Author Topic: When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense By Byron York  (Read 156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 384,433
  • Let's Go Brandon!
When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense
By
Byron York
May 6, 2024 5:34 pm
.

WHEN THE JUDGE GAGS A KEY WITNESS FOR TRUMP’S DEFENSE. The false bookkeeping trial of former President Donald Trump is now in its fourth week. This newsletter has pointed out lots of times, most recently last Friday, that while we know that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened.

But now we’re getting an idea of where prosecutors are going. Perhaps the leading theory — they’re all just theories — of the other crime is that in addition to violating New York’s misdemeanor law against falsifying bookkeeping records, Trump also violated another New York misdemeanor law, 17-152, which prohibits conspiring “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Put those two misdemeanors together, and bingo! Trump stands accused of 34 felony counts, which could put him in prison for a maximum of 136 years.

Obviously 17-152 depends on specifying what “unlawful means” the defendant used to promote or prevent the election of any person. Otherwise, it’s just campaigning. So at some point prosecutors will have to reveal what those “unlawful means” were. But here’s something that nonlawyers should know: To win a felony conviction, Bragg does not have to prove Trump committed the other crime, whatever it might be. “The statute does not require a defendant to actually be convicted of the ‘other crime,’ but merely that he intend to commit another crime,” wrote the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, on Feb. 15. “The focus here is on the element of intent.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2993414/when-the-judge-gags-a-key-witness-for-trumps-defense/
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,824
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
So if a candidate jaywalks on the way to a campaign rally because they are late, do they fall under this 'law'? It seems vague and over broad, and nothing but a way to allow the prosecution to grasp and reach with dubious legality to leverage more charges based on conspiracy theory type claims. It's kafkaesque despotic, kangaroo court manipulation of the legal system.
The Republic is lost.