Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160) |
Author: Dope1   😊 😞
Number: of 84360 
Subject: Re: Guilty on all counts
Date: 05/30/24 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
1) Criminal violation of FECA.

Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction here. He can't say "This guy broke this law" when it's not on him to prosecute that.

2) Submittal of fraudulent tax filings.

So did the IRS weigh in on this? Why wasn't this tried in federal court also?

3) Conspiracy to commit election fraud. NY State law makes it unlawful for two or more people to conspire to promote the election of any person to public office through any unlawful means. Making campaign contributions in excess of the legal limit is an unlawful means. Therefore, the false business records that falsified the actual monetary transaction concealed the commission of that crime.

How is this a felony? There's no universe where it is, and especially in one where 1)and 2) are off the table. Bragg clearly went reaching for something he could manufacture into multiple felonies and this was how he did it.

Odd things during the trial
*Stormy's testimony. Added zero value to the case, was just there to embarrass Trump.
*The judge barred the former Election Commissioner guy from testifying that what Trump did wasn't even a crime under federal election law. How can a judge say a witness can't testify "because it might confuse the jury"?
*Then there's the judge's instructions to the jury. Merchan told the jury they needed to unanimous on the "falsification of records charge"...but they could pick out whatever underlying "unlawful means" were used...without the prosecution actually ever proving any of that. Talk about Choose Your Own Adventure, especially in light of stifling the exculpating witness to the Election bit.

Do you see how a layperson would look at this and conclude that the trial was rigged?
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community