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

Skip to comments.

Alan Dershowitz Outlines How Trump Lawyers Should Handle Bragg’s Plan To ‘Freeze’ Business Docs Case
The Daily Caller ^ | November 19, 2024 | Harold Hutchison

Posted on 11/20/2024 6:51:55 AM PST by Twotone

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump’s attorneys should seek a writ of mandamus to prevent Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg from drawing the case out.

Bragg signed a legal filing opposing a motion by Trump’s attorneys to dismiss the case, instead urging New York Judge Juan Merchan to postpone sentencing until 2029, after Trump would leave office. Dershowitz accused Bragg of trying to “freeze” the case for his political gain.

“You can’t unfreeze a case any more than you can unfreeze… a live human, human being. What’s the purpose of freezing the case? It’s so obvious to any lawyer. Now, people who are not lawyers may not understand why Bragg wants the case to be frozen for four years,” Dershowitz said. “While the case is frozen, until there is a sentence, under New York law, Trump can’t appeal. We all know that once Trump appeals, the conviction will be reversed. Ideally, it will be reversed.”

“There is no crime. You can’t even recite what there is because they tried to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, and it wasn’t even a misdemeanor. It was banned by the statute of limitations,” Dershowitz added. “There’s just no crime, but by putting off the sentencing for four years, actually four years and two months or so, several things can happen. Number one, Trump can’t appeal. So a conviction, jury verdict of guilt for a crime that didn’t exist, hangs over his head for four years, while he’s president. Exactly what Bragg wants, and I suspect it maybe it’ll be what Merchan wants as well.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alandershowitz; alvinbragg; harassment; newyork; persecution; processviolation; trump

1 posted on 11/20/2024 6:51:55 AM PST by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Throw Fat Alvin’s ass under the bus.


2 posted on 11/20/2024 6:54:29 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Let's Go Brandon! FCS (Schumer))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Alvin “Hey, Hey, Hey” Bragg definitely needs to be investigated by the Trump DOJ.


3 posted on 11/20/2024 6:59:05 AM PST by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Also right to a speedy trial would include the right to a speedy sentencing to allow for a speedy appeal. “Call” )poker sense) the DA, make him show his hand and get it done.


4 posted on 11/20/2024 6:59:06 AM PST by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Bragg knows that his $10 million book deal will vanish if there’s no sentence handed down.


5 posted on 11/20/2024 7:04:03 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Import The Third World,Become The Third World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Thisis a clear due process violation of Trump’s right to appeal.


6 posted on 11/20/2024 7:09:14 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Any lawyer freepers around?
It seems to me there are other counters to Bragg’s move.

I think it’s assumed there is a wall that protects Bragg from Justice dept action. I would think the Civil Rights movement knocked lots of holes in that wall.

BS and bluster runs the legal profession. A credible threat can be as effective as a win, the more vague the issue, the better. Bragg doesn’t want to face a Federal indictment or suit any more than we would.

Have they pursued this general approach against Bragg? It would save us a little bit of trouble.

I’m only putting this out there as a general strategy outline. I can’t add any particulars, but I’m curious about thoughts here.


7 posted on 11/20/2024 8:13:22 AM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Show me the man and I’ll find the crime. Bragg and Merchan should both be made to be very nervous.


8 posted on 11/20/2024 9:27:40 AM PST by Sequoyah101 (Donald John Trump. First man to be Elected to the Presidency THREE times since FDR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

The Trump 2.0 administration should prevent all funding of any kind going to New York state and NYC until all of the lawfare cases are dropped against him (and if there are any other lawfare cases in NYS state courts, them also). Period. If New York needs to pass a law or change its constitution to make that happen, so be it. Oh, and same thing for any state or city with “sanctuary” policies, until they are dropped and full cooperation is provided to apprehend and deport illegals. I’m talking to you, Boston.

According to ChatGPT: “New York’s state and local governments, including publicly owned institutions like state and city universities, receive approximately $100–$110 billion annually from the federal government. This figure accounts for federal funding across sectors like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and direct relief programs, including allocations through significant legislation such as the American Rescue Plan Act.”


9 posted on 11/20/2024 11:10:06 AM PST by Stingray51 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial
United States v. Guyton, 82 M.J. 146 (in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial; although pretrial delay is often both inevitable and wholly justifiable, the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment).

(an appellate court weighs the following four factors to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the accused’s demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused).

(the prejudice factor used to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation should be assessed in the light of the three interests of the accused which the speedy trial right was designed to protect: (1) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) minimizing anxiety and concern of the accused; and (3) limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired; of these forms of prejudice, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system; with regard to the second interest, this interest anticipates that an appellant will demonstrate some degree of particularized anxiety and concern greater than the normal anxiety and concern associated with the delay of his trial).


10 posted on 11/20/2024 1:49:06 PM PST by Albion Wilde (“Did you ever meet a woke person that’s happy? There’s no such thing.” —Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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