Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Donald Trump]]>

Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS

by Leave a Comment

When you’re a far-leftist district attorney prosecuting the man the left hates the most, and you have lost the Washington Post, you might want to rethink your position. This is the situation in which New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg finds himself as he continues functioning as the head of the progressive spear to be used to kill former President Donald Trump’s chances of occupying the White House once again.

The Post’s editorial board published an op-ed titled “The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president,” in which the authors cast doubt on the chances that Bragg will be able to carry out a successful prosecution of the former president based on the Stormy Daniels matter. They wrote:

Donald Trump deserves the legal scrutiny he’s getting — which has come from many corners on many counts. Yet of the long list of alleged violations, the likely charges on which a grand jury in New York state voted to indict him are perhaps the least compelling. There’s cause for concern, and caution, ahead.

The latest developments in the ongoing legal saga surrounding former President Donald Trump come as a result of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to shift his focus to the so-called “zombie” case. The case centers on a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair she had with Mr. Trump about a decade earlier, which the former president denies. Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty to related crimes in 2018.

While the exact charges against Mr. Trump are not yet known, sources suggest that prosecutors are investigating him for his alleged involvement in allegedly falsifying records related to reimbursements for the hush-money payment. Such falsification is typically a misdemeanor in New York, but if it is found to have been done to cover up another crime, it could be elevated to a felony charge. The argument is that the payment constituted an illegal political donation that benefited Mr. Trump, especially given its timing so close to the election.

However, the fact that Bragg’s office is trying to do legal wrangling to get Trump on a felony might be an issue. From the Post:

Pyramiding two transgressions of state rules to go after a federal candidate is legally plausible. But the strategy is also novel, and courts may regard it with skepticism. What’s more, the potential campaign finance charge itself is shaky. When federal prosecutors charged former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) with a similar crime following his 2008 presidential run, he rebutted the accusation by arguing he was trying to disguise his faithlessness from his wife rather than from the voting public. The trial ended in acquittal on one count and a hung jury on others — at which point the Justice Department dropped the charges.

The article also notes that “[t]his prosecution is now bound to be the test case for any future former president” and could also jeopardize the other legal cases Democrats wish to use against Trump. “Other investigations underway include Justice Department examinations of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago, where the possibility of obstruction of justice is particularly grave,” the authors noted. “These are straightforward cases compared with the one proceeding in Manhattan.”

The article concludes that Bragg’s prosecution must be “airtight” or that “[o]therwise, it’s not worth continuing.”

For once, the Post got it right. I guess what they say about broken clocks is true. But if even these people could see how risky this indictment is, then others probably do too.

If Bragg is relying on the Stormy Daniels issue to target Trump, then this whole effort will be dead in the water. Moreover, it will work to Trump’s favor, giving him more ammunition to use against those using the power of the government to attack him. He will continually draw attention to the reality that Democrats are weaponizing the state in an effort to interfere in the 2024 election. In other words, the Democrats could be playing right into the former president’s hands and just might live to regret it.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS

by Leave a Comment

When you’re a far-leftist district attorney prosecuting the man the left hates the most, and you have lost the Washington Post, you might want to rethink your position. This is the situation in which New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg finds himself as he continues functioning as the head of the progressive spear to be used to kill former President Donald Trump’s chances of occupying the White House once again.

The Post’s editorial board published an op-ed titled “The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president,” in which the authors cast doubt on the chances that Bragg will be able to carry out a successful prosecution of the former president based on the Stormy Daniels matter. They wrote:

Donald Trump deserves the legal scrutiny he’s getting — which has come from many corners on many counts. Yet of the long list of alleged violations, the likely charges on which a grand jury in New York state voted to indict him are perhaps the least compelling. There’s cause for concern, and caution, ahead.

The latest developments in the ongoing legal saga surrounding former President Donald Trump come as a result of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to shift his focus to the so-called “zombie” case. The case centers on a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair she had with Mr. Trump about a decade earlier, which the former president denies. Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty to related crimes in 2018.

While the exact charges against Mr. Trump are not yet known, sources suggest that prosecutors are investigating him for his alleged involvement in allegedly falsifying records related to reimbursements for the hush-money payment. Such falsification is typically a misdemeanor in New York, but if it is found to have been done to cover up another crime, it could be elevated to a felony charge. The argument is that the payment constituted an illegal political donation that benefited Mr. Trump, especially given its timing so close to the election.

However, the fact that Bragg’s office is trying to do legal wrangling to get Trump on a felony might be an issue. From the Post:

Pyramiding two transgressions of state rules to go after a federal candidate is legally plausible. But the strategy is also novel, and courts may regard it with skepticism. What’s more, the potential campaign finance charge itself is shaky. When federal prosecutors charged former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) with a similar crime following his 2008 presidential run, he rebutted the accusation by arguing he was trying to disguise his faithlessness from his wife rather than from the voting public. The trial ended in acquittal on one count and a hung jury on others — at which point the Justice Department dropped the charges.

The article also notes that “[t]his prosecution is now bound to be the test case for any future former president” and could also jeopardize the other legal cases Democrats wish to use against Trump. “Other investigations underway include Justice Department examinations of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago, where the possibility of obstruction of justice is particularly grave,” the authors noted. “These are straightforward cases compared with the one proceeding in Manhattan.”

The article concludes that Bragg’s prosecution must be “airtight” or that “[o]therwise, it’s not worth continuing.”

For once, the Post got it right. I guess what they say about broken clocks is true. But if even these people could see how risky this indictment is, then others probably do too.

If Bragg is relying on the Stormy Daniels issue to target Trump, then this whole effort will be dead in the water. Moreover, it will work to Trump’s favor, giving him more ammunition to use against those using the power of the government to attack him. He will continually draw attention to the reality that Democrats are weaponizing the state in an effort to interfere in the 2024 election. In other words, the Democrats could be playing right into the former president’s hands and just might live to regret it.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Chuck Schumer Steps on Rake in Curious Statement on Donald Trump’s Indictment

by Leave a Comment

In the immediate aftermath of the breaking news Thursday night about the Manhattan grand jury’s indictment of former President Donald Trump, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s cheerleaders on the left and in the mainstream media proceeded to humiliate themselves with some pretty cringe-inducing reactions on social media.

Among them was Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former Speaker of the House, who declared that “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence” — this despite the fact that even someone with only a passing knowledge of how the legal system works knows that the onus is actually on the state to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defense to “prove innocence.”

Another came from Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), though his faux pas wasn’t as obvious at first blush. Here’s what Schumer posted to Twitter and elsewhere regarding Trump’s indictment:

“Mr. Trump is subject to the same laws as every American. He will be able to avail himself of the legal system and a jury, not politics, to determine his fate according to the facts and the law. There should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference in the case. I encourage both Mr. Trump’s critics and supporters to let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law.”

Generally speaking, urging people to “let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law” and stating that “there should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference” is actually sound advice.

The problem, however, is that Schumer and his fellow Democrats have not set a very good example on this front, as evidenced by how Schumer angrily and openly threatened conservative Supreme Court Justices on the steps of the Supreme Court back in March 2020 over a Louisiana abortion law case they were considering at the time:

“… and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I wanna tell you, Gorsuch! I wannna tell you, Kavanaugh! You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Watch:

A little over two years later, Schumer looked the other way when radical pro-abortion activists heeded his words and illegally descended on the neighborhoods where some of the conservative Justices live in order to aggressively harass and intimidate them in another case that would eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

A deranged leftist who set out to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh was also arrested during these pro-abortion “protests.”

Let’s also not forget how Schumer practically salivated when he told then-MSNBC host Rachel Maddow how the intelligence community had “six ways from Sunday at getting back” at critics like then-President-Elect Trump, who was relentlessly criticizing their “Russian hacking” investigation:

It’s pretty obvious that Bragg’s case against Trump is politically motivated and sets an absolutely terrible precedent. At the same time, Trump’s supporters need to show that they are the bigger people in this by not acting like Antifa in response. As was the case in the “Russia collusion” nonsense, the truth eventually will come out and the Usual Suspects will look like fools all over again.

But going forward, it might be a good idea for the Chuck Schumers of the world to, you know, practice what they preach because so few people are inclined to listen and heed when the people they’re listening to don’t.

Related –>> Report: John Fetterman’s Senate Return Timeline Is Revealed as Questions Continue to Swirl

Trending on RedState Video

‘Disinfo Reporter’ Embarrassingly Trips Over Himself in Rush to De-Link Alvin Bragg From George Soros

by Leave a Comment

With news breaking Thursday night of former President Donald Trump’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury has come renewed focus on the District Attorney in the case, Alvin Bragg, and his ties to billionaire Democrat backer George Soros.

Soros, as RedState readers will recall, has for years now unapologetically thrown billions of dollars into supporting so-called “reform-minded” prosecutors that are notoriously soft on crime, including the since-recalled former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

Bragg, too, has in the past been noted for his soft-on-crime positions for violent offenders while at the same time trying to punish victims who acted in self-defense.

Though it’s indisputable that Soros has backed Alvin Bragg, watch the word games put on full display by NBC News “disinformation reporter” Ben Collins in the tweet below where he tries (and fails) to de-link Bragg from Soros:

“In reality, Soros has ‘has never met or spoken to Alvin Bragg,’” as though never meeting face to face or speaking directly with someone means you don’t or haven’t backed them.

I guess if we were to go by Ben Collins’ “standards,” most Americans have never “backed” a single politician since most of us have never met face-to-face or spoken with any of the candidates for public office to who we’ve contributed money.

What makes Collins’ claim even more embarrassing for him is that in the very CNBC link he uses, the reporters pointed out exactly how Soros supported Bragg without interacting with him personally (bolded emphasis added by me):

Most of the criticism of Bragg appears to stem from support, and later political pressure, he received from the racial justice group Color of Change, which tries to influence government and corporate policy around the country. Soros donated $1 million to the Color of Change PAC in 2021. The Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center also piled $7 million into the group’s separate 501(c)(4) arm that year.

Yet, those familiar with the contributions said that the money the billionaire and his organization gave to Color of Change was not earmarked to back Bragg’s campaign, or intended to be used in an effort to pressure the DA.

Soros’ $1 million check to the Color of Change PAC, the largest individual donation it received in the 2022 election cycle, came days after it endorsed Bragg for district attorney and pledged more than $1 million in spending to support his candidacy, according to records.

Even more humiliating for Collins? His own news network reported earlier this month that Bragg was supported by Soros through the PAC:

The comments came after Trump late last week announced that he expected he would be arrested in the ongoing case in Manhattan on Tuesday. Liberal megadonor George Soros, through the Color of Change PAC, supported Bragg’s campaign for Manhattan DA.

Screengrabbed in case it gets deleted:

It’s par for the course for Soros and other rich mega-donors to filter their money through various dark money organizations, as Fox News Digital noted two weeks ago:

Soros’ district attorney operation usually involves his longtime treasurer, Whitney Tymas, establishing “pop-up” political action committees in states where he targets the races. Once set up, the financier injects money into the PACs, which tend to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars backing his preferred candidates. The PACs typically dissolve after the elections.

In Bragg’s case, this did not happen. Instead, Soros donated $1 million in May 2021 to the Color of Change PAC, which in the following weeks spent cash backing Bragg’s candidacy. The timing of the money makes it likely it aided the efforts.

I should point out for the record that Collins’ left-wing bias is so obvious and out there that his employer felt they had no choice but to temporarily suspend him from providing on-air commentary about Twitter CEO Elon Musk for several weeks in December after Collins went overboard in a series of tweets about Musk earlier that month.

So it shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that he’s still at it, albeit with a different target.

Sorry not sorry, Ben Collins, but the facts in this situation – as is the case with most things you “report” – do not care about your feelings.

Related: ‘Reporter’ Goes Full Baghdad Bob in Disgraceful Display During Tennessee Transurrection

Trending on RedState Video

Pelosi Gives Legally Illiterate Response to Trump Indictment, Gets Wrecked By Community Notes

by Leave a Comment

The indictment of former President Donald Trump burst onto the scene Thursday like a naked man streaking through an NFL game. There was no warning, with even those supposedly in the know (including Trump’s own lawyers who recently told him the prosecution had collapsed) that the grand jury was getting ready to vote. On the contrary, recent reports made it seem as if Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s pursuit had faltered at best.

That was not to be, though, and Trump is now awaiting processing on a timed-out misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on a never-before-tested legal theory. Yet, despite the obvious issues with the case, Democrats rushed to spike the football. Nancy Pelosi was one of those people.

It’s hard to fathom a more legally illiterate response than that. This is a woman who was once the third most powerful politician in the country (and likely still is behind the scenes). Yet, she apparently believes that defendants in criminal cases have to “prove innocence.”

That’s not how it works. Rather, it is up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. There is no presumption of guilt in our system that must be disproven, or at least there isn’t supposed to be. Pelosi might be having a bit of a Freudian slip there, assuming that a Manhattan jury will give no quarter to a president almost all of them no doubt voted against.

Even Pelosi’s last line is pretty nuts. The system doesn’t grant rights. Rights are inherent and enshrined constitutionally to protect individuals from government tyranny. The system itself is not a god to be bowed before and “respected.” It’s a necessary evil to create a societal framework where people’s rights are protected.

Because new Twitter is pretty great, Pelosi found herself absolutely wrecked by the Community Notes fact-checkers, which amended her post with this.

The viewpoints of Democrats, including some of the most powerful in the country, should worry you. There seems to be no constitutional center at all. Everything is built around maintaining power. If that means turning the justice system on its head, they’ll do it. If it means denying basic rights to people, they’ll do it.

That’s a dangerous place to be. I know some are joking about the Trump indictment (including people like Kari Lake), insinuating that the former president is glad it happened. Their idea is that this will help him win the White House by creating a backlash. But don’t underestimate the Democratic Party and its allies in the legal system. They’ve already thought this through, and their plan isn’t meant to hold the fabric of the nation together. Quite the contrary.

Trending on RedState Video