Image 01 Image 03

‘Underwhelming’: Reactions to Trump’s Arraignment Shows It’s a Nothingburger

‘Underwhelming’: Reactions to Trump’s Arraignment Shows It’s a Nothingburger

“There’s a curious omission in the Donald Trump indictment and statement of facts – The specific federal law Trump violated.”

Former President Donald Trump was arraigned on 34 counts of falsifying business records.


You lost people, Alvin Bragg. Everyone knows this is a nothingburger.

But the whole thing is a farce. An absolute farce.

I just started law school and I even know it’s all a joke. To not put the facts in your indictment is exactly what you’re NOT supposed to do.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Since these so called crimes occurred when the business was in Trust, how can he be charged. Sounds like they filed against the wrong organization.

    MarkS in reply to MarkSmith. | April 4, 2023 at 6:32 pm

    The way I see it, that account, The Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, was a personal not a business account. His Lawyer alluded to that when on a recent appearance on Hannity

      neils in reply to MarkS. | April 5, 2023 at 10:20 am

      Exactly. Even though the Trump organization may have provided bookkeeping services to Trump and to his revocable trust and kept records for them, these were not “business records” of the Trump Organization, nor were they “business records” of Trump or of the Trump Revocable Trust since they are not businesses. If the are not business records, the cannot be “false business records” under the statute whether or not they are false. Motion to dismiss granted.

      As an example, if i buy illicit drugs and pay my drug dealer for them with a check from my Bank of America account and put “lawn services” rather than “cocaine” in the memo section of the check to hide my illegal purchase this would not become a “false business record” subject to the statute simply because the bank, a business, cashed the check and kept a copy in their records.

    1073 in reply to MarkSmith. | April 4, 2023 at 8:45 pm

    I am small time compared to Trump. I don’t make the entries into my accounting software.

    Does anyone think Trump does?

    Accounting clerk sees a check written to a lawyer.
    Bookkeeping entry:
    Legal Exp
    ledger #52651

      GravityOpera in reply to 1073. | April 5, 2023 at 1:22 am

      Note that the law uses the phrase “or causes”. If you send bogus information to your accountant then you caused the false business records. (The accountant is protected from this scenario by another section of the law.)

      SECTION 175.05
      Falsifying business records in the second degree
      Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175
      § 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.

      A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
      when, with intent to defraud, he:

      1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
      enterprise; or

      2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true
      entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

      3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise
      in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by
      law or by the nature of his position; or

      4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
      in the business records of an enterprise.

      Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A

    JohnSmith100 in reply to MarkSmith. | April 4, 2023 at 9:34 pm

    “So They Try and Beat Us Through the Law’”
    Isn’t this Color of Law?

    Danny in reply to MarkSmith. | April 5, 2023 at 11:52 am

    You could indict a ham sandwich and Alvin Bragg campaigned on doing this.

    Indictments mean only that the prosecutor wants an indictment the Grand Jury is a vestigial institution.

    These charges have no chance of sticking.

      bhwms in reply to Danny. | April 5, 2023 at 1:53 pm

      Someone should send Bragg 34 ham sandwiches. Probably a light snack for him.

      tbonesays in reply to Danny. | April 5, 2023 at 4:20 pm

      And the NY judicial machine would likely uphold it. And the federal court would wait until the ham trial is over before reviewing it.

smalltownoklahoman | April 4, 2023 at 6:16 pm

Next court date is right at the beginning of the GOP Presidential Primaries eh? How is this not purely political again? Not to mention that is several months from now sooooooo: the right to a speedy, fair trial?

Let’s hope this case gets tossed quick once it resumes.

healthguyfsu | April 4, 2023 at 6:17 pm

Mary? You just started law school??? Tell us more!

Daniels received $130,000 and has to pay out over $600,000. She’s apparently gloating today over the indictment.

As for the whole farce, a black day for America, but now the crosshairs may be directed at others more appropriately. A new norm is established.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | April 4, 2023 at 7:37 pm

    Hey Stormy! That’s a lot of bl*w jobs and stretched wrecktum to put together that kinda of money. Hmmmm. You get $130,000, allegedly from Trump – yet you have to pay Trump $600,000

    That’s not exactly a win for you.

    Did you have to bl*w Alvin to get him to do your dirty work? Apparently, Avanasty wasn’t effective enough.

It’s just as pathetic as expected.

Where are all the RINO idiot ‘well nobody should be above the law’ crew now? Maybe they can point to the spot in the indictment where it actually includes the law he’s allegedly violated.

Everybody knew this was going to be pathetic, and a whole bunch of them went along with it because they were THAT desperate to finally Get Trump.

Bragg should lose his law license, if there is any justice anymore.

“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime! Wait,,,wait,,, I had it somewhere..around here…… excuse me … well … I don’t have to show it to you now… .but just wait!

henrybowman | April 4, 2023 at 6:30 pm

Good to know that Soros is getting real professionalism and genuine value for all his money.

    Paddy M in reply to henrybowman. | April 4, 2023 at 6:49 pm

    Soros is getting exactly what he wants. Law and order is being destroyed in cities around the country and more of his imps keep getting elected. He doesn’t give 2 shits about how they act, because the press protects them and, by extension, him.

It is time to take off the gloves and fight back. Let’s begin in Arkansas. Sarah Huckabee’s AG should announce his investigation into the Clinton Foundation empaling a grand jury to look into books, records, payments, illegal donations and sources of income. Let’s go find a crime!

Was Bragg that anxious to stick it to Trump? Or is it just his AFFIRMATIVE ACTION bonafides clearly shining through?

This reminds me of the time they implemented the nuclear option in the Senate.

SeymourButz | April 4, 2023 at 6:41 pm

It’s a nothingburger, but he still could face prison because you can easily rig a jury at all levels of government to put him away. He’s too polarizing.

Unfortunately, the only remedy is to start indicting Democrats.

Bragg has violated every canon of attorney ethics by abusing his power as a prosecutor and bringing charges that are clearly unsupported by both facts and the law. In a just and sane world, Bragg would be promptly referred for state Bar disciplinary proceedings and disbarment.

Subotai Bahadur | April 4, 2023 at 6:52 pm

Considering that the judge involved has a history of making campaign contributions against Trump, and that this is Manhattan where I think maybe 12% of the vote was for Trump; if they do NOT get a rapid change of venue then the process is the punishment. They do not have to get a conviction for a victory, merely to delay matters so that it screws up the primary campaign. In that case, there is no reason to worry about the legal nonsense that comprises the indictments.

If the Left is real lucky, they will end up with another GOPe collaborator as the Republican candidate.

Subotai Bahadur

    If they don’t give a change of venue then prison will probably be the punishment. I am unsure of the fairmindedness of a Manhattan jury in this case.

      caseoftheblues in reply to Martin. | April 5, 2023 at 8:51 am

      A Republican in NYC can and will be sent to prison for breathing… a Democrat can be on video committing murder and get off

We knew it was absurdly flimsy but when the prosecutor refuses to articulate the specific underlying crime needed to bootstrap this entire case to felony status and instead stacks the counts in the indictment it becomes laughably absurd.

They should have tanked the grand jury instead. That way they get their d/prog base riled up about ‘orange man bad’ with lots of publicity and fundraising. Instead they went through with this farce. There will be tit for tat in the future at some point and I am not listening to any crying when that day comes or moaning about ‘norms’. They chose this path and now they can damn well walk it.

    diver64 in reply to CommoChief. | April 5, 2023 at 3:43 am

    I don’t know much about the subject but if a DA is going to indict someone doesn’t he have to tell that person what it is for? It obviously is not the misdemeanors but that is all he listed.

      CommoChief in reply to diver64. | April 5, 2023 at 9:59 am

      Bragg did list out the alleged NY State violations however the statute of limitations seems to have run out on them w/o being linked to another alleged violation which might bootstrap the misdemeanors up to a felony and thus lengthen the statute of limitations.

      Bragged failure to specify the particular criminal violation he is attempting to link in order to perform this magic trick is very telling. IMO, it reveals that he knows he probably can’t sustain this indictment to a conviction and it is all for show. As a legal matter this is Cray cray. As a political matter it works to paint another allegation on Trump. Longer term though Trump is likely to walk and a very bright line has been crossed in using the legal system process itself as a form of political punishment v candidates. Tit for tat will come and there will be consequences someday.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | April 5, 2023 at 12:35 pm

        This. He doesn’t have to specify the “other crime” at this time, but if it were anything substantial he would. The fact that he chooses to exercise his right not to specify means it’s flimsy, as we already knew.

        This whole investigation has been frivolous from the beginning. Not facially frivolous, since the laws he’s alleging Trump violated actually exist, which probably makes it one step better than the Georgia investigation, but frivolous once you look at it up close.

        bhwms in reply to CommoChief. | April 5, 2023 at 2:03 pm

        Judge Napalatano (sp) said on the radio that the statute of limitations in NY can start and stop – I think he called it “tolling?” It can stop when Trump left the state. And Cuomo signed an executive order suspending the statute of limitations during COVID, which according to the judge, is a peculiar part of NY law. So if the first act charged was in Feb 2017, and Trump was in the White House 2017-2020, according to this theory, Trump hasn’t been in NY so the toll clock was stopped most of the time.

        I’m no expert, but if the Trump Revokable Trust was located in NYC, then it really shouldn’t matter where Trump was, yes? Doesn’t it act as a separate entity?

        I have no idea if this is valid or not, but it deserves some scrutiny.

Is it more credible to believe that Biden read about it in the news, or that he has his hands all over this? After all, he’s such an honest guy. It’s got to be the former.

    henrybowman in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | April 4, 2023 at 7:31 pm

    There’s controversy over whether Biden is truly stupid or just plays one on TV. I’m in the former camp. The man has never shown a single flash of competence — never mind genius — at any age, and there’s no reason for him to start now.

      Stupid people can be very competent when it comes to destruction. That said, Biden never built much of anything, other than a corrupt empire. His incompetence is especially apparent in foreign affairs.

I support LegalInsurrection for its insight into the legal issues of the day. So here are some questions:

Is it not a clear violation of due process to indict someone for an unspecified law? How exactly would one be able to arrive at a criminal defense.

Does this not violate some ethical standard for prosecutors?

Can Legal Insurrection file a complaint with the New York Bar Association for this type of professional misconduct?

    Milhouse in reply to ALPAPilot. | April 4, 2023 at 7:51 pm

    The law he’s been indicted for allegedly violating is not unspecified. The only thing unspecified is the “other crime” that he allegedly committed this one in order to cover up for, and he’s not indicted for that.

      bobinreverse in reply to Milhouse. | April 4, 2023 at 8:00 pm

      Bragg wins this case he electrifies dems minority base and is dems prez candidate for 24 and more than likely next Prez.

      buck61 in reply to Milhouse. | April 4, 2023 at 9:53 pm

      at what point does Bragg have to identify this so called other crime, at some point he has to disclose what it is supposed to be, A DA could play word salad and make a claim with no basis that a baseline crime actually occurred.

      gospace in reply to Milhouse. | April 4, 2023 at 11:23 pm

      You violated Law A which says that to violate it you have to intend to violate Law B. If you fail to identify Law B- which is what th indictment apparently does according every legal analysis I’ve read- then the violation of Law A is, indeed, unspecified. yes, it’s named, and quoted, maybe even word for word from the statute book, but yet, is still unspecified.

      Logic 101.

      Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | April 4, 2023 at 11:41 pm

      Whatever law they tied it to the bootstrap it into a felony is unspecified. There is no federal crime to bootstrap it to

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 6:06 am

      How did I know you would show up trying to support this garbage?

      Felix in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 8:32 am

      Professor Milhouse, could you please explain how this indictment conformes to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881)?
      The “other crime” in the statute would, it would seem the Supreme Court deided, need to be clearly stated with specificity? But mayhap the Justices did not think this one through?

        Stuytown in reply to Felix. | April 5, 2023 at 8:41 am

        Felix, I think that your point is argued very well in a piece in the National Review by Andrew C. McCarthy. The piece is called “Bragg’s Indictment Even Fails as an Indictment.” Recommended reading.

        Milhouse in reply to Felix. | April 5, 2023 at 10:57 am

        I don’t see the relevance. That case does not refer to any “other crime”. It just says that the legislature’s intent was that it should apply only to those who knowingly spend counterfeit money, so the indictment should state that the defendant knew the money was counterfeit. Here the statute just says that if the crime was committed in furtherance of another crime it becomes a felony, and the indictment alleges that it was indeed so committed. I see nothing that would require (at this stage) that the other crime be described.

        Felix in reply to Felix. | April 6, 2023 at 6:20 am

        It is relevant because nobody, not even you, can know from the indictment what is at issue – Bragg merely repeats the words of the statute (“other crime”) but does not say which crime.
        This gives no notice of the actual allegation, is useless with respect to, e.g., double jeopardy questions.
        If this kind of indictment is sufficient you could make life easy for the prosecution and provide that “whoever commits an act or fails to commit an act and thereby violates a criminal law shall be punished in accordance with that criminal law” and let the indictment read “the accused committed an act or failed to commit an act and thereby violated a criminal law.”
        Apparently you would think that is sufficient because the crime is specified and “only the other crime” is not?
        Are you serious??

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 12:38 pm

      buck61, yes, at some point before trial he is going to have to reveal the “other crime”, so that Trump can defend himself. He just doesn’t have to do it now, and obviously he knows it won’t bear scrutiny so he’s delaying as much as he can.

    gonzotx in reply to ALPAPilot. | April 5, 2023 at 5:49 am

    Your confusing DeSantis with Trump

To not put the facts in your indictment is exactly what you’re NOT supposed to do.

And that’s a sentence you should always not write. It’s just not right. All right?

Given we have already seen people convicted and jailed over nothing-burgers, seeing the state bringing yet another to trial is a cold comfort.

Stated in this very website, nothing makes my eyes glaze over faster than reading law rules. But reading the indictment and seeing all these comments it’s a big pile of crap helps me weigh it out. But as pointed out elsewhere the Democrats Propaganda Ministry has the rest of the year to drive guilty all over DJT.

Best Day Ever for ….Mike Nifong

BTW- check out the wikipedia page for Nifong.

what should be the headline
Nothing to Bragg About

How can you plead not guilty to something that isn’t a crime

    Milhouse in reply to rhhardin. | April 4, 2023 at 11:39 pm

    What he’s charged with is a crime. The law exists, he just claims either not to have violated it, or that any violation has expired.

      Voluble in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 1:14 am

      “You are accused of fradulently entering expenses to hide a crime.”

      “What crime?”

      “That is irrelevant, how do you plead?”

      This is a 6th Amendment violation and the attorneys should have pointed out that any plea entered under such circumstances would require speculation on the part of the defendant.

        Milhouse in reply to Voluble. | April 5, 2023 at 1:08 pm

        It’s not a violation. All Trump has to say, and has said, is that he didn’t make those payments with the intent of covering up any crime.

      Mark Cohen in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 7:00 am

      You;re accused of a crime, but we’re not telling you what it is/

      Pure F’ing ChiCom/Soviet.

      Pure Star Chamber.

      Pure Nazi courtroom.

      Show me where my characterization is wrong.

        Milhouse in reply to Mark Cohen. | April 5, 2023 at 12:42 pm

        We are telling you what it is. It is “falsifying business records in order to hide evidence of some other crime”. That’s all you’re accused of. We’re not accusing you of that other crime, so we don’t (yet) have to tell you what it is. Of course we can’t keep that up forever, but when we tell you you’re going to laugh at us, so we’re delaying it as long as we can.

      caseoftheblues in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2023 at 9:02 am

      Milhouse did you get your law degree degree from the Alvin Bragg school of law and shoe repair…,just curious

Unless I missed something, all 34 accounts are essentially identical, and each one states that Trump violated NY’s Penal Law § 175.10. That section provides,

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

I read § 175.10 as applying to an intent to commit, aid or conceal a “secnod” crime that is concurrent with or contemplated to be committed subsequent to the falsifying of business records. With all the alleged falsification occurring in 2017 and the implied “second” crime having occurred prior to 2017, this indictment should be dismissed forthwith.

    gonzotx in reply to Ira. | April 5, 2023 at 5:52 am

    Yet, it won’t

    henrybowman in reply to Ira. | April 5, 2023 at 6:17 am

    “Unless I missed something, all 34 accounts are essentially identical”
    Tucker made the same point last night, so you are in good company.
    It’s like Biden’s 50 years in “government service.” It was one year, 50 times.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to Ira. | April 5, 2023 at 7:59 am

    “conceal the commission thereof” includes crimes that have already occurred, possibly long ago.

    There is nothing in the statute that requires that the second crime be specifically proven. Bragg must convince the jury that the some other crime was being covered up, but that crime does not have to be specific. It could have many possibilities including federal campaign violations, tax cheating, adultery, paying a prostitute, racketeering, etc…

      “includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”
      When I read “thereof,” I see it relating back to another crime that is going to be committed. Just like “aid” refers to aiding a crime that is going to be committed.

    Milhouse in reply to Ira. | April 5, 2023 at 12:46 pm

    When the original crime was (allegedly) committed is irrelevant. So long as the falsifications in 2017 were committed in order to cover that crime up, they count as felonies, so their statute is five years, and the Wuhan Flu extension takes that to six years, so they just squeeze in.

    Of course the idea that Alvin Bragg cares about violations of the law is ridiculous, but that’s a political objection, not a legal one.

Not an attorney and would love to hear an educated opinion on this. In reading the indictment the crux, I believe, is that Trump violated the law by paying Cohen back for monies given to Daniels and those monies amount to a campaign violation. Okay, however if what I’m reading is correct, Trump paid Cohen after the campaign was over and he was already sworn in as POTUS so can it really be part of the campaign? Additionally, DA Bragg has said the statute of limitations can / should / must be extended because Trump was outside of the jurisdiction of NY as POTUS. Yet, he was still a resident and was only in Washington DC because he was elected. I could be splitting hairs here and up front, I’m not a Trump fan boy, I just don’t think this indictment passes the smell test. Am I completely off the reservation here?

    henrybowman in reply to WillS68. | April 5, 2023 at 6:19 am

    The other thing is that the arrangements were drawn up and the payments made while Trump was not even in charge of the company that did it. He divested himself of all control of his company while he was in the White House. So how can this be his crime in the first place?

    Milhouse in reply to WillS68. | April 5, 2023 at 12:53 pm

    I think the claim is that Cohen made a campaign contribution, and when Trump reimbursed him in 2017 he falsified the records to hide what the money was for. The falsification is a separate (alleged) crime from the (alleged) campaign contribution, and that’s all he’s charged with.

    The whole thing stinks, but facially it appears to be within the law — just.

Whadaya think would happen if demonstrators showed up outside this judges house?

    Milhouse in reply to dirty dave. | April 5, 2023 at 12:55 pm

    Probably nothing.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to dirty dave. | April 5, 2023 at 6:07 pm

    FBI SWAT would take over security at the judge’s house and would have “free fire” authorization. After all, the judge is doing the work of the Left and cannot be distracted. Plus, as I understand it, his daughter works for the Biden organization and that gives a family immunity from reality. /limited sarc.

    Just in passing, does anyone else note a growing congruence between the Canadian tendency of rule by decree and US government?

    Subotai Bahadur

If all the charges in the indictment are misdemeanors which the statute of limitations has run out on then I’m a little puzzled. The felony, I guess, was some unspecified crime. Doesn’t the DA have to tell you what your being charge with?

    Milhouse in reply to diver64. | April 5, 2023 at 1:01 pm

    No, the charges are all felonies. The reason they’re felonies is because he claims they were committed to cover up some other crime, that (he alleges) was committed some time, by someone. It’s irrelevant what that other crime was, or who committed it, or when, or where. Bragg isn’t charging Trump with that crime, so at this point he doesn’t yet have to tell him what it is, or who he thinks committed it, or when. He will eventually have to do that, long enough before the trial that Trump can prepare a defense.

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | April 8, 2023 at 4:41 am

      It is a crucial element of the crime, however.

        Milhouse in reply to 4rdm2. | April 9, 2023 at 3:22 am

        No. The other crime is NOT an element of this crime. The intent to cover up that crime is the element of this crime, and that is specified in the indictment. For now, that is enough; long before the trial comes around he’s going to have to cough up more details.

“Nothingburger” is far too genial a term.

ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP is more accurate.

After reading it at, which looks like a third grader wrote it, I have this observation:

Bragg is giving real life to the stereotype of black people being stupid, lazy and shiftless.

The_Mew_Cat | April 5, 2023 at 7:20 am

The statute doesn’t say that the other crime has to be specified, does it? All Bragg must do is convince the jury that the business records were falsified to cover up some other unspecified crime, which could be lots of possible things including federal campaign violations, tax violations, racketeering, etc…. He doesn’t have to prove that unspecified crime at all, just convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Trump must have been covering up some other crime when he falsified the records. This isn’t a bad indictment. It took a man of Bragg’s intellect to realize that NY Law does not require that he specify the actual crime that elevated the falsification to a felony, but only convince the jury that he was covering some crime up.

That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the judge dismissed the indictment on statute of limitations grounds and an appeals court reinstates it.

    Milhouse in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | April 5, 2023 at 1:04 pm

    He doesn’t have to prove the other crime, but at some point he has to let Trump know what it was, and how he claims it happened, so that Trump can prepare a defense. Otherwise Trump can say “What other crime? There never was any other crime, so I had nothing to cover up.”

      Felix in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2023 at 6:35 am

      That is true only insofar as the other crime needs not to actually have been committed, it could be attemped or only planned. It still needs to be a crime.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | April 5, 2023 at 6:15 pm

    Your last sentence presumes a standard of legal ethics and integrity on the part of the judge that ignores the fact that he and his family are in Leftist run New York State and are active in the Leftist regime. The fact that matters have reached this point argues against faith in the system.

    Subotai Bahadur

freespeechfanatic | April 5, 2023 at 8:13 am

Call it weak, underwhelming even fallacious. It doesn’t matter. It will go to trial and he will be convicted. Has not anybody been paying attention?

This is compelling evidence for prosecutorial misconduct.

Start the proceedings now for removing Alvin Bragg. Also start the process for disbarring Bragg.

Everybody knows this is a plan to foul Trump’s campaign, given the timing, but as usual it will only galvanize his base and earn more pro-Trump converts from those uninfected with this one of several forms of mass hysteria that have been blooming over the last 7 years.

All this because Trump embarrassed all the mainstream pundits and a revered former President (Obama).

The vendetta against him has revealed the extent to which faceless security state bureaucrats conspire to figuratively wipe their backsides with the Constitution and has led the intelligentsia to debate among themselves why free speech and the First Amendment are “dangers to democracy” requiring a Politburo of apparatchiks to sift through all public communications censoring wrongthink.

We’ll either come out of this stronger or go down as a democratic republic in name only, with a hollowed-out Constitution that’s a historical curiosity, an example of a naive plan to actually live by the idea that our natural inclination is toward liberty and individual autonomy.

Capitalist-Dad | April 5, 2023 at 11:29 am

Welcome to post-constitutional America where the leftist fear “tossed out on a technicality” translates to “there is no crime and no evidence” in plain English.

I reckon the Democrats are terrified that Trump will be acquitted on all counts: if/when he’s reelected he’ll initiate a purge of DC so broad, ruthless, and deep that it’ll make Stalin look like “Mr. Sensitivity.”

May it come to pass.

So since Bragg hasn’t stated what the original crime is that’s being hidden does this give him subpoena power to grab all financial records related to Trump, his businesses, close associates and attorneys to go on a fishing trip for the original crime that the indictments are boot strapped on?

I blame the grand jury for issuing the indictment. I believe they would even indict a ham sandwich if asked.

The goal is to get past all of Trump’s Motions to Dismiss, not put on a sound case. Given what I’ve heard about the trial judge, I doubt any MTD, no matter how soundly argued by Trump’s team, will be granted. The actual case is all but irrelevant, once a trial can start Trump’s conviction is all but assured in a jurisdiction like NYC.