Opening a Pandora’s Box of Legal Problems By Charles Taylor (Florida)

There is no doubt that Australians, who cannot be expected to be up on the fine details of US law, have no appreciated just how weak the New York case again Donald Trump actually is. I am aware that leading US constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz believes that the case is the weakest he has seen, but given the biases present, Trump will be convicted, but win on appeal. I agree. Here is a concise outline of the flaws in the case against Trump, the most obvious being that there is no real crime particularised at all, so the case should be dismissed on that ground alone. This case is of interest across the globe, as it shows legal corruption at work, to cook up the law to take down a target, the total weaponization of law. It is a complete abandonment of the liberal-democratic rule of law position.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/alvin_bragg_has_opened_pandoras_box.html

“A consensus has been reached by the legal panels at the alphabet soup media outlets — the people who consider "consensus" to be synonymous with "proof."  They've looked at Alvin Bragg's charging document and are less than impressed with the strength of his legal reasoning.  Their reaction was something like: Bragg investigated Trump for two years, upended our legal system, and launched a media circus for this?  This nothingburger is all he's got?

District Attorney Bragg charged President Trump

• with 34 stacked misdemeanor charges of business document errors,
• which are past their statute of limitations,
• and are bumped up to felony violations,
• with the claim they were done to hide a felony,
• which is still hidden because Bragg is keeping it a secret from the court and the defendant.

That's apparently how it's done in New York.

Is Alvin Bragg so much of an amateur that he didn't realize that a charging document has to actually charge a crime?  Does he think he can arrest and book a citizen without telling him what crime he's accused of — like what they used to do in the good old USSR?

But Bragg didn't stop there.  He also asked the judge to set a trial date for January 2024 — letting the defense know that they have eight months to prepare a defense for a crime he hasn't disclosed.  It's only a coincidence that January of next year is when the presidential primary season will be spooling up.  I'm amazed that Bragg thinks he can get away with such sloppy work, given the scrutiny he's under.  Does he think he's Kamala Harris or something?

And then there's the Pandora's box he just opened.  Unless the courts put a rapid end to this clown show, he has put the Clintons, Bidens, Obamas, and Pelosis in legal jeopardy — by forever changing the rules of political discourse and criminal justice in America.  If the Dems are going to change the rules in their rabid pursuit of The Donald, it's only appropriate that we review our tactics in light of the new rules.  By the way, did you hear that Barack Obama may have received millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese?  I hope he doesn't have a bunch of campaign paperwork errors that can be stacked on top of that.

Here's my question: does any of Alvin Bragg's treatment of President Trump constitute a civil rights violation?  We actually have a law against that.  Its title is "MISCONDUCT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT & OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTORS -- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" (18 USC §242).  It states:

this provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Has Bragg run afoul of the 4th Amendment?  I like this passage:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[.]

What exactly is the "probable cause" when Bragg won't say what the crime is?  Is there any chance that Bragg or his minions pulled a "Clinesmith" with their sworn affidavits to get search warrants?  If they lied, they're criminals under the above stated statute.  The fact that a judge signed off on the warrant doesn't make it legal — it makes the judge either a prosecution witness or a criminal himself.

Then there's this passage from the 5th Amendment:

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

Is charging Trump with a crime that isn't a crime Bragg's idea of "due process"?  Will a jury of his peers see it the same way?

There's also this one from the 6th Amendment:

... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

When Bragg dragged Trump from Florida to New York, and booked him without telling him the underlying felony, was he informing Trump of the "nature and cause of the accusation"?  Is he denying Trump "the assistance of counsel for his defense" if Trump's legal team doesn't know what they're defending him against?

Finally, there's also the 14th Amendment.  I like this passage:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When Bragg promised to "get Trump," even before any crime was alleged, was that his idea of "equal protection"?  Again, will a jury of his peers see it that way?  Did Bragg miss the class in law school where they explained that the 14th Amendment was written to protect citizens from precisely what Bragg is doing — picking the man and then looking for the crime?  Does he realize that when he promised to "get Trump," he announced his intent to commit a crime, and when he indicted Trump, he committed that crime — all under the color of law?

Alvin Bragg could face criminal prosecution by the Justice Department if it deems the damages serious enough — like interfering in a presidential election (we call that insurrection now).  Just in case Bragg doesn't know, the statute of limitations for 18 USC §242 is seven years.  He has until April of 2030 to wait for a knock on his door by a friendly federal SWAT team — that being the way it's done now.  Is there any chance we'll have a Republican-appointed A.G. sometime before 2030 — one that wants to clean up the corruption?  Did Bragg give thought to any of that?

I've been lobbying for some time for 18 USC §242 to be used to rein in government overreach.  I think Bragg would be a fantastic test case.  It would be a clear message that we are still a self-governed country (if we are), and not to be trifled with.

What can Alvin Bragg look forward to after his house of cards collapses?  Will the radical left still love him now that they see he couldn't even write a cohesive indictment?  I doubt it.  Will the Dems still love him when Barack and Joe are fitted for their orange jumpsuits?  Probably not.  Will the Republicans love him when this stunt blows up in his face like an exploding cigar?  Absolutely not, though there will be some comic relief.  We love the rule of law too much to ever celebrate this perversion of criminal justice.

Buckle up, Alvin.  You're about to find out what the left does with useful idiots who are long on stupid and short on useful.  See Al Franken, Andrew Cuomo, Michael Avenatti, and soon to be Joe Biden.”