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

Skip to comments.

Could the Alvin Bragg case already be on the SCOTUS docket?
Sidebar Mod

Posted on 06/02/2024 11:09:20 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator

Speculation is running rampant about the need for a “hook” to get the Supremes to consider cert on the bogus Bragg conviction. Recall that the alleged “falsified” business records all supposedly occurred in 2017.

Last time I checked, Trump was president at the time. I’m not a lawyer, but if SCOTUS reaffirms broad presidential immunity (as I believe they will, definitely after the clown show in New York) on the basis of separation of powers, this will upend the J6 case, almost all of the documents case and the Fulton RICO case in its entirety. At a minimum, a broad immunity ruling could impact the Bragg case in interesting ways.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: Sidebar Moderator
Recall that the alleged “falsified” business records all supposedly occurred in 2017. Last time I checked, Trump was president at the time.

I thought President Trump handed over the day-to-day operations of The Trump Organization to Don Jr. and Eric after taking office. If these legal expenses were booked in 2017, how is President Trump responsible for them?

Am I missing something?

I guess I'm not clear about the timeline. Didn't the NDA with Clifford happen in October 2016? Unless the transactions were booked in the first 20 days of the year, what were the transactions that occurred in 2017 while President Trump's children were running the company?

-PJ

21 posted on 06/02/2024 11:37:19 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

Good call..... the alleged “falsified” business records “so as not to influence an election,”
which cockeyed Bragg mfg as a “crime.” all supposedly occurred in 2017.

<><>Drum roll, please......Trump was already president at the time.

If SCOTUS reaffirms broad presidential immunity (probably will, after NY’s clown show) on the basis of separation of powers,
<><>this will upend the J6 case,
<><>almost all of the documents case
<><>and Fani’s Fulton RICO case in its entirety.

At a minimum, a broad immunity ruling could impact the Bragg case in interesting ways.


22 posted on 06/02/2024 11:40:04 AM PDT by Liz (This then is how we should pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name . )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator
You're thinking out of the box, again, that's good.

Roberts may be a problem, he may be subject to blackmail over irregularities in the adoption of his two children.

The Left WILL use that.

23 posted on 06/02/2024 11:41:07 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Celebrate Decivilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: Political Junkie Too

The first transaction was booked in February. You are right about Trump having delegated control of the Trump Organization to Eric and Don Jr. But the jury verdict makes that point moot. What I’m addressing is a broader question; beyond the particulars about the merits or demerits of the case, a broad immunity decision can’t help but impact the Bragg case.


25 posted on 06/02/2024 11:42:54 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Thanks!


26 posted on 06/02/2024 11:44:30 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

“SCOTUS’s immunity decision will be handed down by late June, at the latest.”

That’s what I remember reading in a story a few weeks ago.

During proceedings, I also remember questions about the legality of the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Prosecutor since his appointment was never confirmed by Congress.

And further, I think there were questions from some Justices about the fairness of allowing partisan local and state officials to prosecute a nationally elected President (or ex-President).


27 posted on 06/02/2024 11:47:19 AM PDT by Roadrunner383
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

y/v/w


28 posted on 06/02/2024 11:47:26 AM PDT by Liz (This then is how we should pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name . )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

Amy Coney Barrett

Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org › Amy_Coney_Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

She was President Donald Trump’s (R) third nominee to the court.


29 posted on 06/02/2024 11:49:04 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (If voting made any difference, they wouldn't allow us to vote! Our 6th Jan PROTESTERS stood up! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

We have two comments deleted BEFORE I could read them. Can we at least get a five minute countdown? Clean-up on aisle 8 in five minutes. Four minutes. Three minutes Two minutes . .better hurry. One minute, It’s gone.


30 posted on 06/02/2024 11:49:07 AM PDT by BipolarBob (If at first you don't succeed then skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

My concern is that vindication by immunity still implies bad conduct, whereas vindication by an overturned decision for trial misconduct by the court and the prosecutor is far better.

They could always argue that Trump acted feloniously if he is exonerated by immunity. It would never the effectively rebutted.


31 posted on 06/02/2024 11:49:11 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“I thought President Trump handed over the day-to-day operations of The Trump Organization to Don Jr. and Eric after taking office. If these legal expenses were booked in 2017, how is President Trump responsible for them?”

Because the prosecution said he was.

“while President Trump’s children were running the company?”

Jr. and his lawyer were the trustees on the revocable trust.

Trump was authorized to withdraw funds at his request.


32 posted on 06/02/2024 11:55:53 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

“We have two comments deleted BEFORE I could read them. Can we at least get a five minute countdown?”

ROTFLMAO!


33 posted on 06/02/2024 11:58:05 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator
I wanted to be clear about the timing because the crux of the immunity case is what is a "core presidential" versus a "personal" act.

I've argued that everything a President does is a "presidential" act because he's the sole embodiment of the Executive branch an it's a 24/7 job. That said, I'd be hard-pressed to declare that Trump signing checks and overseeing the booking of transaction within The Trump Organization is not a personal act. If Trump signed bogus checks in the name of the Trump Organization while President, that should clearly NOT be covered under Presidential immunity, and it would likely open him up to emoluments scrutiny, too.

Before President Trump, the richest President ever was George Washington. Washington had a thriving farming business in Virginia while he was President. In fact, his farms were selling wheat to England while Washington was President. I don't recall anyone claiming that President Washington was violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution because his farms were doing business with a foreign country. In fact, despite having farm managers in Virginia overseeing the day-to-day operations of his farms while he was residing in Philadelphia, Washington still made the major decisions regarding his farms and visited them often. Nobody questioned the accounting of Washington's farms, nor investigated the customers that Washington did business with.

It wasn't until President Trump that the idea of separating "core Presidential" from "personal" acts was even a thing.

-PJ

34 posted on 06/02/2024 12:01:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

IIRC-—TRUMP SENT BOXES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES as he was packing up the Oval OFFICE, etc.

The National ARCHIVES SENT a PILE OF BOXES BACK & I SAW PICS OF THAT. AT least 20 “BANKER BOXES” in size. ...spread out on the WH grounds on perhaps a patio...

Trump then took those boxes to MAR A LAGO.

WAS THIS ALL A SET-UP TO BEGIN WITH???

BUNGLING BIDEN HAS BOXES ALL OVER THE PLACE-—NOT ANY SECURITY AT ALL.


35 posted on 06/02/2024 12:03:47 PM PDT by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston

Feral Irish built this country.


36 posted on 06/02/2024 12:06:23 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

We got the Irish that were smart enough to get out of Ireland.


37 posted on 06/02/2024 12:07:10 PM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

” That said, I’d be hard-pressed to declare that Trump signing checks and overseeing the booking of transaction within The Trump Organization is not a personal act. If Trump signed bogus checks in the name of the Trump Organization while President, that should clearly NOT be covered under Presidential immunity, and it would likely open him up to emoluments scrutiny, too.”

The charges were “made or caused to be made”. I have never seen who signed the checks. Jr and Trump’s lawyer were the trustees for the revocable trust but they could have assigned a lower person check signing authority.


38 posted on 06/02/2024 12:07:13 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

I’m guessing the circuit judge for NY is probably Kagan or Sotomayor in which case, they’ll deny it


39 posted on 06/02/2024 12:08:27 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

I do not have faith that the SC is going to save Trump. Trump has lost every step of the way, on every court case. There is no reason to believe the SC is going to just jump in and save the day.


40 posted on 06/02/2024 12:08:31 PM PDT by KobraKai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next 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