To compare the US legal system to the USSR legal system is a joke. One can credibly claim that Bragg was extra motivated to go after Trump because he is a political opponent, but Trump made that easy by breaking the law. And Bragg had to make the case in front of a Grand Jury and a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers money coul…
To compare the US legal system to the USSR legal system is a joke. One can credibly claim that Bragg was extra motivated to go after Trump because he is a political opponent, but Trump made that easy by breaking the law. And Bragg had to make the case in front of a Grand Jury and a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers money could buy, but even they couldn't convince a single juror that Trump was innocent of the charges. I have a hard time respecting someone who can't distinguish between a completely corrupt justice system and a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law.
Matt Mullen, above, is unwittingly verifying -- through stunning cynicism and remorseless partisanship -- exactly what Mr. Ferguson argues. His straight-faced obfuscation is an indicator of terminal moral corruption, both individually and in the social caste he claims is worthy of our respect. But what he is really counting on is not respect, but our gullibility and then our surrender. Find another platform, Mullen. It doesn't work here.
Distinguish between a justice system that worked and a highly partisan DA who fulfilled a partisan campaign promise and has now created a dangerous precedent.
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference
No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
Jurors inevitably bring their biases, preconceptions, and worldviews into their decisions, no matter how seriously they take their role.
But the point about politics and culture was only to suggest that any "not guilty" juror would likely have been in the minority, so that the result of one or more unpersuaded jurors would most likely not have been an acquittal, but a hung jury.
The larger point I tried to make is that jurors could have been considering possible consequences for them personally -- and their families.
Alan Dershowitz, describing some of the consequences of taking a position against one of Trump's impeachments -- and other unpopular stances -- states that the price for him "has been very high": (https://youtu.be/cXtLtUq0mNY?t=45)
"I was very much accepted by my community. I spoke at the library every year. My books were in the library. I spoke at Temple Emanuel in New York, at the 92nd Street Y.
"I've been canceled from all of those venues because I stood up for principle -- because I defended the right of President Trump not to be impeached on unconstitutional grounds. It's been both personal and institutional.
"Personal -- I was seated next to Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president, at a dinner party and she said if I knew you had been invited, I wouldn't have come. This is the ambassador to Australia -- who is supposed to be able to be in the same room with leaders of foreign countries -- who won't be in the same room with a man who showed a profile of courage (to paraphrase her father's book).
"The library canceled me. I used to speak there every year now they didn't even carry my books until I threatened to sue them, so the price has been very high.
"My wife worked out in the gym and somebody walked in and said oh that's Alan Dershowitz's wife -- we can't be in the same room with that person.
"Larry David came over to me while I was trying to have lunch and started screaming at me and yelling "you're disgusting, you're disgusting" because I patted Mike Pompeo on the back (he's my former student), congratulating him for the Abraham Accords.
"I have a thick skin but taking it out of my wife and my children -- and you know other lawyers have now called and said "We won't defend President Trump because we don't want to be 'Dershowitz'ed' -- we don't want to have happen to us what happened to you" -- so you know, it has an institutional impact."
Isn't it likely that the Manhattan jurors were well aware of at least some of the consequences experienced by individuals, like Dershowitz, who have stood up for Trump in some way? (How is the former mayor Giuliani doing these days?)
To compare the US legal system to the USSR legal system is a joke. One can credibly claim that Bragg was extra motivated to go after Trump because he is a political opponent, but Trump made that easy by breaking the law. And Bragg had to make the case in front of a Grand Jury and a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers money could buy, but even they couldn't convince a single juror that Trump was innocent of the charges. I have a hard time respecting someone who can't distinguish between a completely corrupt justice system and a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law.
Matt Mullen, above, is unwittingly verifying -- through stunning cynicism and remorseless partisanship -- exactly what Mr. Ferguson argues. His straight-faced obfuscation is an indicator of terminal moral corruption, both individually and in the social caste he claims is worthy of our respect. But what he is really counting on is not respect, but our gullibility and then our surrender. Find another platform, Mullen. It doesn't work here.
Distinguish between a justice system that worked and a highly partisan DA who fulfilled a partisan campaign promise and has now created a dangerous precedent.
Bad Bookkeeping! The Republic trembles!
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
There many more.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The real problem is not with the jury/verdict.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
"The prosecutors should never have brought such a case."
The Grand Jury disagreed with your opinion on that matter.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference
in Soviet Union all jurors touted the given line of the thought process. So is " all Manhattan" jury
You think people in the jury voted to convict him even though they thought he was innocent because of where they live?
No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
I heard the comments section at The Free Press was filled with nuts. I'm starting to understand what they meant.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
Because so many disagree with you?
Possibly out of self-preservation.
Have you heard Alan Dershowitz discussing the consequences in his life of "defending" Trump?
Most jurors do not have the resources of an Alan Dershowitz.
Are you suggesting that they would face consequences for finding him innocent? How so?
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
Ask any trial lawyer. Juries do not bring politics into their decisions. They take their jobs seriously. You are engaging in baseless speculation.
I was a lawyer. I participated in trials.
Jurors inevitably bring their biases, preconceptions, and worldviews into their decisions, no matter how seriously they take their role.
But the point about politics and culture was only to suggest that any "not guilty" juror would likely have been in the minority, so that the result of one or more unpersuaded jurors would most likely not have been an acquittal, but a hung jury.
The larger point I tried to make is that jurors could have been considering possible consequences for them personally -- and their families.
Alan Dershowitz, describing some of the consequences of taking a position against one of Trump's impeachments -- and other unpopular stances -- states that the price for him "has been very high": (https://youtu.be/cXtLtUq0mNY?t=45)
"I was very much accepted by my community. I spoke at the library every year. My books were in the library. I spoke at Temple Emanuel in New York, at the 92nd Street Y.
"I've been canceled from all of those venues because I stood up for principle -- because I defended the right of President Trump not to be impeached on unconstitutional grounds. It's been both personal and institutional.
"Personal -- I was seated next to Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president, at a dinner party and she said if I knew you had been invited, I wouldn't have come. This is the ambassador to Australia -- who is supposed to be able to be in the same room with leaders of foreign countries -- who won't be in the same room with a man who showed a profile of courage (to paraphrase her father's book).
"The library canceled me. I used to speak there every year now they didn't even carry my books until I threatened to sue them, so the price has been very high.
"My wife worked out in the gym and somebody walked in and said oh that's Alan Dershowitz's wife -- we can't be in the same room with that person.
"Larry David came over to me while I was trying to have lunch and started screaming at me and yelling "you're disgusting, you're disgusting" because I patted Mike Pompeo on the back (he's my former student), congratulating him for the Abraham Accords.
"I have a thick skin but taking it out of my wife and my children -- and you know other lawyers have now called and said "We won't defend President Trump because we don't want to be 'Dershowitz'ed' -- we don't want to have happen to us what happened to you" -- so you know, it has an institutional impact."
Isn't it likely that the Manhattan jurors were well aware of at least some of the consequences experienced by individuals, like Dershowitz, who have stood up for Trump in some way? (How is the former mayor Giuliani doing these days?)
Weren't two of the Jurors attorneys?