There are many reasons why legal experts are questioning the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. But the major reason is that the main claim in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case—that Trump’s $130,000 settlement payment of a potential claim by Stormy Daniels was a campaign-related expense—is totally bogus.
Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on.
Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett accused prosecutors working for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of using an approach that led to the 2020 rape conviction against disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein being overturned.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision Thursday that the judge overseeing the trial mistakenly allowed testimonies from women not involved in the 2020 case and that the “remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.” Jarrett said testimony in the first week of former President Donald Trump’s trial did not touch on the charges that he is facing.
President Trump shared last week that he believes the FBI stole his will. The FBI also stole 1,800 other items that were not documents that belonged to President Trump. This was not lawful or necessary.
It is also widely known at this point that Joe Biden who ordered the FBI access to Trump’s documents at Mar-a-Lago and President Trump’s personal belongings.
On pages 2-3 of the ruling Judge Cannon revealed that it was JOE BIDEN who ordered the FBI access to the Mar-a-Lago documents and President Trump’s personal belongings.
Biden’s corrupt and weaponized DOJ just issued Trump’s third and most serious criminal indictment. The formal charges of “conspiracy to defraud the United States” do an underwhelmingly half-hearted job of disguising the obvious purpose of the indictment, which is to codify the “disinformation” scam into criminal law generally, and specifically, to criminalize what we might call “election denial”.
Indeed, there’s a reason the indictment begins with the false, absurd and legally irrelevant claim that Trump made “knowingly false claims” about the 2020 election that “created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger” and eroded “public faith in the administration of the election.”
Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false. But the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election”
If you glanced at the New York Times today, you might be shocked at the “real news” they featured. In a rare burst of honesty and clarity, the Old Gray Hag actually let a well-respected legal professor from Boston University publish an opinion piece. This piece didn’t just poke holes in Alvin Bragg’s sham “hush money” case—it blasted it into a pile of dust. The professor called it not only a legal embarrassment but a historic mistake. Ouch.
His name is Professor Shugerman, and while he was never onboard with Biden’s show trial, led by Fat Alvin Bragg, after what he’s seen unfold, he’s gone from being embarrassed for the entire US injustice system, to now believing this trial is a historic misstep that hinges on Monday’s opening arguments. Professor Shugerman had to pick his jaw up from the floor after listening to prosecutors lay out their case.
The attorneys representing the corrupt DA in New York, Alvin Bragg, in their case against President Trump, have made a serious error in their case. President Trump’s attorneys must move to dismiss.
DA Bragg’s case is in serious trouble. The gang behind the prosecution of President Trump made a serious error that should lead President Trump’s team to move to dismiss.
Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday ordered key evidence in Jack Smith’s classified documents case to be unredacted.
The newly unredacted documents revealed Biden’s White House had direct ties to the Mar-a-Lago raid. The Biden Regime was also directly tied to Jack Smith’s investigation despite claims to the contrary from US Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Before with redactions: Jack Smith wanted to hide the fact that the National Archives had several conversations with the Biden White House.
Six years ago, I stood a few feet away from Joe Biden at a fundraiser and was certain he was the only person who could save this country from Donald Trump in 2020.
However, by the end of the election, I would leave the Democratic Party for good. I saw them as corrupt, too powerful, and dangerous to the very democracy they now claim they want to protect.
Thanks to the relentless political targeting of President Trump, there’s been a spotlight on the use of “hush money” and secret funds to sweep indiscretions under the rug in politics. This shouldn’t come as a shock to many, given the nature of fame and power, but where do we draw the line? When is it acceptable for politicians to dip into taxpayer-funded slush funds to settle their sexual indiscretions privately, and without fanfare, and when is it deemed unacceptable for a private political candidate to do the same with personal funds? Here’s the thing that’s got everyone scratching their heads: Trump’s stuck in this political circus over “hush money,” where they’re all too eager to drag him through the mud over what amounts to a flimsy misdemeanor at best.
