Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

That's not correct, though it's been repeated by apologists for the Tangerine Man.

Did Alvin Bragg campaign on a promise to prosecute Trump? What we know

"Bragg launched his campaign for the Manhattan DA position in June 2019, two months before outgoing DA Cyrus Vance Jr issued a subpoena for the Trump Organization in order to acquire Trump's tax returns. Proceedings against Trump by Vance began in August 2019, and would continue until the end of his tenure.

During the first half of Bragg's campaign, it was not clear that proceedings against Trump would be able to take place, as Trump had appealed to the Supreme Court for immunity from the subpoena. The Court ruled 7-2 that he was not immune in the Trump v. Vance case in July 2020.

Due to Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court, New York officials did not receive the subpoenaed documents until February 2021, and a criminal investigation was not launched until May, a few months before Bragg's election in November. There were no legal proceedings being taken against Trump in the state when Bragg first started his run for DA.

While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable." He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."

 

And that does not change the fact that a jury (including a jurist that claimed to get all her news from TruthSocial) found Trump guilty on all counts. So looks like your "prosecuting political enemies" narrative is debunked.

 

You are correct. @Contra is bearing false witness against Alvin Bragg.

 

A jury of American citizens reviewed all the evidence and obviously disagreed with you.

 

There's no precedent for this exact scenario because no other candidate for President has done this

 

Show us where he said/made a campaign promise he would "lock Trump up". Or are you being "led like sheep by your media overlords", or simply making things up?

 

Paying off a pornstar to hide one's indiscretion is a valid political expense?

 

From a legal standpoint, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. From a moral standpoint, obviously, what Trump did is wrong, but Trump was not on trial for his lust and adultery. He was on trial for breaking the law.

 

Not legal, which is why he was found guilty .

 

But see, he didn't label it a political expense. He labeled it a legal expense. You just proved the case. Because, if it is a political expense, he broke the law (you can't ask employees to contribute beyond the legal maximum to your campaign and then pay them back out of the business- this is something multiple politicians have been charged with and convicted of doing) and labeled it incorrectly to cover him doing it. Good job!

 

And they would think that, as they do now, because a malignant and criminal narcissist says that he is innocent (of anything and everything since the day he was injected into the world) and that the justice system is rigged. Just as he said before the 2020 election that the election would be rigged if he didn't win. (The Big Lie was in place and ready to go.) That's it, beliefs based on nothing but the rants of malignant narcissist with zero credibility. And that's a textbook definition of a mindless cult.

 

Hope you stretched out well before you put yourself through all these mental gymnastics to somehow believe trump has no fault in this.

 

Were Cohen and Weisselberg red-herrings, too?

 

It is factually correct that Bragg campaigned on prosecuting Trump. He also said he wanted to dig into Trump's business records. These were campaign promises. He also is backed by George Soros. So, there is a huge conflict of interest there given Soros' hard core leftist agenda. I am not misrepresenting any of this. Bragg also has sued Trump over 100 times. That is factually correct as well. I will concede the point that "locking him up" was probably language that was a little too strong. The goal of prosecution sometimes is to lock someone up, but not always. So, I will revise that part of my statement, but prosecuting or getting Trump was part of his campaign. If you deny that, then you are denying the truth.

 

Now comment on Trump's fraudulent business practices for the last 40 years

 

Tell me then. What felony is Trump guilty of?

 

Falsifying business records in the first degree:

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

And you just admitted that he had a political expense, which he labeled as a legal expense. Therefore, you just provided one element of the crime. The other element is that he would not be able to utilize his business to do that politically, providing the underlying crime that was covered up.

 

Not a real big deal having a felon as President. We average 0.74 felony convictions per President.
0 - 44. 0 felonies
45. 34 felonies
46. 0 felonies.
Its statistics

 

No it is not debunked. CNN was writing articles about how Bragg was going to focus on Trump back in 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/bragg-new-york-trump/index.html

The next Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg Jr., says he plans to personally focus on the high-profile probe into former President Donald Trump’s business practices and may expand the investigative team while keeping at least one senior prosecutor on the case.

Bragg, who will be sworn into office on January 1, said he hasn’t been briefed on the facts of the Trump case, which is before a state grand jury. But he indicated he has no plans to disrupt the investigation he’s inheriting even as he also wants to focus on his own agenda.

“This is obviously a consequential case, one that merits the attention of the DA personally,” Bragg said in a recent interview over lunch in Harlem.

Carey Dunne, general counsel to the current District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. who argued successfully before the Supreme Court to get Trump’s taxes, has agreed to continue on the case, people familiar with his decision told CNN. Bragg said he would like Mark Pomerantz, a highly regarded attorney with deep knowledge of financial investigations who was recruited by Vance to steer with the investigation, to also stay.​

 

Don't waste your time. Trump could live stream himself robbing a store, submit a dna sample during the robbery and the deplorables would say it's fake