The weaponization of the rule of law has reached a point beyond repair in New York State, with the ongoing trial being waged by District Attorney Alvin Bragg against President Donald Trump. Even at this late hour, the State has failed to prove 1) how President Trump falsified business records; 2) how the alleged falsification of the business records scheme was criminal; and 3) why that alleged crime should be prosecuted as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, which is the typical charge for falsification schemes under New York State Law.
Given that President Trump’s alleged wrongdoing is being treated as criminal misconduct, the burden of proof is for the State to prove that Donald Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for every single element of the asserted crime. The legal burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution must convince the jury that “there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.” That incredibly high evidentiary threshold must be established for every single element of the crime alleged. What is more, criminal trials require unanimity on part of the jury; a hung jury will result in a mistrial, ultimately pushing the case back until after the November election, which is not what Bragg wants.
Obviously, the goal of Alvin Bragg and Letitia James is to prosecute – and put President Trump behind bars – as soon as possible (before election day ideally) to sabotage his chances of winning re-election. President Trump’s re-election appears increasingly like a foregone conclusion with the latest polls consistently putting him in a significant lead over Joe Biden.
President Trump is currently being tried under New York Penal Law 175.05. The law ordinarily makes it a misdemeanor, not a felony, to falsify business records with “intent to defraud.” The law permits, however, the District Attorney to upgrade what ordinarily would be considered a misdemeanor to a Class E felony if the intent to defraud is combined with an intent to commit another crime.
…“intent to defraud.”
How do you attempt to convince a jury that Trump himself, had an intent to defraud the banks, when he didn’t personally handle the paperwork? He didn’t personally make any of the payments. And who did he defraud, (illegally obtain money from someone by deception)? In other words, he, personally, would have meant to get money or other goods of value with no intent of paying for them. GOOD LUCK! Of course it is NY, which is a very, very crooked state.