Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT Op-Ed: ‘I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake’…
Revolver ^ | April 25, 2024 | Staff

Posted on 04/26/2024 7:51:40 AM PDT by Red Badger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Red Badger

I’m thinking that Bragg was dragged into this prosecution knowing it was BS, but relying on a New York jury to convict regardless of the merits.


21 posted on 04/26/2024 9:07:48 AM PDT by LizzieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The problem with the professor's opinion is that he expects a jury to see through these legal shenanigans. But the game Bragg is playing only requires the jury to accept his version of the law, and is unconcerned if it is overturned on appeal when actual legal minds are able to see the weakness of the case.

Bragg is not looking for a Home Run here. He only needs a conviction to put Trump behind bars until November. That's their whole plan. They don't care if Trump is free by December or January. They're just playing for six months, or even less if you throw in the fact that after this case, they're going to turn it over to Jack Smith and the DC judge.

22 posted on 04/26/2024 9:17:21 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...

23 posted on 04/26/2024 9:29:05 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Putin should skip ahead to where he kills himself in the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

A random act of journalism from the NYT! Pigs do fly.


24 posted on 04/26/2024 9:44:44 AM PDT by oil_dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I still don’t understand how any accounting done in 2017 can be said to have interfered with the election that occurred in 2016.


25 posted on 04/26/2024 10:04:45 AM PDT by FamiliarFace (I got my own way of livin' But everything gets done With a southern accent Where I come from. TPetty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FamiliarFace

I still don’t understand how any accounting done in 2017 can be said to have interfered with the election that occurred in 2016.


It doesn’t.

This is Her Heinous getting back at Trump using her NYC connections.

She’ll never get over him kicking her fat _ss, so she’s trying to muddy him up with this to affect the 2024 election.

When he gets re-elected, it’ll destroy her “stolen” narrative.


26 posted on 04/26/2024 10:09:44 AM PDT by nesnah (Infringe - act so as to limit or undermine [something]; encroach on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Democrats make their ABA money off fake overpriced investigations that take years. The ABA wants their payback.


27 posted on 04/26/2024 10:17:11 AM PDT by cnsmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nesnah

It’s funny how she can say the election was stolen in 2016, and so can Stacey Abrams, but Trump isn’t allowed to say that 2020 was fraudulent.


28 posted on 04/26/2024 10:26:52 AM PDT by FamiliarFace (I got my own way of livin' But everything gets done With a southern accent Where I come from. TPetty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FamiliarFace

It doesn’t, but Dems neve let facts get in their way.................


29 posted on 04/26/2024 10:35:37 AM PDT by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The whole NYT editorial with no paywall

Most of the versions posted here are abridged.

30 posted on 04/26/2024 11:21:16 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Re-imagine the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“ Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

That is the entire point of this charade campaign.

The Democrats know they engaged in gigantic election fraud. And they were successful in it. They plan to do it in every subsequent election from here forward.

The only way to be able to do it is to squelch and destroy any voices of opposition to what they are doing. To cower them into submission. They’ve successfully done that with the Republican Party. They need to make sure any outsider or independent voices are also destroyed so that their electoral process can continue without serious controversy.


31 posted on 04/26/2024 11:31:04 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast (We have not yet achieved peak crazy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
“ Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

That is the entire point of this charade campaign.

AlINSKY'S RULES FOR RADICALS:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

“Communist Rules for Revolution.”

3. Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up for contempt, ridicule, etc.

32 posted on 04/26/2024 11:47:53 AM PDT by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Sure hope the jurors have the brains to follow all of this. They’ve already decided Orange Man Bad, and it’s going to take an arsenal to change their minds.


33 posted on 04/26/2024 8:37:57 PM PDT by lurk (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
... 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.

Can we assume the editor who approved this piece will be fired?

34 posted on 04/27/2024 4:07:16 AM PDT by GOPJ (.Has Nancy Pelosi called for the leader of Hamas to step down yet? If not, why not?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson