DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump nears judgement day.

I didn't say there was. You did!


smdh

This is like taking candy from a baby... except the baby is throwing it to me.

Who are the members of the Manhattan DA's team prosecuting Trump?

DA Alvin Bragg's team has years of courtroom experience.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has assembled a team of seasoned litigators to prosecute former President Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments made to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

The seven assistant district attorneys have a wide range of experience in the legal world, particularly when it comes to fraud and white-collar crimes.

Here's a look at the team, based on information provided by the DA's office.

Susan Hoffinger

Susan Hoffinger serves as the Executive Assistant District Attorney and Chief of the Investigation Division for the Manhattan DA's office.

She earned her law degree from Columbia Law School and has extensive experience in white-collar cases, both as a prosecutor and defense attorney.

From 1992 to 2000 she served as an assistant DA under former Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau in the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Trial Bureau, and the Frauds Bureau.

She went on to become the founding partner of the Hoffinger Firm, where she spent over 20 years as a defense attorney focusing on criminal defense, state and federal civil litigation, and regulatory matters.

There she specialized in representing individuals and entities charged with tax fraud, securities fraud, antitrust violations, money laundering, bribery, health care and insurance fraud, falsifying business records, and larceny.

Hoffinger returned to the Manhattan DA's office last year following the resignations of two ADAs who were handling investigations into Trump. In December it was her trial team that won the conviction of the Trump Organization on tax fraud charges.
Christopher Conroy

Christopher Conroy has worked in the Manhattan DA's office for 27 years and currently serves as an Executive Assistant District Attorney and Senior Advisor to the Investigation Division.

A graduate of Fordham Law School, he started in the DA's Trial Bureau in 1996 and has worked in several other divisions including the Frauds Bureau and the Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit, where he was appointed deputy unity chief in 2006.

In 2011, Conroy moved to the DA's Major Economic Crimes Bureau and worked his way up the ranks to chief in September 2015.

During his nine-year tenure in that bureau, he oversaw several major cases involving violations of U.S. sanctions and New York state laws on falsification of business records, including investigations into Société Générale S.A., Standard Chartered Bank, and Unicredit Bank AG.

Catherine McCaw

Catherine McCaw serves as the Manhattan DA's Counsel to the Investigation Division.

She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2009 and clerked for Judge Richard Holwell in the Southern District of New York and Judge Chester Straub of the Second Circuit.

McCaw worked in private practice for a few years before joining the DA's office in 2015, where she worked her way up the ranks.

She has handled several major cases including fake heiress Anna Sorokin, aka Anna Delvey, and Mitchell Kossoff, a real estate attorney who was convicted of stealing over $14 million from individuals and companies.

Peter Pope

Peter Pope serves as the Executive Assistant District Attorney for Gun Violence Prevention, a position that the Manhattan DA created last year.

A Yale Law School graduate, Pope began his career as a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office under Robert Morgenthau in 1987, in the trial division.

He moved into long-term wire and grand jury investigations, then into organized crime infiltration of labor unions. Among his cases was the 1992 prosecution of Bonanno crime family capo James Galante on charges of racketeering involving the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union.

Pope was appointed the inspector general for the New York City School Construction Authority in 1995, where he investigated waste and corruption.

In 2000, Pope was named Deputy Attorney General of New York State under then AG Elliot Spitzer, and ran the office's Criminal Division. His team worked on several high-profile cases including corruption investigations into then-New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi.

When Spitzer was elected governor in 2006, Pope became the Director of Policy for New York State and would remain in the position for four years.

After spending some time in private practice, Pope returned to the New York AG's office as the chief of the Investor Protection Bureau before retiring in 2021. He came out of retirement after Bragg was elected DA to serve in his new, role which investigates and prosecutors gun related offenses including gun traffickers and illegal sales.

Matthew Colangelo

Matthew Colangelo serves as the senior counsel to the Manhattan District Attorney. He earned his J.D. at Harvard Law School and has had a long career in the world of both law and politics.

He spent seven years with the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, three years at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and served as the deputy director of the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Economic Council. He also served for three years as the chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor.

Colangelo was also the chief counsel for federal initiatives at the New York State Attorney General's office, and worked dozens of cases including an investigation into the Trump Foundation.

In 2020, he returned to the Department of Justice to oversee its Antitrust Division, Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Tax Division.

Colangelo joined the Manhattan DA's office in 2022.

Rebecca Mangold

Rebecca Mangold is an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan DA's Major Economic Crimes Bureau. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2008 and then joined the private law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as an associate.

She clerked for Judge William Martini in the District of New Jersey from 2011 to 2013 before joining the private firm Kobre & Kim. During Mangold's nine-year tenure at the firm, she rose to partner and worked on cases involving financial fraud investigations.

Her work included leading negotiations against UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. and Bank of America, which resulted in the recovery of $850 million for investors related to the 2008 mortgage crisis.

Mangold joined the Manhattan DA's office in 2022.

Katherine Ellis

Katherine Ellis serves as an Assistant District Attorney in the Major Economic Crimes Bureau of the Manhattan DA's office.

She worked as a legal analyst at Goldman Sachs and a paralegal in the Manhattan DA's office before attending Columbia Law School. After graduating in 2014, she joined Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton as an associate.

In 2018 Ellis joined the Manhattan DA's office as an ADA and served in the Trial Bureau before moving to the major economics crime bureau three years later.

Her cases include the prosecution of a senior equity partner of the now-defunct law firm of Gordon and Silber LP for allegedly embezzling $1.2 million from the firm.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/members-manhattan-das-team-prosecuting-trump/story?id=98434088

By they I meant the state of New York but I can see how you may have taken it differently than that.I'm still interested to know how you mistook "He" for the DOJ? the DOJ isn't an individual.

So you have no explanation on how you confused an individual for a government agency. Got it. Usually at the point where you make such a blunder it looks like you were the one moving the goal posts. But rather than explain yourself I expected you to try ans twist your mistake into being my fault. It's all the rage these days.

"He" is singular. "They" would be plural. So you're blaming me for your lack of being able to distinguish the difference now?

To address yet another false narrative that the right wing nuts are claiming.....

DOJ's 'weaponization of government' against conservatives

Currently Hunter Biden, as well as both New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is currently on trial on federal bribery charges in New York, while Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas and his wife were indicted last month on conspiracy and bribery charges.

It seems as if the DOJ didn't get the memo.

Yes Pit, I don't know my plurals. Full disclosure, I also misspelled "played" in one of my posts yesterday.

Congrats, you're now 35 posts closer to the top spot.

And if a murderer is nice to an old lady, he's still a murderer. No one even believes your tripe. You're just like the Biden campaign... every time you try to prove a point you fall further behind and those with half a brain are insulted by the sheer stupidity.

Then it seems quite odd that you claimed I was referring to the DOJ when I said "He".

It's good to know that you're concerned enough with my post count to be keeping score. But I'm not surprised by that.

I have proven the point that the DOJ isn't simply targeting conservatives and that claiming otherwise is a false narrative. I'm sorry that yet another basic concept escaped you today. But I'm not surprised by that.

Who said the DOJ was strictly targeting conservatives?

I mean, besides the voices in your head.

DOJ's 'weaponization of government' against conservatives under scrutiny in new investigation: Jim Jordan

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/i...inst-conservatives-under-scrutiny-in-new

You understand that just today Garland has been defending the DOJ against claims they are targeting conservatives don't you?

This narrative is nothing all that new. It's not my fault you haven't been keeping up.

The DOJ is doing their job and prosecuting criminals.

It isn't Garland's fault that most high profile criminals these days are conservatives

I guess that they can bring up the boogie man Matthew Colangelo all they want, but listening to the reporters constantly updating through the whole trial, I never remember anything about him in this case.

I do remember Susan Hoffinger and her time interviewing Michael Cohen and the very skillful job she did.

I do remember Todd Blanche getting one slam dunk against Cohen on the 90 second phone call, which was incredibly covered during the prosecutions summation.
I don't ever remember the defense bringing up anything to debunk Peckers or Hope Hicks testimony-Probably Peckers testimony was the most damaging. The defense seemed to spend most of their time like it was a house hearing with some content but gotcha moments and the prosecution was setting up a story. I do remember on various times Blanche seemed to go to and fro like he was setting somebody up and was going there but got derailed before he got to close the deal.

But I wasn't in the court-I listened to CNN, MSNBC and Fox-when they went to break, I went back and forth to get the partisan takes.

The defense made some errors-their decision to bring Robert Costello to the stand was pretty dumb. I thought Blanche got out played at times.

But I thought it could go either way until summation-I did not think Blanche did a very good job at all and Joshua Steinglass was very, very good. He laid everything out and closed the deal. After summation, I assumed there was going to be some guilty verdicts and maybe some hung decisions-but definitely no not guilty charges.

When foxnews comes out during the break of Steinglass summation and says "its not over yet, but it doesn't look good right now"-you pretty much know its not going good

Gaetz isn't asking questions, though. He's one of Trump's attack dogs and he's trying to construct sound bits for clicks knowing full well Garland isn't going to comment. He (and you) are perfectly fine going around and around in circles about how this case was prosecuted and where as if it's so unfair to Trump... but it's crickets when it comes time to argue whether a crime was committed.


I feel the same way about Trump right now as I did when Hillary's emails lost her the election. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Trump has been doing the former for a very long time and the law if finally catching up to him.

Love that
May appropriate it in the future

Crickets about a crime? lol Whatever dude. Explain the crime so we all know. Please also explain how it was resurrected from an expired statute into 34 felonies that this particular court would then have no business prosecuting.

This should be interesting.


And as far as Gaetz' questions you all are so triggered by... If Garland is going to scream that this is all conspiracy theory, why won't he, they, them release the stats and paperwork from all these coincidental, meaningless trips to the White House by Letitia James, Fani and Nathan Wade. Were they just there for lunch with Hunters crack whores and business partners?? Why do they refuse to release any documentation and then scream "conspiracy"? That's worse than Pit acting like he made a point after changing the subject twelve times.

And now that you mention Hillary, I'm trying to remember the punishment for the emails... or the Holywood-grade-Russia-hoax she paid for that is the finest example of election interference in our country's history. Hmmm, oh that's right -- both amount to an $8000 fine. Weird when you compare and contrast. I'm sure I'm the only one that feels that way though.

Well I guess the law and order party does not want law and order applied to them.

Let's see now. Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Peter Navarro, Allen Weisselberg, Steve Bannon, George Pappadopolos, Sidney Powell,
Kenneth Chesbro, oh let's not forget dear dear Rudy, and of course Michael Cohen who served his time.
And last but not least Felon Don the leader of the pack.

Let's throw in all those countless minions doing time for Jan 6th. You remember them right? The "unbelievable patriots" who I guess were unbelievable in court.

But of course this isn't the justice system working because it is now all about how corrupt the legal system is and how the election was stolen.

Birds of a feather flock together as the old saying goes.

The underlying crime was campaign finance violations.

The DOJ (federal) should have brought charges against Individual-1 aka Donald J. Trump, but they did not have the intestinal fortitude. Cohen spent 3 year in jail in part for that crime after he plead guilty.

The State of New York categorized the crimes as falsification of business records (misdemeanor) to conceal another crime (felony). A felony has a longer statue of limitations which was applicable by law.

Yes the State of New York got creative, yes they got a conviction. So the crime was proven.

Now you hear banter about why the State of New York is prosecuting a federal crime, aka piling on, when it is accepted that a crime may result in both state and federal charges. Think Derek Chauvin of George Floyd fame, and how he was prosecuted for both state and federal crime violations. Point is it is not unusual.

And any position that the feds weaponized the DOJ is just partisan revisionist history. If there is someone that was asleep at the wheel, it was the feds, because they would not pursue Individual-1 aka Donald J. Trump.

And Trump could have walked if he did not use the Trump Organization as the conduit, which makes no sense, as it was uplifted to cover Cohen's tax obligations. We would not have this case and conviction if Trump paid Cohen via personal check.

"Got creative". First and foremost, this will never, ever, ever, ever stick. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. The whole point of all of this is to say "he's a felon!" so that the worst president in history can win an election.


But here, I'll play...

Help me with this litmus test since you made this seem so simple...

Did Trump falsify business records to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act?

Did Trump falsify business records to falsify business records? (I know it sounds crazy, bear with me)

Did Trump falsify business records to violate tax laws?


You may be able to say yes to one of those (although even experts from the left contend that burden of proof was never met).

The other two are a big, fat no.

So why did the judge give the jury the choice of any one of those "crimes" (one of which was never even revealed before or during the trial) and as long as they all could pick one, the result would be treated as a unanimous decision?? That's the impetus for convicting on 34 felony counts? (Banana, banana, banana, banana...)

The judge was judge, jury and executioner on the tax charge. During his instructions to the jury he plainly told them Trump committed a crime. The result? Paying too much taxes. He said that didn't matter, it was still a crime. As many legal analysts said... the jury basically had no choice but to convict.

So the only charge that has any merit, but still doesn't pass the litmus test is the Federal Election Campaign Act. During the trial, the judge denied an expert in campaign finance from testifying for the defense. His excuse? He didn't want to complicate things for the jury.

As far as the "If there is someone that was asleep at the wheel, it was the feds, because they would not pursue Individual-1 aka Donald J. Trump." as some catch-all 'proof' that there is no 'weaponization' or 'lawfare'... From 2018...


Funny how this judge says WILLFUL "doesn't apply" because it, again, complicates things for the jury. Shortly thereafter, the judge that wants things to be so simple for the jury, orates for over an hour from his 55 pages of instructions and tells them they can't take them with them. Then, as soon as they ask a question, he sends them home and crafts his Bladerunner style "criminal in the rain" b.s.

So, which piece of evidence proved Trump knew about the payment? No one in the courtroom heard it. Oh wait, the judge said that part wasn't important either! "As long as the sidewalk is wet, you can assume it rained last night" or some such [censored].

Complete. Joke.

From the left...


CNN legal guru says New York Trump prosecutors 'contorted the law,' case was 'unjustified mess'

Brian Flood
Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:15 PM EDT·4 min read
1.9k

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized the New York criminal case against Donald Trump as an "unjustified mess" in a scathing analysis piece, saying prosecutors "contorted the law" to ensnare the former president.

"Prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey," Honig wrote in New York magazine.

A New York jury on Thursday found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents brought against him by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Honig wrote the jury and their verdict "deserve respect" because the 12 New Yorkers are not responsible for the conduct of Bragg and his office, but criticized the "structural infirmity" of the case.

"Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right," Honig wrote.

"Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place," he continued. "'But they won' is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to 'win,' now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later."

Honig then laid out "undeniable facts" about NY v. Trump.

"The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy,’" Honig wrote. "Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to ‘Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!’? Absolutely not."

The CNN legal guru then noted that Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail.

"Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did," Honig wrote.

Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented."

"In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever," Honig wrote.

The first issue for the DA, according to Honig, was that "nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega."

The second issue was the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had long passed, so the DA needed to "inflate the charges" to a low-level felony. To do so, Honig pointed out that Bragg’s office alleged that the falsification of business records was committed "with intent to commit another crime."

"Here, according to prosecutors, the ‘another crime’ is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate ‘unlawful means’: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents," Honig wrote.

Honig said the case should be dubbed the "Frankenstein Case" because it was "cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."


https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-legal-guru-says-york-191505499.html

The cry of the faithful.

"oh, what did he do? What was the crime?

Let 's simplify.

He falsified business records to gain an unfair advantage in a presidential election.

He wanted to cover up his Stormy adventure ("spank me") with a snatch and kill first. Then he had to pay Cohen for paying her. He put it in the wrong books and signed the check. OOps.

Do the crime; pay the time.

Truth be told. Every time he runs his mouth about all the people involved in the legal process that just transpired.

May come back to haunt him. Judges have to weigh contrition when sentencing. You know the state of feeling remorseful and penitent.

Trump does his own accounting?

Does he empty the garbage in the office as well?

Geez, it's been explained a million times.

The fact that it was a Bi Partisan bill should tell you something. But IDIOT trump didn't want it done. he wanted trouble on the border because he thinks that will help him get elected.

Cool. Explain it one more time without using the word "bipartisan" since that has been the single, solitary battlecry by your ilk. "It must all be good since there was one republican involved!"

Try harder Daman, I mean, it's the best in decades, there has got to be more than one word to explain it.

I'll wait.

He didn't say bipartisan. He said Bi Partisan. Apparently the bill would screw both men and women, and, as long as everybody gets screwed, it's better than most bills where only some people get screwed.

While I know that's not what you meant, Daman, I'm never going to look at the word bipartisan the same.

Trump signed the checks. That is knowingly and willfully.

Stop trying to defend the lying POS. He got Al Caponed.

I

As long as it rained the night before.

I actually do agree with the analysis by Elie Honig. I have heard it before.

But there is another line of reasoning that falls under the ends justify the means.

Trump lies. Yeah, lots and lots. Sunday he stated that he never said “Lock Her Up” Roll the video and the pundits will just laugh at the buffoon.

Anyone else caught with classified documents would be sitting in jail. And then you have Jan 6. Mitch said there are courts for this to hold Trump accountable. That is going nowhere.

I look forward to the day when he is no longer part of the news narrative.

I despise him and all of the division he has created or amplified.

I won’t defend the indefensible, and cannot understand those that will.

First you tell me to go to my room, then you post this. GTHOH

Yeah, I should have added the numerous requests to return, the subpoena, the false certification, for Pence and Biden.

Remember that one time Michael Symon sold all his restaurants to go work at Taco Bell?

Yeah, me neither.

[sung by a chorus of convicted white-collar lieutenants, along with currently-incarcerated blue-collar foot soldiers]:

"For he's a jolly-good felon,
For he's a jolly-good felon,
For he's a jolly-good fel-onnnnnn..."


...which nobody can deny.

He signs the checks.

Please do not pretend he didn't know. "pay her in cash." He was recorded.

Don't worry he is only facing 54 more counts.

That is all corrupt as well. "What? Who me? I didn't do a thing. I made a perfect phone call.
I didn't know a thing about no fake electors.
I didn't march to the capitol. I didn't say lock her up. I didn't do nothing. "

Seriously what will it take to come to a conclusion that he has committed crimes?

Shoot someone at Times Square?

Remember when John Edwards was punished for his 34 hush money felonies? Yeah, me neither...

Edwards was accused of soliciting nearly $1 million from wealthy donors to hide his affair with videographer Rielle Hunter and the fact that he had fathered a child with her. This was done to maintain his image as a "family man" during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In 2011, Edwards was charged with violating federal campaign finance laws related to the payments. However, the jury acquitted him on one count and deadlocked on five other counts, leading to a mistrial. The Justice Department ultimately dropped all remaining charges.


Oh, wait, that was only $1 million.

Oh, I'm not worried. I doubt if Trump is either. Experts have estimated as many as 100,000 new votes for each felony charge.

But damn, 54? That boy's been busy!

Oh, that's right, the classified docs case is one felony per document.


Remember that one time $Hillary had those 30,000 felony charges?

Yeah, me neither.

What will it take Fate?

How many times has he been proven to be a fraud?

How many more of his minions convicted of crimes will it take to show you he was part of all their crimes?

You are a bright guy. I don't understand the excuses you make for this low life.

$364,000,000.00

Then I'll jump on board with you and say he should be executed on pay-per-view.

I don't know what the money is?

What else does trump need to do to convince you?

Let's review his record.

The national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office.

He violated his oath of office in regards to the Constitution.

He failed the country in a time of crisis by lying about COVID.

He has the worst environmental record of any president in history.

He lost a valid election that was proven in the courts.

He failed to peacefully transfer the office of the presidency.

He led an insurrection to disrupt that transfer of power.

He stole classified documents and tried to hide them.

He was recorded asking an elected Republican Georgia Secretary of State to find votes to put him in office.

He led a fake electors scheme to stay in power.

He was convicted of sexual assault. He owes millions of dollars as proof.

He is now a convicted felon facing three more indictments.

What will it take Fate? Money? Film of him doing what?

Surely you can tell that the pay for view comment of trump meeting mister sparky was hyperbole?

I don't know anymore maybe not. I gave you more credit to be hooked in the mouth by proven criminal.