Manhattan DA Bragg Tells Grand Jury in Trump Case to Stay Home on Wednesday, be on Standby for Thursday
No reason given.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg told the grand jury hearing the case against President Donald Trump to stay home on Wednesday and standby for Thursday.
Bragg did not give a reason why:
The reason for this delay is unclear, including whether it may involve another potential witness to be heard. On Monday, the grand jury, which had according to multiple sources been prepared as of Friday to issue an indictment decision as early as this week, heard from Trump ally Robert Costello, who sought to discredit the prosecution’s key witness: former fixer and personal attorney Michael Cohen. They had been scheduled to reconvene Wednesday afternoon.
The latest developments come five days after Trump announced to the world he expected to be arrested and urged his supporters to “PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST” in New York City, where throngs of fully uniformed NYPD, Secret Service and other officers secured the Manhattan Criminal Court perimeter ahead of a possible grand jury indictment.
Protests have been intermittent and largely muted thus far. A few members of the New York Young Republican’s Club donned MAGA hats and rallied outside Manhattan Criminal Court earlier this week, and Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan has been the scene of a handful of impromptu demonstrations.
Trump is accused of paying porn star Stormy Daniels hush money over a supposed affair.
I will update this piece as more information comes out.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The DeSantis maniacs really want Trump indicted. It says a lot about them and the modern “conservative” movement.
Speak for yourself. I don’t want Trump indicted. I just want him to stop fucking everything up and creating collateral damage for the electability of conservatives nationwide.
Yes , it’s all Trumps fault
7 yrs of absolute abuse
all his fault
I won’t speak for myself, I will speak for you. You know you want that man indicted. What exactly did Trump fuck up? Was it Trump who allowed the border to remain open? Was it Trump who allowed abortion to become commonplace? Was it Trump who allowed gays to become a large vocal minority such that you can’t dissent? You sorry chump conservatives did all that by yourselves by not acting like a bulwark against Leftism. Trump’s done more for conservativism and you sorry ingrates are ungrateful because you were too cowardly to do it yourselves.
Good luck with that. I’m pretty sure everyone on this board knows you don’t speak for me.
But play dress up and pretend all you want.
Why “ Desantis maniacs?” I voted for Trump twice but am sick of misogynistic comments about women. You might want to stop criticizing this who like DeSantis. I know he’s a threat to you, but it’s not helpful to speak of us that way.
Trump is an equal opportunity insulter.
Man or woman, grow up. I’m not criticizing DeSantis, he’s overrated and you’re all putting your hopes and dreams into that man. How about you worry about a Tualatin men who think they’re better women than you than worry about what a man says about women?
Like a good soldier, we all expect to see you there “protesting” like Trump’s loyal coon hound.
Or are you just a bunch of talk?
I support President Trump but If fear there may be no escape from fanatics in power. Reminds me of the old movie Danton. The voice of the people thought he could use his rhetorical eloquence to avoid the fanatics of the French Revolution. They let him talk until he was hoarse and then the chop.
You “lol’d” yourself or do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Your reputation proceeds you.
In my opinion, a satisfactory outcome must include:
– Complete and unconditional dismissal of the changes
– Disbarment for Alvin Bragg
There aren’t any charges yet.
You know exactly what I meant. Don’t you?
No need to be cute.
Look, there is no malfeasance until charges are brought. The government can investigate anything as long as their subpoenas and warrants are honest. So, no, I don’t know what you mean. There are no charges yet.
I will say that the malfeasance comes in the use of lawfare to attempt and harm a political opponent. Even trying to investigate Trump they’ve violated several norms that are supposed to protect everyone from political prosecutions. So, I can understand where Exiliado is coming from, even if he’s a bit wrong on the “charges” bit.
My understanding of grand juries is that their purpose, generally, is to examine evidence of a purported crime, determine if a crime has actually occurred, and who should be charged and tried for committing that crime.
Don’t forget that both Bragg and NY AG Letitia James campaigned for office on a “Get Trump” platform. It didn’t matter if Trump had broken any laws or not, they were going to get him.
It appears that Manhattan DA Bragg is using the grand jury’s authority to subpoena and to compel testimony to uncover anything that can be interpreted as evidence of a purported crime by a particular person. He’s not using the grand jury to investigate a crime but abusing it to investigate a person.
Lavrentiy Beria purportedly told Stalin, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” This seems to be Mr. Bragg’s approach.
Or, they meant it exactly the way we understood Trump’s promise to “lock her up”. We were (and still are) convinced that she had committed crimes, and we understood him to mean that he would appoint someone to investigate those crimes and prosecute her for them. They were equally convinced (though on much less evidence) that Trump had committed crimes that could easily be discovered if only they looked, so they promised to look.
I’m certain we’ve moved way past the point where there has to be actual mouthfees since and obviously the warrants and such do not have to be honest that’s not a standard they adhere to anymore. Ask the fisa court.
The fake-clean process is the punishment.
Much like FBI “investigations”, the pretense of no harm from designated-prosecutors’ investigations depends on their being confidential. The damage from it getting out is often why they do it.
When you have to declare “cannot comment on investigations in progress” to a congresscritter who *already knows about the investigation* you’ve already blown any lack of “malfeasance” cover, I think.
If there isn’t law making these shenanigans “malffeasance”,we have some law to work on.
No Milhouse, “lock her up,” wasn’t a campaign promise. It was an public expression of public outrage after federal officials corruptly ignored evidence of real crime. The NY prosecutors, on the other hand, actually promised to use the powers of their offices to target a political opponent. That’s rather unprecedented unless you grew up in the USSR.
“Lock her up” from the crowd was an expression of outrage. When Trump joined in and said yes, he would do that, that was a campaign promise. And it was exactly like James’s and Bragg’s promises about Trump. Had Trump honestly tried to lock her up and found that it couldn’t be done, that the actionable evidence for a crime that was still within the statute just wasn’t there, then we would have considered that promise fulfilled because he’d have done his best.
That’s absurd. It was never taken seriously by anyone as a “campaign promise.” Except never Trumpers who have no sense of humor.
Oh, I don’t know about that. We covered Trump’s decision not to investigate or have her prosecuted because he wanted to have her “heal.” Or something. https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/kellyanne-conway-trump-wont-prosecute-hillary/
People may pretend they didn’t expect it or that they knew his campaign promise (made during a debate and viewable at the linked articles) was total BS NOW, but at the time, that was definitely not the case.
But the real distinction, Milhouse, is that, unlike the abusive lawfare employed by the democrats in power, President Trump did not unleash an endless stream of investigations, special counsels, or grand juries against his political opponents.
What we knew in 2016 vs what we know now with how Democrats have weapised every facet of Government would have made ANY investigation pointless as she would have been white washed anyway (thus emboldening her and Democrats even more).
In a round about way the fact Trump DIDNT use the power of Government to go after his political opponents probably, inadvertantly, played in to his hands.
Having said that, now that we have seen what Democrats have been up to I am not averse to some retribution being paid back. Find some “straight shooters” in the FBI (there must be an Elliot Ness still there somewhere) and go after Democrats with the same zeal as they have been going after their political enemies. Make them suffer the same as they have to everyone else! Payback is a bitch!
Well Fuzzy, you have certainly proved that Never-Trumpers have no sense of humor, You do understand that President Trump was also joking when he told the media to ask Russia for Hillary’s emails? Actually you probably don’t.
I’m not a Never Trumper. Unless by “Never Trumper” you mean someone who voted for him twice and spent four years writing countless posts in support of him–from explaining his statements, to outright debunking leftist lies about what he said (or didn’t say, as was often the case), sure, I’m a Never Trumper. That term, in your use of it, has zero meaning, however. But that seems to be your usual approach to language, so I”m not surprised.
For the record, both of those links were to Professor Jacobson’s posts. Be sure to let him to know how he’s a “Never Trumper” with no sense of humor.
I think your recent comments in multiple posts speak for themselves. And they say Never Trump, quite loudly, but if you think that’s a compelling way to turn others to your point of view, by all means keep it up. As for the links, I am not questioning anything posted by Prof. Jacobson, I’m just questioning your opinions.
You falsely claimed that no one took seriously Trump’s claims that he would have Hillary investigated and prosecuted; you further falsely claimed that it was not a campaign promise. I provided links proving you are incorrect. The links were to posts written by the professor and including video of Trump himself making those claims. Nothing I posted there was an opinion. It was fact, backed up by posts written at the time and video evidence.
You are really really bad at this. You keep getting your hindquarters handed to you by everyone here. Maybe you are just out of your depth?
What can be said more but that you’re wrong. But that doesn’t even matter because, as noted above, the main point is that President Trump did not systemically abuse his power to harass and prosecute political enemies, He was a victim of democrat lawfare then as now. And if you were hoping to be invited to the DeSantis victory party, I hate to tell you (no I don’t actually) it ain’t going to happen.
Justice in America, 2023, according to “sources”:
“Prosecutors in the special counsel’s office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.” the outlet reported.”
A Trump campaign spokesperson said, in part, “Shame on Fake News ABC for broadcasting ILLEGALLY LEAKED false allegations from a Never Trump, now former chief judge, against the Trump legal team. The real story here, that Fake News ABC SHOULD be reporting on, is that prosecutors only attack lawyers when they have no case whatsoever,” the spokesperson said.
It never ends. Kafka could not have scripted it better. Next they will accuse him of leaving the toilet seat up.
But it’s a gold toilet seat, so what does he care? 😉
Oh, please. Trump’s response is transparently dishonest. There is nothing in the report that alleges anything against the legal team, or that attacks the lawyers. Quite the contrary.
Believe what you want. In fact, the judge pierced the attorney-client relationship.
“Judge Approves ‘Crime Fraud Exception’ in Special Counsel Probe of Trump Classified Documents”
Yes. How does that justify the bizarre response in any way????
There was no attack on the lawyers, but the exact opposite.
And there’s nothing improper about piercing the relationship, if the evidence supports it.
An attack on the privilege is an attack on the lawyers. It need not be physical. Not to mention, these are questions of degree. The “evidence” is in the eye of the beholder. No one is disputing the crime fraud exception in law, so your remark about it is superfluous. Your dispute of fact is bizzare, truth be told. This judge is no fan of Trump, and that matters, especially when the dirty DOJ is involved.
No, it is not an attack on the lawyers. Exactly the opposite. The judge said the lawyers were honest victims of Trump’s deceit. That may or may not be true, but there’s no way it’s an attack on them.
Exactly the opposite? Hogwash! Use your imagination. Is it that hard to understand that when you go after the privilege it’s an attack on the lawyers, especially when there’s bias in the process? “Attack” can be indirect or direct. You do not get to limit the word to your own predilection. Sorry.
How exactly is misleading your own attorneys a crime, assuming Trump actually did that?
It’s a crime when it causes them to make false statements to the authorities.
The Dems will claim duress from terrorist MAGA.
On a similar note, “U.S. Judge Beryl Howell, who on Friday stepped down as the D.C. district court’s chief judge, wrote last week that prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith’s office had made a “prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations,” according to the sources, and that attorney-client privileges invoked by two of his lawyers could therefore be pierced.”
Isn’t that putting a big thumb on the scales of justice?
How so? Since none of us have seen this alleged evidence, we can’t know whether it is indeed as the judge is reported to have characterized it. But either it is sufficient to make this prima facie case or it isn’t, and if it is then wouldn’t this be exactly the correct decision? How would it be a thumb on the scales?
He leaves the toilet seat up?
Now, I have issues with that!
I hear Gov DeSantis would NEVER leave the toilet seat up!
He gets my vote after all…
You’re obsessed with DeSantis. You come across as terrified that Trump might have a rival.
While a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich…. in NYC .. a Reuben.. not so much… we hope.
What’s the difference? A reuben is arguably even traifer than a mere ham sandwich (without cheese) 🙂
But just because grand juries have been known to indict ham sandwiches does not mean they always do so. As any prosecutor will tell you, no bills are a real thing that actually happens with distressing (to them) frequency.
Now, that is funny! When I was growing up, there were folks in the neighborhood who kept two sets of dishes.
NO reason given? Looks like Bragg is busy bribing jurors or, he’s just trying to do mental gymnastics on Trump’s brain.
That won’t work.
You wouldn’t expect a reason to be given. So the lack of one means nothing.
Bragg caught with his pants down, withholding exculpatory evidence?
Straight out of the Andrew Weissmann School of Legal Ethics.
He’s just making sure the money has been deposited first
He didn’t exactly “withhold” anything. His office just never went and looked for it. Costello had to contact them and offer it up and that was a fight in and of itself.
Commission by omission may be more apt.
You don’t have to share that prior to indictment.
The real activity he is up to is bad enough could we stick to reality please?
Our system doesn’t show the grand jury everything which is why an indictment is not especially meaningful and why the saying for many decades has been “you could indict a ham sandwich”.
The nitpicking around here is fantastic.
This is not nitpicking, it is the most basic fundamental facts. When you come along and prattle ignorantly about “withholding evidence”, you just show yourself to have no real case to make, so all you can do is throw out red herrings.
It is nitpicking, and it goes on all the time. It was a question, actually, but nitpickers could care less. Maybe read a bit closer!
The gist is that Bragg knows, but decided against informing the grand jury, in violation of his ethival responsibilities. Unless you are a nitpicker.
Thank you for your own red herring.
Your “question” was whether Bragg had been “caught with his pants down, withholding exculpatory evidence”, which you claimed would be somehow equivalent to Andrew Weissmann’s antics.
This necessarily rests on the false assumption that Bragg had an obligation, ethical or otherwise, to disclose this evidence. Pointing out that he didn’t is the exact opposite of nitpicking. That’s not a nit, it’s the entire foundation of your so-called “question”.
The question was just that, a question. You treated it as an assertion.
“a prosecutor serves a dual role as advocate and public officer. He is charged with the duty not only to seek convictions but also to see that justice is done. In his position as a public officer he owes a duty of fair dealing to the accused and candor to the courts, a duty which he violates when he obtains a conviction based upon evidence he knows to be false. … It goes without saying that this duty also rests upon the prosecutor during pretrial proceedings (see, e.g., People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510; People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434) and the proceedings relating to indictment both at presentment and afterwards.”
People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 105-06, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 83-84, 464 N.E.2d 447, 451-52 (1984)
“It is well settled, moreover, that the District Attorney in dealing with the Grand Jury “owes a duty of fair dealing to the accused” ( People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 105; see also, People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 26), and that the courts, by virtue of the Grand Jury’s role as “an arm of the court'” ( People v Ianniello, 21 NY2d 418, 424, cert denied 393 US 827; CPL 190.05; Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 190.05, at 185), similarly maintain an obligation [***8] to ensure fairness in Grand Jury submissions (see, People v Pelchat, supra; People v Russo, 128 Misc 2d 876, 880; People v Monroe, 125 Misc 2d 550, 551; People v Davis, 119 Misc 2d 1013, 1019; People v Lazar, 51 Misc 2d 233, 237-238).
People v. Jordan, 153 A.D.2d 263, 267, 550 N.Y.S.2d 917, 920 (App. Div. 1990)
In other words, it falls squarely within the ethical responsibility of Bragg and the Weissmann analogy. Yes, nitpicking.
Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Withholding from whom? He has no obligation to disclose anything to anybody.
Especially if you mean from the suspect. Bragg has absolutely no obligations to the suspect at all. He certainly doesn’t have to disclose anything to him.
From the people that will decide, especially when he has possession of exculpatory information.
ABA Standard 3-1.2 Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor:
(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict.
If he has withheld information from the grand jury, not information related to guilt, but innocence, he has breached his ethical duty.
That is not true. He has no obligation whatsoever to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. His job at this stage is to make out a prima facie case, and exculpatory evidence is irrelevant to that.
See above. Apparently, a majority of jurisdictions call for presentation of exculpatory information, although there is no obligation in federal court.. To say there is no obligation whatsoever is bogus.
And of course, it depends on the facts of the case and the nature of the information. But if there is no obligation whatsoever, why are there cases in NY concerning violations?
If anyone wonders why oldschool on being called out called the criticism (your entire point is invalid stick to what is actually happening) a nitpick and started nitpicking things he thought helped his claim that the prosecutor at a grand jury must show the grand jury everything and or that he has an obligation to share evidence with the defendant prior to indictment is free to read what the State of New York says on that matter
Just do a search for the term “exculpatory information” in that page, you will find the state of New York doesn’t actually seem to show it to exist.
I think that civil asset forfeiture should be illegal.
The United States Supreme Court, and government which writes the laws disagrees with me. If I cited portions of the constitution and claimed civil asset forfeiture is illegal and ignored the relevant case law that would be me nitpicking and lying.
If you think DoJ policy is legally binding law a state prosecutor has to follow you don’t know the law very well.
“In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts’ supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department’s policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.”
In other words United States Attorneys who violate DOJ policy could be punished by the Office of Professional Responsibility for it, but the indictment remains if they withed exculpatory evidence. By the way the Office of Professional Responsibility has no jurisdiction over a NY State prosecutor.
“…..It is truly stunning.
Mar a lago case
Letitia James case
Alvin Bragg case
FOUR Cases out against President Trump. Zero cases against the most corrupt President in History.
SCOTUS needs to reach down and stop this nonsense before the entire justice system is destroyed.
They’re ignoring their oaths.”
SCOTUS has no authority over state level actors beyond rulings on suits brought before them.
They can put a lot of pressure on judges
No, they cannot. It would be completely unethical, unprofessional, and illegal.
Said in a world weary 5yo’s voice: “It could be Covid.”
Maybe drag the case out until closer to the election, not like the statute of limitations hasn’t passed a few years already what’s another?
I heard Robert Costello on John Solomon’s “Just News” podcast this morning. He was in the original meeting with Cohen not as a “Trump Ally” but as counsel for Cohen at the request of a friend. His story backed up by notes is pretty damning especially towards the DA’s office with his demanding to be a witness before the Grand Jury after Bragg turned down a private meeting Costello tried to arrange to give him a bunch of material according to him “4in thick”. Once in front of the Jury he had to roll over the DA’s office because they refused to ask him pertinent questions about exculpatory information trying to keep everything out of the Grand Jury’s hearing such as only entering something like 6 Emails out of nearly 450 he provided to the DA’s Office concerning Cohen.
Everyone should go to the Just News podcast and hear it for yourselves. It’s pretty bad and that is why Bragg is panicking. He doesn’t think that with this hidden information the Jury will vote to indict anyone.
The Jury should refuse to indict and Bragg should be removed from office and disbarred. Any Assistant DA who helped in this should also be removed from office, have their license to practice in NY suspended and be forced to undergo remedial training then retake the Bar to be re-admitted.
Someone should be asking that woke Soros AG if she can take some time out from the grooming trans book reading nonsense what she thinks of this and why she isn’t stepping in.
Who needs Evidence?
Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges!
After all, this is Leftist ruled America! We are beyond such bourgeois concepts.
I listened to the podcast too, and it brought up an odd question. Since a prosecutor can indict the proverbial ham sandwich and grand juries churn out 99% or better indictments that match with the prosecutor, what happens if Bragg winds up with the grand jury *NOT* voting to indict? He has to be thinking about that giant egg on his face after Costello’s testimony in front of the jury, particularly since he was right there and could see the jury’s reaction. If so, what Bragg really needs right now is an excuse to disband the grand jury for later consideration, i.e. never. Covid probably won’t do it, but if he can manage to provoke some Trump supporters (or a number of Feds pretending to be such) into an act of violence.
Practically every Trump supporter online is screaming “Don’t take the bait!” but all it takes is one nut or several Feds framing an idiot.
If he can’t indict then nothing happens.
He won’t be humiliated by it to the contrary he will be by far the favorite of Democrats who want Trump indicted because he got closer than anyone else.
However about one nut or feds framing an idiot no it takes a lot less than that
All it takes is an ordinary person who gets angry enough for a fed to successfully get to break the law on the spur of the moment, which isn’t especially hard.
If he fails to get an indictment then that will match his unbroken record of futility since taking office. He has downgraded 50% of felonies to misdemeanors and plead those out. Of the remaining 50% he has lost half of those. Not very good and NYC is taking it on the chin because of it. This is the legacy of every Soros Prosecutor that made it into office all over the US.
One fed to false-flag, and tipped-off CNN to film it, so long as nobody grabs the cameras from their car.
Maybe somebody should film something like that…
I think President Trump will be disappointed if this all shrivels up and blows over. The circus was coming to town and he had front row seats.
This one’s easy to keep alive just for fun.
This is a smart move by the Democrats, for whom the prosecutor is working. It will energize MAGA supporters and make what might have been a primary that DeSantis could have easily won into another bloodbath. If Trump wins the primary he will just lose the general election again. If DeSantis or someone else wins, that candidate will be badly damaged like Romney was and be more likely lose the general election.
Under normal circumstances, you might have a point, but the simple fact is that the Dems have the control of enough states to prevent ANY Republican from being elected, so this whole Trump vs anybody thing is pretty much moot.
Even under the circumstances you describe I still want the best candidate possible to face these challenges. I don’t think Trump is or will ever be that candidate.
DeSantis a much better possibility
Of course. The point is that the Dems aren’t going to let any of them win.
How touching that you believe that we will have an election in 2024 where actual votes cast by actual citizens resident where they are voting will be counted, and that “Ballots” inserted into the process by Leftists will not.
I share your frustration with election fraud and I believe it mostly works in favor of Democrats, it I think it has always been this way but rarely flips a national election. I think Trump still legitimately lost to sleepy Joe.
Sorry, I don’t accept that there’s any way that Biden pulled 81 million votes, or that several states where Trump was leading when the Republicans were tossed out of the counting rooms suddenly switched to Biden.
If it’s all rigged as you claim then we all just might as well just stay home and not bother voting at all. It’s all just rigged and our votes don’t matter at all. So we shouldn’t waste our time actually voting. We should just let our betters in the upper-class elite decide who is going to run the country and be done with it. Perhaps this time around I’ll just vote for the local ballot issues and leave the federal choices blank. After all, it really doesn’t matter how you fill out the federal ballot as it’s all just rigged against us if we vote the wrong way.
Is that what you want with your constant harping that it’s all rigged and no matter what we do the leftists will always win?
Exactly why the prosecutor is doing this.
He passed law school and the bar exam, he knows his case is a joke.
Mission to influence the Republican Primary is already going well for him so even if he decides not to indict he has already achieved mission accomplished.
I was on a grand jury in Dutchess County, NY several years ago. The only time we didn’t indict a defendant was when the defendant came in himself and spoke to us. Man, was the prosecutor pissed when we didn’t indict him
“Stay Home on Wednesday, be on Standby for Thursday
No reason given.”
Alvin is just looking out for them. Thursday is tacos day.
Malarkey. Tacos are always on Tuesday, everywhere I’ve ever been. (OK, except the one place they did them on Wednesdays. That place was just messed up.)