Fox News Anchor’s Trump Jury Instructions Claim Is False

I think way too many people are acting like arm chair quarterbacks and miss the point of the legal system. Prosecutors are allowed to craft a prosecution strategy that sometimes is novel, innovative or pushes the limits on what is allowed. Prosecutors are also going to be politically aligned. The position of the Manhattan District Attorney is an elected position. That means that this individual must have a platform that resonates with the local population. Certain populations of the country are very mad at Trump and certain populations of the country are very mad at Biden. It should not be a surprise that Manhattan leans liberal. It should also not be a surprise that Manhattan is sometimes pursuing novel approaches to law. They have been doing this for decades. A lot of this is because of complicated financial crimes that are centered in this area and are prosecuted in this area. The DA had to craft something that would muster an indictment of a grand jury of Trump's peers. Furthermore, he had to create a case that he felt that a judge would rule favorably with. Lots of people that are mad with the Trump verdict have no problem with novel approaches to criminalizing abortion or border protection activities. For as smart as Trump says he is, he should have known better not to pull off these activities in Manhattan, they have been known for decades and decades that this is not the location to pull these off in.

With all of that said, the beauty is that he can appeal this verdict to courts not under the umbrella of Manhattan. If things were pushed too far, than he has his day in court. That is how this works. Stop feeling so sorry for the billionaire who is using his money to cover up his sin. Pray for his soul, not the mistreatment that he is receiving. Treatment that he has no problem dishing out to those around him. While many of us may not have the means to appeal this kind of thing, many of us don't have the means to cheat on our wives, hire lawyers and pay $100's of thousands of dollars to cover up this terrible sin. If Trump was wronged, he will have his day in court and he will have his chance to appeal it, multiple times before this is done. Trump is no innocent person who has been "cheated". Maybe instead of spending energy and money in covering his sin, he should have spent more time and energy in building a faithful marriage. He can mistreat his wife and abuse her trust in the highest order, but somehow decry his mistreatment in court? Give me a break!

Ken, the charges should have been in the papers Alvin Bragg filed for the indictment, not finally filled in with the conviction papers that you linked. As John noted, a number of legal minds are pointing out a series of places, yes, starting with not specifying the charges, that should have shut down the case before anyone was indicted and before Donald Trump paid a single hour of legal fees.

Yes, it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn this, but just because someone with deep pockets can do this does not mean that the rest of us are safe from people like Juan Merchan and Alvin Bragg.

One of Bragg's lead facilitators, Matthew Colangelo, who left his job as acting associate attorney general to work on Bragg's staff. That is, in legal terms, a huge demotion, and it's really only explained if Colangelo expects a huge payoff from what he's done there. And if a payoff to Stormy Daniels counts as an illegal campaign contribution, so does this.

And of course, if Colangelo is expecting payoff--and he certainly is--what do we say about those who are going to be paying him off for this in the future? We are talking RICO, folks.

I'll agree that Bragg should have listed the secondary crimes when he filed the indictment. Regardless, it's pretty clear that those crimes were discussed and listed during the indictment as court documents show.

As far as not being safe from people like Merchan and Bragg, I am unconcerned. I am very unlikely to be involved in anything like the financial, political, or sexual activities of Trump. There's a reason why he has multiple criminal indictments, a criminal conviction in the current case, and a civil conviction of sexual abuse, not to mention the decades of legal carnage that he's been able to buy his way out of with settlements, etc. He's a bad guy with the most deplorable character of a presidential candidate I've ever heard of. Everything that Proverbs mentions of a fool is descriptive of Trump. And yet he's the Republican candidate for president with millions of Christians thrilled to vote for him and sharing comparisons of him to Jesus all over social media. It's mind-boggling.

These folks are far more qualified than most of us probably are.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/reversible-errors/

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

This was about one thing - Trump's opposition being able to campaign saying he is "a convicted felon." Likely of little care to them if it is reversed in 2025. They get their label to use in the 2024 general election campaign. The price charged to the American republic for their label is extraordinary.

Rather like me sneaking in a tube of paint and brush and painting a stick figure atop "The Raft of Medusa" in The Louvre. Then telling people my artwork has hung in The Louvre. I will be arrested and art restorers will diligently seek to undo my damage (appeal). But a great painting will never be the same. A high price in service of my trifling ends.

When Alvin Bragg came to the grand jury without a clearly specified crime, Juan Merchan should have said "Mr. Bragg, don't come back until you've got the crime specified." The very reason we have a grand jury system is to avoid this sort of thing.

Bragg and his whole team ought to be disbarred for this. There is an adage among lawyers; "the process is the punishment." You can be 100% innocent, but lose your life savings defending yourself. Because of this, we need to be very harsh on prosecutors who abuse the leeway they sometimes get in this way. To prosecute one misdemeanor, Bragg and his team have committed, in effect, a series of felonies.

Bragg was not required by law to state the secondary crime that upgraded the charges to felonies. The misdemeanors were clearly specified.

Here is the law that requires a clear statement of the charges. It's called the "Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution".

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

We should not be defending Bragg and Merchan in this. The Constitution clearly requires prosecutors to inform defendants of the nature and cause of the accusation, and if that is not provided in the indictment, the defense more or less needs to play a guessing game about what the charges are.

It reduces the value of the assistance of counsel, can outright prevent a defense because defense charges add up, and finally allows the prosecution to change tack in mid-trial.

Also worth noting, as I look at the text of the 6th Amendment, is that the judge prevented an FEC expert on campaign finance law from testifying on Trump's behalf--and in outside commentary, the same person pointed out that as far as the FEC was concerned, it had nothing to do with campaign finance law. So Trump's right to know the nature of the accusation was infringed, and also his right to compulsory process.

This is a big deal, and we shouldn't be satisfied that it can be rectified on appeal.

The judge did not prevent the FEC expert from testifying. He narrowed the limits on the questions and what the expert could testify on. Very, very, very, very routine ruling. The defense decided not to call the witness as a result. The ruling was that the expert could not provide interpretation of a law. That is like Law101. If the defense did not like the pretrial ruling, than they can bring it up on appeal. But I will right now, bet you $100 (and you can call me on it - despite our gambling post earlier, ha), that this will not be a point brought up on appeal. This has been fact checked all over the place. But if you are on Truth Social, you might have missed it.

BTW, the prosecutor and team did nothing, according to NY Bar rules that would necessitate them to be disbarred. The disbarment rules for most state bars is quite high. They could be censured, but they didn't commit an act that would have fallen under the NY Bar guidelines.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-brad-smith-testify-trump-trial-90…

You realize that so much of this issue would've been resolved if prosecutors weren't given unlimited power in the first place? Since around 1970, criminal justice policies have been passed authorizing prosecutors to basically do what ever they'd like without accountability. They hold absolute immunity. If a prosecutor knowingly violates a person's constitutional rights by withholding evidence, presenting false evidence, tampering with evidence, intimidating a witness, asserting facts not in the evidence, and committing jury discrimination, they cannot be sued. Rarely if ever, are they disbarred for any of these misconducts and I think there has only been one prosecutor that went to prison for these acts in trying a case and he was out after 6 days. If more prosecutors were actually held accountable like the majority of Americans through the courts, I doubt if this would've come to trial. But in our haste to get tough on crime and convict the guilty we developed a system that over-criminalizes and adds to a nation known for its mass incarceration that will do whatever it takes to convict because we are a nation that believes the ends justify the means.

I'm not saying that Bragg did any of these things, but I am questioning his ethics in indicting him in the first place.

Prosecutors use their unrestrained power in plea bargaining, setting bail, and delaying a trial, putting financial pressure on those who are poor and don't have the resources to fight the system. As a result, I know many people in my community who pleaded guilty to a crime they didn't commit or served 5-10 years for a crime that they should've only gotten 1-2 years. Because of this, many of my students have grown up without a father.

What's ironic with Trump is that since 2015 in his campaign and all his rallies, he wants even more power given to prosecutors! For instance, he wants laws that give prosecutors even more power to in order to pursue the death penalty for drug dealers.

Following this story since the trial ended has amused me, All of the sudden, conservative Christians are waking up to the fact that there are major flaws in our criminal justice system that this Trump trial has exposed, beginning with the prosecutor. Predictably the outcry only happened when it negatively affected one of the most powerful men the world. Its no wonder James had something to say about how we Christians should not show favoritism for the rich and powerful. I am praying that this incident draws attention to this terrible flaw in our criminal justice system. Maybe because the democrats used the unrestrained power of the prosecutor against the conservative's champion, conservatives will finally hold prosecutors in check, even as most conservative supreme court justices has supported unlimited power for prosecutors. Millions of people (mostly poor and minorities) have unjustly treated by the courts over the past 60 years leading to over-criminalization and mass incarceration. If your outrage is this great in defending Trump when he was injustly treated, I am praying you also save a little bit of that passion and outrage in the future as the poor are regularly mistreated by our justice system by the unlimited power of our prosecutors (some states are worse than others).

More or less, it is that Bradley A. Smith, former chairman of the FEC, is not qualified to comment on whether there were previous similar cases where hush money was, or was not, treated as a campaign finance expenditure which (a) violated campaign finance laws and (b) was punished by prison time.

Personally, I find that the answer to this question is very relevant to the case at hand, and I further suggest that Smith is a far greater expert on this portion of the law than is Juan Mecham. The only reason to deny him the right to make the full testimony is that....Smith's testimony would likely undermine Mecham's interpretation of the law.

In other words, "judge is the only arbiter of the law, and if you persist in commenting on the law, I'll hold you in contempt." It's our tradition these days (see Joel's comment), and it's a profoundly harmful one.

And yes, another profoundly harmful tradition we have in our country is to not (again, see Joel's comment) hold rogue prosecutors liable for abusing their power. I'd love that tradition to end, too. We need to have a Mike Nifong wing of Alcatraz where they all get to live.

Seriously, I think a lot of Americans really have no idea what Hobson's choice it is for poor and middle class defendants to choose whether they'll fight a charge they don't deserve and end up bankrupt and unemployable, or cop a plea and end up unemployable....except in crime.

But this is great :

https://x.com/thebabylonbee/status/1797795404148527302?s=46&t=jsODfYi8e…

Not sure I would laugh at the Babylon Bee satire. Because those are the verses that will condemn him to an eternity of separation of God, unless he turns his heart. I know it is just a fake voice, but still.

This was about one thing - Trump's opposition being able to campaign saying he is "a convicted felon." Likely of little care to them if it is reversed in 2025. They get their label to use in the 2024 general election campaign. The price charged to the American republic for their label is extraordinary.

I saw more news this morning on how Judge Cannon is mishandling the Trump classified documents case in a thinly disguised attempt to keep Trump from facing trial before the election. I'm wondering if the supporters of Trump on this thread have equal concern for how she is attempting to influence the election by postponing the case, or worse allow Trump to avoid consequences altogether by pardoning himself as president. Anyone concerned about the miscarriage of justice in this case, which is far more important than the hush money case?

...let's remember someone else had classified documents in his garage next to his vintage Corvette, and when he put them there, he was not entitled to declare them unclassified because he'd only been Vice President, and he's not on trial.

There are layers and layers of miscarriage of justice here. Goes back, really, to the DOJ's complete failure to even issue a single subpoena for evidence in Hilliary's server case, and it parallels the slow-walked "investigations" of Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. We can argue "prosecutorial discretion" until we're blue in the face, or discuss differences between cases, but the reality is that conservatives are in court, and liberals are by and large not--except on the right side of the courtroom.