Trump Indictment Watch

Garmel said:
Documentation for your opinion that he was doing all of this for Trump. That's your opinion.He took that 130,000 hush money and tried to make money off of it. Look what he did here. It's long but check this out.

"In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments."

This above is why he didn't tell Trump about it.

The difference between the Hillary and Trump case is that Trump didn't know about the operation Cohen was doing this alone according to his own testimony. Hillary was aware of the subpoena. Another false equivalency from you.

By law, the DA has to inform the defendant and the courts of any exculpatory evidence. You're an idiot that needs to quit talking about **** he doesn't know about.

"The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bra... after,government's possession to the defense.

Got any more stupid **** you want to say? I've had enough of you and your nonsense. From now on expect an "LOL" for the majority of the times you respond to me.
Click to expand...




Cool story bro,, I don't see why you are crying so much if you think there's no case. I don't have any role in all this. I am just an observer. If he is indicted and found not guilty I will accept that. I think the case is worth bringing. We shall see what happens.



I don't know the specifics of NY law but the Brady rule is for people charged with a crime. Trump hasn't been charged with a crime. When he is then the prosecutor is required to give them any exculpatory evidence. The Brady rule is a joke though. It's almost never enforced on prosecutors. One trick is cops just don't share it with the prosecutor to get around it.
 
And just a reminder. I was right both Durham prodecutions were exonerated, I was right about Weaselberg being convicted, and I was right about Trump Org being convicted. Even going back to arguments with thethe I was right about Michael Flynn not having his conviction overturned.
 
Did Rand Paul say that Alvin Bragg should be arrested if he indicts Trump?











Yes, Rand Paul did say that Alvin Bragg should be arrested if he indicts Trump. In a tweet on March 21, 2023, Paul wrote:

"A Trump indictment would be a disgusting abuse of power. The DA should be put in jail."
 
nsacpi said:
Did Rand Paul say that Alvin Bragg should be arrested if he indicts Trump?











Yes, Rand Paul did say that Alvin Bragg should be arrested if he indicts Trump. In a tweet on March 21, 2023, Paul wrote:

"A Trump indictment would be a disgusting abuse of power. The DA should be put in jail."
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more.

Bragg, Fauci, Biden, nsacpi... all can be sent to GITMO

Paul 2024
 
Obviously Paul and Maxime Waters have more in common that we realized. Both are rather zealous in turning up the heat on law enforcement to generate the outcomes that suit their partisan political leanings. And some of their fans around here are like that too. Even the ones who once upon a time pretended to be principled about all things constitutional.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
couldn't agree more.

Bragg, Fauci, Biden, nsacpi... all can be sent to GITMO

Paul 2024
Click to expand...

Paul is 100% someone I would get behind of - Potentially even if he ran against Trump.

Because I know he isn't a war monger pretending to be a Populist.
 
Has Alvin Bragg violated the Brady rule in the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels matter




Whether Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels matter is a complex legal question that would likely have to be decided by a court. The Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that could impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

There is no public evidence that Bragg has withheld any evidence favorable to Trump. However, there have been reports that Bragg's office has been slow to respond to requests for information from the defense. It is possible that Bragg has not yet turned over all of the evidence that the defense is entitled to.

If Bragg has violated the Brady rule, it could have a significant impact on the case. The defense could use the violation to argue for a dismissal of the charges or for a new trial.
 
Is there a conspiracy theory that Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Trump-Stormy Daniels matter?



There is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Trump-Stormy Daniels matter. The Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that could impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses. There is no public evidence that Bragg has withheld any evidence favorable to Trump.

The conspiracy theory appears to be based on the fact that Bragg's office has been slow to respond to requests for information from the defense. However, there are a number of possible explanations for this, including the fact that the case is complex and that Bragg's office is understaffed.

The conspiracy theory is also based on the fact that Bragg is a Democrat and that Trump is a Republican. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Bragg is motivated by political bias. Bragg has a long history of prosecuting both Democrats and Republicans, and he has been praised by both sides of the political aisle for his fairness and integrity.

The conspiracy theory is also based on the fact that Trump has made false and misleading statements about the case. However, Trump's statements are not evidence of wrongdoing by Bragg. In fact, Trump's statements are likely to undermine his own credibility if the case goes to trial.

The conspiracy theory is baseless and there is no evidence to support it. It is likely that the conspiracy theory is being spread by Trump supporters who are trying to discredit Bragg and the investigation into Trump's hush-money payments.
 
thethe said:
[tw]1638963948614746112[/tw]

It gets better and better
Click to expand...


So how is she extorting him if she has isn't making that claim? And why would they need an NDA to prevent her from going public with claims she isn't making. That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
nsacpi said:
Has Alvin Bragg violated the Brady rule in the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels matter




Whether Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels matter is a complex legal question that would likely have to be decided by a court. The Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that could impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

There is no public evidence that Bragg has withheld any evidence favorable to Trump. However, there have been reports that Bragg's office has been slow to respond to requests for information from the defense. It is possible that Bragg has not yet turned over all of the evidence that the defense is entitled to.

If Bragg has violated the Brady rule, it could have a significant impact on the case. The defense could use the violation to argue for a dismissal of the charges or for a new trial.
Click to expand...


Required to give exculpatory evidence to the defense, not the jury. Trump isn't a defendent until he is charged with a crime.
 
nsacpi said:
Is there a conspiracy theory that Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Trump-Stormy Daniels matter?



There is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Alvin Bragg has violated the Brady rule in the Trump-Stormy Daniels matter. The Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that could impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses. There is no public evidence that Bragg has withheld any evidence favorable to Trump.

The conspiracy theory appears to be based on the fact that Bragg's office has been slow to respond to requests for information from the defense. However, there are a number of possible explanations for this, including the fact that the case is complex and that Bragg's office is understaffed.

The conspiracy theory is also based on the fact that Bragg is a Democrat and that Trump is a Republican. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Bragg is motivated by political bias. Bragg has a long history of prosecuting both Democrats and Republicans, and he has been praised by both sides of the political aisle for his fairness and integrity.

The conspiracy theory is also based on the fact that Trump has made false and misleading statements about the case. However, Trump's statements are not evidence of wrongdoing by Bragg. In fact, Trump's statements are likely to undermine his own credibility if the case goes to trial.

The conspiracy theory is baseless and there is no evidence to support it. It is likely that the conspiracy theory is being spread by Trump supporters who are trying to discredit Bragg and the investigation into Trump's hush-money payments.
Click to expand...

The stuff Costello gave Bragg was not just recent.
 
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant.

See this word "pretrial'

The word pretrial covers grand juries. https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforcegu...ented,an investigator and sometimes witnesses.
 
Reread what you posted. Are you claiming Bragg hasn't turned over exculpatory evidence to the defendant? And the pretrial point at which the defense is required to turn over exculpatory evidence is in the discovery phase.




But as I have said the Brady rule is a joke. It's not enforced except the most extreme cases. Cops can just not turn over exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor. Cops use confidentiality laws for workplace records to hide discrediting evidence against cops. For example, one cop was disciplined foranufacturing evidence. In a trial he was a witness in the defense asked for anything that would be exculpatory from the workplace discipline records. A judge didn't allow the defense to see the records. Instead the judge viewed it and rules that the defense had no right to know the witness was disciplined for manufacturing evidence. Many trials later another Judge allowed the defense to see the records leading to every conviction the cop was a witness to being overturned. And even in that perfect example of a Brady violation no one was disciplined or charged with a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top