Joy Reid opened her show tonight bashing Garland

[bigtree]

...back another night insisting there's some kind of injustice being perpetrated on Alvin Bragg because, in her view, he's shouldered a prosecution that the federal government should have handled.

Reid infantilized the Manhattan DA, using essentially the same argument republicans have been making about jurisdiction. It's House republicans who have been angling to control Bragg's probe by virtue of some imagined federal funding to the state agency.

More than one suggested moving it into federal court where they would have more opportunities to meddle, using the ridiculous reasoning that Bragg's Democratic district disqualifies him from prosecuting the former republican president, now a private citizen.

Whose interest it is in having DOJ prosecute? Bragg didn't say a word of resentment about having to take this on, didn't call out DOJ, so what is this exactly?

What's the actual value in deflecting from Bragg's prosecution to claim it's DOJ's jurisdiction, instead? What's the point in making a stink repeatedly, with Weissmann and others in agreement, that DOJ should have taken the case instead of Bragg?

Are they trying to discredit Bragg's prosecution? Because that's the ONLY effect of these questions that people KNOW WELL can't be answered now. It's just Garland bashing, and I think that's become a popular fad among some presumed supporters of the justice he's busy meting out, and it should be denounced.

It's baseless, and unsubstantiated by anything other than imaginings about the state of evidence that Garland had in his possession at the time - the same amount of evidence Alvin Bragg was also looking at as he stepped into his own new position.

But Bragg explained yesterday that there's "a 'distinct and strong independent interest in New York State, the business capital of the world" in prosecuting false records cases which he characterized as the 'bedrock' of financial activity in the state.

Also, Bragg said in his news conference that he moved forward on the indictment only when he had obtained "more evidence available to the office and the chance to meet with additional witnesses... additional evidence that was not available prior to my time here."

So what is Reid actually talking about? DOJ bringing a case forward that didn't obtain until recently 'additional evidence' and 'additional witnesses' that allowed Bragg to proceed with a grand jury and ultimately indictments?

It's essentially a deflection and diminution from the Bragg prosecution which has just broken the mold for equal justice under the law. Why should anyone deflect from that to insist without cause that Bragg is in over his head?

That's just a novel complaint.

Here's NYT:

Contrary to the protestations of Mr. Trump and his allies, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute — and win convictions — when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of."

...a note about the Manhattan D.A.’s office that will prosecute this case: It is hardly a typical local cog in the judicial system. In fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the world. That means the office routinely prosecutes complex white-collar cases with crime scenes that involve the likes of the BNP Paribas international banking scandal. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have been handled by the office for decades. That was proved most recently by the office’s conviction of the Trump Organization and the guilty plea of one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges relating to an intricate yearslong tax fraud scheme.

It’s also worth noting that Mr. Trump was a federal candidate, whereas the other New York cases involved state ones. But court after court across the country has recognized that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. Those courts have allowed state cases concerning federal campaign contributions under widely varied circumstances, including for fraudulently diverting funds from political action committees founded to support federal presidential campaigns, violating state law limits on corporate contributions to federal campaigns and transgressing state laws concerning donations to PACs that funded federal campaigns. Some of the examples involve criminal enforcement by state authorities, some civil, but the point is the same: They can act.

So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

"Hardly novel," and hardly something to bash Merrick Garland with in one hand while smothering Alvin Bragg with undue and compromising concern.

watch:

Link to tweet

[grumpyduck]

1. Unless I'm misreading this,

it's a crock of shit. Bragg's case is about tfg breaking NYS laws. Period. Why he did it is irrelevant. And it sure as hell ain't political if the prick broke NYS laws: he's being charged like anyone else.

What the hell does Garland have to do with this?

[Ocelot II]

2. I like Joy Reid but that shtick is getting a little old.

The fact is that some cases are better or more efficiency handled at the state level than by DoJ; that a case is brought under federal under state law doesn't mean that it's bigger or better or more serious (just ask the thousands of people cooling their heels in state prisons). Bragg's office handles false business records cases on a daily basis, and he's well-equipped to take on the prosecution of TFG for doing it 34 times. DoJ could only prosecute the underlying campaign finance violation - the same one Cohen went to jail for; he was sentenced to three years but he was also convicted of other crimes. The maximum penalty if TFG is convicted in the Manhattan case is four years in prison, more time than Cohen got (not that TFG is likely to do time). So why would it have been better for DoJ to have taken the campaign finance case against him?

Reid and the other ranters might want to back off (since DoJ isn't going to change its schedule to satisfy impatient cable tv hosts), relax and wait for the process to play out. I think the shit will hit the fan before much longer, and when it does it will come fast and hard.

[gab13by13]

3. Campaign finance law crimes

would have been much easier to prove under the federal law compared with the state law, ask Michael Cohen.

Allow me to finish the end of Reid's segment; Andrew Weissmann said that doing a state prosecution has unintended good consequences, no pardon.

[Ocelot II]

5. If you turn on Lawrence O'Donnell's show right now, you'll see Weissmann's dog

sleeping on his bed behind him. I love seeing people's homes and pets, regardless of their legal or political opinions.

[canetoad]

14. Me too

Always thought Weismann's staircase was an installation.

[Ocelot II]

6. Bragg doesn't have to prove a violation of campaign finance laws.

Under NY state law, all he has to prove is that the business records were falsified with the intent to commit another crime. He doesn't have to prove the underlying crime was actually committed.

[Tickle]

12. How can that be?

Would you have to show the crime to convict on the charges?

[hippywife]

16. I think this is where people on both sides get confused.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the falsifying of his NYS tax records is the crime he's being charged with by Bragg, which he apparently has abundant evidence of.

Too often the media keeps focusing their reporting of the arrest and pending trial on his affair with Stormy Daniels, but it's not about the affair. It's the falsifying of his tax records to cover up the hush money payment. Had he just had an affair and not done those things, NYS wouldn't care and wouldn't have arraigned him.

And, as has already been stated numerous times over the past few years or so, a crime doesn't have to succeed for someone to be convicted of conspiracy to commit it.

[Ocelot II]

17. The way the NY law on falsification of business records works

is that just falsifying a business record by itself is a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the record was falsified with the intent to cover up another crime. The crime that was being covered up by the false business record doesn't have to be charged or proved; the business record falsification itself becomes a felony on account of the intent to falsity in order to conceal another crime. So, TFG was charged with 34 felony counts of business record falsification because each of the falsifications (characterizing the hush money on the books as legal fees) was done with the intent to cover up the fact that the payments were done as a means of influencing the election - which is campaign finance violation (one of the crimes that sent Cohen to prison). There was also an allegation that the laundering of the hush money through Cohen violated NY tax laws. But Bragg doesn't have to charge TFG with campaign finance or tax crimes; he needs only to charge him with falsifying his books with the intent to cover up the conduct that constitutes those crimes. That makes the business record falsifications felonies.

[Marius25]

4. As she should have. Trump and the GOP are terrorists destroying America

Garland has been sitting on slam dunk evidence for years now, and keeps taking his good old time.

I swear they're all waiting until we're too close to the election to do anything so Garland can say "We tried, but we just didn't have time to do it before election time, so we can't finish."

[bigtree]

9. Garland hired Jack Smith to finish what he started

Last edited Thu Apr 6, 2023, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)

...and SC Smith is going to rely on his grand juries to make any recommendations to indict, as he should, and as the federal system of justice has always done.

It's the grand jury process we're waiting on, and it's been appeals and challenges to testimony and evidence that has slowed the probe.

No one expected to get anything out of Trump, Pence, or any other of his minions when this investigation began. We were told it would be impossible and would take forever, but here we are with Pence and Trump's top aides and lawyers losing appeals to subpoenas like ducks in a row.

That didn't happen by Garland or the prosecutor he hired for Special Counsel sitting on anything. It's just fantasy to imagine DOJ has been lax, given the extraordinary judgments they achieved in appeals court requiring Meadows, and the rest of the people critics had been making hay out of claiming Garland had let them skate testify. Now they're going before the grand jury.

DOJ made each and every one of the arguments in numerous appeals hearings, and won each and every one of them, with unprecedented wins stripping Trump lawyers of their attorney/client privilege.

But, nothwithstanding all of that, Marius25 'swears,' so....

[PortTack]

10. +1000

[emulatorloo]

7. I tune her out when she is on panels with Maddow, Ari, O'Donnell, Wallace. She has zero to

contribute. No insight or rigorous thought like the others have.

[chillfactor]

8. I never liked Joy.

I watch Nicole, Ari, Chris, Rachel when she is on, and Lawrence. When Joy's hour is on I find something else to do.

[BlackSkimmer]

21. I don't like her either.

Despite her known homophobic comments, I still tried to watch her, but I just can't

[NotVeryImportant]

25. Hmmm...

I wonder why?

[Deminpenn]

13. Is this worse than Nicolle Wallace's constant Garland/DoJ bashing?

Harry Litman got fed up yesterday and really snapped back at Wallace yesterday putting everything in context. He said Garland had just gotten to DoJ with job 1 being to restore the integrity of the department in addition to having to deal with all the fallout arrests and prosecutions from J6.

Some prosecutions are better left to the states and local authorities, just like the Georgia investigations.
Every former Mahattan DA prosecutor who's been on MSNBC has said these false business records cases are the bread and butter of what that office does. This case, despite its high profile defendant, is routine and mundane. It seems similar to the mail/wire fraud charges the feds frequently use.

[Ocelot II]

18. They're both doing it. Maybe they should start paying attention

to what is actually happening.

[Deminpenn]

24. Yes, it's tiresome for sure

nt

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Weissmann tried to blunt the nonsense a bit

because there was some obvious obfuscation about that transition period between Administrations.

I.e., Merrick Garland was still the Chief Judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals ON January 6 and did not get confirmed until 3 months later in March 2021.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY that would have had jurisdiction during the period when the offenses happened in late 2016 and into 2017 that Bragg is now prosecuting, was a guy who was known and loved here on DU, who made a principled stand before being summarily fired by Jeff Sessions (remember him? ) -

Link to tweet

Preet Bharara
@PreetBharara
·
Follow
I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.
2:29 PM · Mar 11, 2017

In fact, Jeff Sessions asked for the resignations of and/or fired 46 OBAMA U.S. Attorneys who were still around in March of 2017.

Fast-forward 4 years and the REPLACEMENT (not "acting" ) in the SDNY - Damian Williams, nominated by President Biden, was finally CONFIRMED October 2021. He has been juggling Ghouliani, Ghislaine Maxwell, and more recently, Bankman-Fried (yeah that crypto guy).

Williams is a Harvard undergrad/Yale Law grad.



I just stumbled on this below and it is prescient for right now - THIS is the "worst nightmare" for 45 summed up in someone's tweet -

Link to tweet

Candidly Tiff
@tify330
·
Follow
Trumps worst nightmare..

Tish James: NY Attorney General
Damian Williams: U.S. Attorney SDNY
Fanni Willis: Fulton County DA
Juan Antonio “Tony” Gonzalez:
U.S. Attorney SDFL
Image
Image
Image
Image
1:48 PM · Sep 21, 2022

And of course this guy -

[bigtree]

19. Preet

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

20. I know Preet was very active on the broadcast circuit for awhile

but then I didn't hear much from him anymore. Now I know where he is so thank you!

I have heard the debate about use of the term "scheme" vs actual "conspiracy" (the latter I expect being a true "legal" term for charging purposes).

Of course, there is apparently nothing stopping that office from bringing forth a "superseding indictment" that could potentially go that next step, the ability of using such a tactic being something actually brought up by Weissman here -

No, the prior DA did not reject the Trump charges brought by Bragg
So much for the misleading effort by MAGA Republicans to use the former Manhattan district attorney to attack the current one.

April 3, 2023, 3:53 PM EDT

By Andrew Weissmann

(snip)

Although it took some work to tease it out of Vance (for reasons I will explain in a moment), the former DA made clear that when he left office at the end of 2021, the investigation into Trump’s business practices undertaken by his office was still not ready to prosecute — and still could quite conceivably be the subject of a superseding indictment by Bragg.

(snip)

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-indictment-vance-bragg-psaki-rcna77953

[Takket]

22. I heard her quotes during the show Rachel hosted about the arraignment

Reid was DEAD WRONG and I was actually pretty offended by it. She basically said it was up to Bragg, the black guy, to come in and do the work because DOJ would not. First off it’s pretty offensive to bring race into this topic when you are basically saying Garland’s (the white guy) DOJ can’t or won’t get the job done so a black person has to do the work.

You want to accuse Barr of being racist or lazy, fine, but don’t bring that shit down on Garland. He might be slow or timid or whatever because of his personality but race shouldn’t be crossing anyone’s lips when it comes to discussing whether Bragg or Garland indicted first.

SECOND: NO!!! We DO NOT WANT the Feds handling all these cases. Do you want the next rethug president, maybe as soon as Jan 2025, to shut down all the investigations and pardon drumpf of any convictions??? NO. We NEED that states to prosecute some of these crimes.

Joy is WAY off base.

If anyone wants to here exactly what she said it is 27:30 into the April 4th Rachel Maddow show podcast.

[mcar]

23. I'm seeing this Garland bashing a lot

and it is maddening.

We should be celebrating TFG's indictment and feeling good about the Republicans in disarray.

Instead, we immediately jump into "It's not good enough,"Dems suck" territory.