The New York Times ran a story Thursday headlined, “As a Possible Indictment Looms, Trump’s Team Plans to Attack.” Republicans attack! The sub-headline explained “If the former president faces criminal charges, his campaign plans to begin a broad offensive against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney and a Democrat, accusing him of political bias.”
Bias? It’s kind of funny how the Times describes Trump’s defending himself as “an attack.”
The leaked rumor is Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg will soon indict President Trump, which would require Trump to be arrested, processed, mugshot, and detained until he makes bail (assuming the Court approves bail). Bragg, pictured below, will shortly become the first prosecutor in the history of the United States to file criminal charges against a former President.
District attorney Bragg is not always this zealous about prosecuting crimes. Earlier this year, the New York Post reported that “soft-on-crime Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has downgraded more than half his felony cases to misdemeanors — while also managing to lose half of the felony cases that do reach court.” Bragg’s campaign received funding from Soros-related entities, was endorsed by the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, and ran on a platform of “criminal justice reform.”
So.
The charges against Trump relate to disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti’s claim that Trump paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in 2016, in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. Ironically, lawyer Avenatti has been convicted of extorting Nike, by threatening the firm to disclose harmful information unless they paid him to shut up, and separately for wire fraud and identity theft, due to pinching $300,000 from one of his own clients.
The Times failed to mention either of Avenatti’s criminal convictions.
The charges are moldy baloney. To get to a felony conviction, DA Bragg must combine a misdemeanor “falsifying business records” charge with a second crime by re-characterizing the Daniels payment as an improper donation to Trump’s campaign, exceeding state donor limits. Even the New York Times thinks it’s a long shot, as it explained in a March 9th article about the case:
Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
Yesterday’s Times article spends most of its word budget describing how it expects the Trump campaign to use the Banana Republic-style prosecution to his advantage, which for some reason surprised the Times’ reporters as much as if they’d heard Anthony Fauci blurt something accurate for a change.
Trump supporters are rightly outraged by the trumped-up charges and will probably be even more energized to support the former President in his election campaign than discouraged at all. The story quoted aggressive New York lawyer Joe Tacopina, who said “If they bring this case, I believe this will catapult him into the White House, because this will show how they’re weaponizing the justice system.”
Tacopina is not the only one with that sentiment:
Matt IS overestimating the intelligence of the power-hungry idiots who dreamed up this strategy. Never overestimate the intelligence of power-hungry idiots. Consider Sheila Jackson-Lee, for example. Just saying.
Trump breaks more traditions by preparing for an arrest, so now we can arrest them all; Kathy Hochul shoots for worst governor of all time; Biden blinks at reporter's question; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
