“REPORTER: “..What laws were broken?”
DA BRAGG: “..law does not so require...”
REPORTER (shoulda asked): “Yes but...what law \is\ that, that does not require it?”
Cletus.D.Yokel wrote:
“
“REPORTER: “..What laws were broken?”
DA BRAGG: “..law does not so require...”
REPORTER (shoulda asked): “Yes but...what law \is\ that, that does not require it?”
“
Good point!
Lots of folks asking that question.
Lawyer Barnes and former assistant u.s. attorney McCarthy say that is why it’s weak:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4120141/posts?page=211#211
“
Robert Barnes notes –
“The indictment is legally insufficient on its face. New York state law does not make it a crime to influence an election. Federal law does not make it a crime either. Maybe that’s why no law is actually cited in the indictment. Nor are the facts sufficient.”
Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a former assistant U.S. attorney notes –
“So I think this indictment—even before you get to the statute of limitations and whether he’s got jurisdiction to enforce federal law—I would dismiss it on its face because it fails to state a crime. Here it fails to state a crime 34 times!””
Freepers chime in:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4143297/posts?page=6#6
“
If the indictment does not state which laws were broken, is it a legal instrument under New York law or not?
“
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4143297/posts?page=16#16
“
Its not. A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to know what he is charged with. Otherwise how do you defend against it? This faulty indictment is a clear violation of due process. Also, the FEC has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over federal campaign finance cases, not NY. NY can not glom on to something they have zero jurisdiction over, in order to skirt statutes of limitation and/or to upgrade misdemeanors to felonies.
“