Charge-stacking against Trump: those 34 counts
Andrew C. McCarthy wrote this four days ago, but it continues to be relevant:
Thirty-four counts … in a case, again, that federal prosecutors decided wasn’t worth charging at all.
This is a classic abuse of power. Unscrupulous prosecutors will sometimes camouflage with quantity their case’s lack of quality.
When serious crimes have been committed, prosecutors do not need to run up the score with a high number of counts. A single charge, or a handful of them, provides the court with more than enough years of sentencing exposure. Once convicted, a serious criminal in that kind of case will be incarcerated for a very long time — even for life.
By contrast, if prosecutors do not have evidence of a serious crime, by loading up an indictment with dozens of charges, they can try to signal to the eventual trial jury that the defendant must be guilty of something. They hope the jurors will assume that, even if the evidence doesn’t seem strong, the government wouldn’t have alleged so many crimes unless the defendant was a truly diabolical criminal.
This is a significant enough due process abuse that, in federal law, the Justice Department has guidance directing prosecutors not to engage in it…
It’s called “charge-stacking.” Because the jury has to vote on each charge, the idea is that it is unlikely they will acquit on every single one. So it improves the odds immeasurably, plus the MSM can play it up to make the accused seem to be a terrible person. That’s their specialty, with Trump.
Bragg just made it clear that the “34 charges” are just repetitions of the same charge. He’s charging him for signing documents making the same representation.
He’s saying it’s illegal to make payments to a lawyer claiming they’re for legal services, if they’re really for some other purpose.
Interesting — so we can expect Hillary Clinton to be frog-marched into jail, huh?
Actually, there’s an ever-so-slight variation on the Stormy Daniels theme with Trump:
The court documents detail 11 checks, including nine signed directly by Trump, that were used to bury three different accounts that could be harmful to then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign.
Beyond a $130,000 payment to Daniels, prosecutors lay out a larger deal with American Media, Inc. (AMI), the publisher of the National Enquirer, to buy damaging stories about Trump.
Payments were also made to a doorman, who received $30,000 from AMI for information alleging Trump fathered a child out of wedlock, as well as a $150,000 payment to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal.
I believe I’m correct in saying that doing that is not illegal. The alleged illegality has to do with the way the payments were labeled.
And this guy seems very amused by it all, as well he might be. Duping delight:
"Is the indictment of your predecessor politically divisive?"
BIDEN: *laughs* pic.twitter.com/YGDdBxE0iW
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 4, 2023
By the way, I haven’t seen reports of any gag order, so Trump’s speech will probably be delivered tonight as planned.
Fortunately, Biden is senile and so has no worries about any legal problems ahead for him. On the other hand, seeing as how corrupt the DoJ has become, maybe he has no need to worry.
“Charge-stacking”, like all the lawfare beloved by radical leftists, is utterly disgraceful and absolutely contrary to the spirit of our republic’s Anglo-American legal system. Fat Alvin is also a disgrace and, like “Tish” in Albany, definitely deserves to be disbarred.
Lavrentiy Bragg learned well how to find crimes on anyone, of course still have the problem of more than 5 years ago
Biden is a ghoul.
Fat Al Bragg will be a rising star in the neo-Nazi Democratic Party.
He is black, and he’s messing, indirectly, with the next presidential election. His ascendancy to higher office is guaranteed by the Party.
Umm…Cicero…Quick search “What happened to Lavrentiy Beria?”
I’m betting Biden’s been told that he’ll get Trump’s ice cream along with his own at dinner tonight since Trump won’t be at the table. That’s the smile of a man who has no bloody idea…about much of anything.
You know what- Andrew McCarthy can stick his concern about charge stacking up his ass. When it was necessary to take a stand against this sort of thing, he was always on the fence, first excusing his former colleagues at the federal level, and those of his profession elsewhere.
Political show trials have predetermined outcomes. A guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. What the left either doesn’t realize or stupidly doesn’t care about is that they are demonstrating that the rule of law no longer exists in the now disunited States of America.
The Left has killed Old Glory and shall reap the consequences.
It does not bother me to a great degree that the DA went after Trump.
It does bother me to a great degree that the DA that went after Trump is soft on robbers and other such ” street criminals.”
Somebody should look into Bragg’s handling of white criminals verses his handling of black criminals. I have a suspicion that it would be radically different.
in bragg’s own words, it’s a criminal conspiracy, against the reasonable desire of the citizens of new york, to have some semblance of peace and tranquility,
This whole trumped up show trial is based on a desire to get Trump. And they’ll stop at nothing.
A new book by a former New York City prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, says:
“After scouring Trump’s life and business, Pomerantz writes that prosecutors agreed on a case involving allegations that Trump falsified records by inflating the value of assets on financial statements he provided lenders.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-new-book-details-fight-indicting-trump-96886772
It is to laugh. Who does Trump borrow money from? Banks and other lending institutions.
How much money would he borrow? Probably millions of dollars.
Do lenders do their due diligence when lending that kind of money? Why yes, yes they do.
If Trump overvalued his properties on loan applications, the banks would do their own appraisals. If they don’t, they are risking a lot of money.
As to smearing Trump with a “low moral turpitude” label. We can look at the history of recent American Presidents to understand that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy LBJ, and Clinton all had some trysts or worse in their lives. Presidents are all too human. It’s not good, but it’s not unknown.
Twenty million dollar$ is what it cost the city of New York to stage this arraignment. Surely the taxpayer’s money could better be spent on actually prosecuting criminals.
Show trial, Soviet style.
John Guilfoyle:
“Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky” but it didn’t say if it was with a 7.62 Tokarev or something else.
yes mccarthy became an authority on islamism, when he let ali mohammed slip out of the country, and case the embassies in east africa,
Neo,
In the past you made a great deal (and very cogently, I might add) about how much of the functioning of our political system was based on informal rules and understandings. Then it was all pretty much blown to bits by Obama, who realized you could drive a tank through those unwritten rules.
Here is a good take on what is coming by Wretchard (Belmont Club):
wretchardthecat @wretchardthecat • Apr 1 Once you break the precedent and dash the old political paradigm to pieces you really can’t stop short of establishing a new one. There is no pausing in the middle because there is no middle. This is the iron curse
of every revolution.
wretchardthecat @wretchardthecat • Apr 1 Breaking symmetry can lead to collapse when it disrupts an equilibrium necessary for the stability and functionality of a system. Many complex systems rely on a certain level of balance and feedback to maintain
stability.
wretchardthecat @wretchardthecat • Apr 1 Disrupting complex systems can lead to unforeseen consequences because they are typically composed of many interdependent parts that interact in nonlinear ways, and even small changes in one part of the
system can have far-reaching effects.
“What have we done?”
om…yep that “ascendancy” can precipitate a pretty abrupt fall…Tokarev or otherwise.
Donzie:
Yes, breaking the long-standing traditions and agreements that held things in check means that chaos might ensue. The left is betting they will be able to control the results, though.
Which shows what fools they are.
}}} By contrast, if prosecutors do not have evidence of a serious crime, by loading up an indictment with dozens of charges, they can try to signal to the eventual trial jury that the defendant must be guilty of something. They hope the jurors will assume that, even if the evidence doesn’t seem strong, the government wouldn’t have alleged so many crimes unless the defendant was a truly diabolical criminal.
Sounds like a variant on P.J. O’Rourke’s “Room full of horseshit” concept of government:
(something like that. I am quoting from memory)
They know they will be able to control the results. They control the DoJ, which can be used to control any Republican DA anywhere who tries to do what Bragg did.
This continuous trope, that things will come back to bite the Democrats on the ass, is foolishness. Give them the credit that they actually know what it is they are doing.
Give them the credit that they actually know what it is they are doing.
In terms of crime and politics that may be true. What they lack is any sense of economic reality. “Modern Monetary Theory” is insane. The education system is crazy. VDH compares the present course to Byzantium. I think South Africa is a better comparison.