-wing progressive black   
   conspiracy here...   
      
   > To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records.   
   > Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg   
   > and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law   
   > and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state   
   > statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to   
   > state and local races.   
   >   
   > Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made   
   > the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how   
   > entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and   
   > invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with   
   > anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr.   
   > Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election   
   > Commission, and only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that   
   > filing.   
   >   
   > A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law   
   > professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn   
   > out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to   
   > do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were   
   > entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal   
   > Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an   
   > investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr.   
   > Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C.   
   > filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper   
   > trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the   
   > F.E.C.   
   >   
   > In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.   
   >   
   > Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state   
   > jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive   
   > state investigators, too. State investigators could find these   
   > inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that   
   > New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to   
   > defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to   
   > significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or   
   > whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by   
   > federal law.   
   >   
   > However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant   
   > legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s   
   > opening statement even hint at this approach.   
      
   'cause there ain't one.   
      
   > Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted   
   > a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan   
   > described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an   
   > allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with   
   > others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”   
      
   Lol.  You can accuse Democrats of that every single election.   
      
   > As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure   
   > agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law   
   > scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference   
   > actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in   
   > the real election interference cases.”   
      
   In other words, Bragg preferred bullshit charges.   
      
   > Editors’ Picks   
   >   
   > Alfred Molina on the Museum He Never Misses When He’s in New York   
   >   
   > 36 Hours in Munich   
   >   
   > The Best Fish Is Also the Most Local. Why Is It So Hard to Find?   
   > In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still   
   > evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but   
   > then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the   
   > relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud.   
   > Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake,   
   exaggerating   
   > the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the   
   > prosecutors cannot meet.   
   >   
   > The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign   
   > finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state   
   > election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor   
   > counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even   
   > fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the   
   > federal crime.   
   >   
   > In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the   
   > Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and   
   > applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective   
   > prosecution upon appeal.   
   >   
   > First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on   
   > the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate   
   > crime. Whether state prosecutors have avoided doing so as a matter of law,   
   > norms or lack of expertise, this novel attempt is a sign of overreach.   
   >   
   > Second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that   
   > the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a   
   > crime in another jurisdiction. The Manhattan D.A. responded with judicial   
   > precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this   
   > case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of   
   > this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal   
   > and a single jury instruction do not count).   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)