The criticism that Alvin Bragg somehow improperly turned 34 misdemeanors into felonies is a fallacy. The legislature did that by adding enhanced penalties when someone falsifies records to conceal another crime. That’s because it is a more serious offense deserving of higher punishment.
The “other crime” was NYS 17-152, conspiracy to promote the election of a candidate by unlawful means. Unlawful means were numerous, including violations of campaign finance laws for exceeding $2,700 limit, accepting corporate contribution, failing to disclose contributions, and violation of tax laws by causing false statement in return. These are statutes on the books. Complaints about using them are really a request for a pass for Trump.
Bragg’s power was checked by the grand jury that indicted the case, the defense lawyers who argued for Trump and cross-examined witnesses, the judge who oversaw the pretrial litigation and trial, and the jurors who found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appeals will provide further review. That’s due process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As jury selection begins in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, here are some things to keep in mind.
🧵 /1
First, it is called jury selection, but it really should be called jury “de-selection.” That’s because potential jurors are called to the box randomly, and then questioned by the court and lawyers. The lawyers challenge jurors they find unsuitable. If the judge agrees, he will excuse them. /2
Second, lawyers get an unlimited number of challenges for cause, meaning an objective basis to believe a juror has a bias, such as relationships with the parties or a stake in the outcome. /3
I’ve been receiving some questions about why it matters whether Judge Cannon decides all issues under the Presidential Records Act BEFORE trial. /1
Judge Cannon recently denied Donald Trump‘s motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago indictment on the grounds that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) precludes charges under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to willfully retain national defense information. /2
That order was good news for the prosecution, but Judge Cannon said she was basing her decision solely on the “four corners of the indictment,” and that Trump could still raise the PRA as a defense at trial. 😱/3
Here’s a thread on the public’s right to a speedy trial, which explains why the Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule and will work to decide the immunity question promptly in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump. /1
The right to a speedy trial is not just the defendant’s right. The PUBLIC’S right to a speedy trial has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A). /2
In Barker v. Wingo, a case interpreting the 6th Amendment, the Court wrote that “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and, at times, in opposition to the interests of the accused.” /3
First Amendment provides no protection for speech that amounts to crimes of deceipt, receipt, conspiracy. Non-starter. /2
Due process clause provides fair notice of criminal conduct. Trump argues he received no fair notice because no one has ever been charged with this scheme before. No one has ever committed this scheme before! /3
Trump’s new motions to dismiss on First Amendment, selective prosecution, and double jeopardy grounds are all losers. THREAD. 1 washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
The First Amendment is not absolute. Many crimes that involve speech are crimes — perjury, fraud, and conspiracy to name a few.
Selective prosecution requires a showing of disparate treatment for the similarly situated. No one has tried to subvert an election the way Trump is accused of doing. No comparables. No defense.
🧵1 Here is my take on yesterday’s removal hearing, in which former chief of staff Mark Meadows wants to move his state RICO case from Georgia state court to federal court.
2 Why seek removal? Federal court offers a larger jury pool that draws from predominantly Republican areas, no TV cameras in the courtroom, and nicer prisons, but the real reason is to assert governmental immunity and get the whole case dismissed. And Trump will tag along.
3 The legal standard is not simply whether the defendant was a federal official at the time of the alleged conduct, but whether he was acting within the scope of his official duties. Meadows seemed to fall far short of meeting that standard.