Connect with us

CRIME

‘Lacks Courage’: Experts Question Why Alvin Bragg ‘Stood Down’ on Trump Criminal Case After Bombshells in Civil Suit

Published

on

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg is yet again under fire for appearing to have dropped the longtime criminal investigation into Donald Trump and his real estate empire, after New York Attorney General Tish James announced a bombshell civil suit against Trump and his family members for many of the same acts the criminal case was presumed to cover.

Bragg, a former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), took office on January 1, 2022, after winning election following the retirement of Cyrus Vance, Jr. Many had expected Vance to file charges, but almost immediately Bragg was accused of slow-walking the last portion of the investigation. By February 23, the investigation’s top two prosecutors abruptly quit.

The news rocked the country and New York.

READ MORE: NY AG Referring Criminal Charges Against Trump to the Feds, Alleges He ‘Grossly Inflated’ Net Worth by ‘Billions’

One day later The New Yorker’s award-winning investigative reporter, Jane Mayer, wrote: “After promising to prioritize the case, the new Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, seems to have abandoned it.”

Indeed, despite Bragg’s claim months later, that the case was still active, charges have yet to be filed.

On Wednesday, after AG James sued Trump, his three eldest children – Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka – several of his companies, and people associated with his business including former CFO Allen Weisselberg, many are turning their attention to Bragg.

Many believed Vance had come close to filing charges. As far back as 2019, as investigative reporter David Farenthold (then at The Washington Post and now of The New York Times) reported, they had already found plenty, he notes today.

Anger online against Bragg is palpable, given all that James revealed.

READ MORE: ‘He Knew Nothing About So Many Things’: Trump White House Staffers Were ‘Startled’ by His Ignorance

Tish James’ “massive case also raises real questions about why [Bragg] stood down on this same case on the criminal side, to the point where two prosecutors quit,” tweeted MSNBC anchor Joy Reid.

Clearly aware of the optics and possibly the blowback brewing online Bragg, one hour after James’ press conference ended, claimed that his investigation remains “ongoing.”

Legal experts too are stunned.

“The more I read about the NY AG civil fraud case against Trump, the more I wonder how Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg could possibly have rejected indicting him for criminal fraud,” writes Tristan Snell, an attorney formerly in the NY AG’s office who prosecuted the Trump University case.

Attorney Luppe B. Luppen in 2020 reported on James’ investigation into Trump, and in June of this year at his Substack newsletter wrote: “What’s Really Stopping a Trump Prosecution?

On Wednesday he observed “NYAG Tish James’s office remains unimpressed with the performance of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg in their parallel investigations.”

Law professor Jennifer Taub says she’s “Wondering whether this puts pressure on Alvin Bragg to act.”

“Much of what [James] is describing is EXACTLY what Cy Vance was investigating.”

Attorney, political commentator, and former South Carolina state lawmaker Bakari Sellers says Bragg “has abdicated his duty and/or lacks the courage to do his job.”

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CRIME

Trump Sanctions Upheld Over ‘Frivolous’ Lawsuits Against Hillary Clinton, James Comey

Published

on

President Donald Trump and his then-lawyer Alina Habba are on the hook for almost $1 million in sanctions.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a court order penalizing Trump and Habba in lawsuits against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former head of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC itself and others.

Trump and Habba filed suit under anti-racketeering laws against 28 total people and organizations in 2022, alleging a conspiracy to collude with Russia in order to tank his 2016 presidential campaign. Though the Steele dossier at the center of the claims has been described as “discredited” by a number of news outlets, Trump and Habba filed the original suit 5 months after the statute of limitations had passed.

READ MORE: ‘That Family Is Basically a Racketeering Enterprise’: Ex-Obama Adviser Blasts Scandals From Trump’s Adult Children

“We do not doubt that, in the light of the Durham Report, President Trump has concerns about some defendants’ conduct during the 2016 election. The investigation by Special Counsel Durham found that some defendants played a role in orchestrating unverified allegations of him colluding with Russia. And it found that key allegations in the Steele Dossier, relied on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the press, were never corroborated. Some appeared to be fabricated. The Special Counsel’s investigation found that Bureau officials appeared to favor Clinton and that their investigation decisions reflected that preference. And it found that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation began without ‘any actual evidence of collusion,'” Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. wrote. “Yet, those findings do not cure the deficiencies in Trump’s racketeering claims.”

In addition Pryor wrote that even if Trump had filed suit before the statute of limitations expired, “none of these proceedings are, or even resemble, a racketeering action.”

“At best, they are actions involving some of the conduct that Trump incorporates into his racketeering claim,” Pryor wrote.

There was a minor bit of good news for Trump, however. In one of the four appeals Pryor ruled on, he rejected a request by two appellants, Orbis Limited and Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., for fees and double costs to be levied against the president. Orbis is Christopher Steele’s “private intelligence firm” that produced the Steele dossier, while Dolan was a Clinton campaign operative who provided information used in the dossier.

Pryor found that in this one case, Trump’s appeal to the dismissal of the case made “meritorious arguments.” He remanded that particular case back to the lower court to change its dismissal from “with prejudice”—meaning that the case cannot be filed again—to “without prejudice,” meaning that Trump’s team could fix errors in the original lawsuit and refile.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CRIME

DOJ Sues Washington State Over Law Requiring Catholic Priests to Report Child Abuse

Published

on

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

READ MORE: Pedophile Priest Sex Abuse: Catholic Churches Settle For $102 Million

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CRIME

AG Pam Bondi Says Tesla Vandals Could Get 20 Years In Prison

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Thursday that, if convicted, the Tesla vandals who lit the electric cars and charging stations ablaze could get up to 20 years in prison.

“The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended,” Bondi said. “Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.”

Bondi announced the charges against three alleged Tesla vandals. All of the defendants are accused of using Molotov cocktails. Two defendants, one in Salem, Oregon and another in Loveland, Colorado, allegedly attacked Tesla dealerships. A third allegedly burned Tesla charging stations in Charleston, South Carolina.

READ MORE: Fox News Reporter Challenges Trump on Promoting Tesla While Americans Are ‘Struggling’

Though Bondi’s statement did not identify any of the defendants or reveal the charges levied against them, the Department of Justice said the penalty ranged from five to 20 years in prison. Bondi has previously characterized the attacks on Tesla dealerships as “nothing short of domestic terrorism” according to ABC News.

The three anonymous defendants cited by Bondi are not the only alleged Tesla vandals. Earlier this week, a Tesla service center in Las Vegas was hit, as was a dealership in Kansas City, Missouri according to Electrek.

Tesla dealerships have seen an increase of protests as many left-leaning figures are calling for boycotts against the company. Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, is also the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Despite the name, DOGE is not an official department of the U.S. government, as it was not established by Congress. DOGE is behind the recent mass firings of government workers.

Outside of the peaceful protests, vandals have spray-painted anti-DOGE and anti-Tesla graffiti on Tesla cars and dealerships. The number of arsons at dealerships has also been increasing of late, leading Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner to suggest that arsonists could face the death penalty, according to Mediaite.

“What happens if there’s someone in one of these cars they blow up? That can happen! That becomes murder! Or worse. Terrorism plus! And I know that on January 20th, the president signed into law, into, through an executive order, restoring the death penalty. Do you think this sort of thing… And I hate to think it! People leave their children and pets in cars. I mean, you don’t know! This is deadly dangerous stuff these liberal protesters are playing with!” Faulkner said.

There have been no reports of Teslas being lit on fire with anyone nearby. The Teslas set on fire have primarily been at dealerships after business hours, times when no one would be in the cars, making Faulkner’s scenario unlikely.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.