Tea at Trianon: The Point of No Return

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Saturday, April 15, 2023

The Point of No Return

From American Greatness:

While we cannot know for certain whether New York County, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s catastrophic decision to successfully indict and arraign a former president of the United States was partially attributable to an intervening apparition, we can reasonably conclude that the actions of this past week have cast a most woeful die for the trajectory of our decadent, declining republic. The 34-count formal indictment of former President Donald Trump, laughably meritless on the legal merits and scandalously imprudent on the broader political judgment, represents a genie that cannot, and will not, ever be returned to its bottle.

Much ink already has been spilled on the glaring legal deficiencies in Bragg’s case, which ought to be evident to any competent first-year law student and which had led Bragg’s predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr., U.S. prosecutors and—in the not-so-distant past—Bragg himself to eschew prosecution. The underlying New York state crime that Trump allegedly violated and which is the exclusive crime invoked in the formal indictment, falsifying business records in the first degree, has a two-year statute of limitations under New York criminal law. The final alleged criminal bookkeeping action—a “hush money” payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels by former Trump “fixer,” and more recent convicted felon, Michael Cohen—was on December 5, 2017. The statute of limitations thus tolled over three years ago. That alone should suffice to dismiss the case.

Bragg’s theory appears to be that he can somehow evade this, and simultaneously enhance the misdemeanor to a felony, by proving—beyond a reasonable doubt, naturally—that Trump’s bookkeeping falsifications were done in furtherance of another crime. But Bragg, remarkably, has not said what that crime is. It appears to be some amorphous combination of skirting federal campaign law and/or New York state election law, in the context of Trump’s successful 2016 presidential run; but the former has a five-year statute of limitations (thus also tolled) and is also well outside Bragg’s legitimate prosecutorial jurisdiction as a county district attorney, and the latter should not properly apply to a U.S. presidential candidate. Moreover, even ignoring the dispositive statute of limitations and jurisdictional issues, the very thing Bragg would need to prove to a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” to secure the felony enhancement—that Trump directed Cohen to make the payments with the specific intent to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign—is rebutted by Cohen himself, who has testified under oath that Trump requested the payments to be made furtively to spare his family personal embarrassment.

Alvin Bragg, lest it go unstated, is the same George Soros-funded “reform prosecutor” who has overseen a 22 percent year-over-year increase in New York City’s crime rate, even as he has downgraded a whopping 52 percent of felonies to misdemeanors. In the Big Apple, homicides are spiking, illegal guns are everywhere, single women are afraid to walk the streets of Manhattan alone, and commuters are terrified to ride the subway lest insane homeless persons push them into oncoming trains. Yet this is how Alvin Bragg, who, along with New York State Attorney General Letitia James, ran on an open and explicit “Get Trump” campaign platform, chooses to spend his time, expend his prosecutorial resources and seek misdemeanor-to-felony enhancements.

But the deed is done. If not dismissed beforehand, a trial would likely not unfold until later this year or early next. And in the interim, other ambitious prosecutors investigating Trump in Georgia and Washington, D.C., have now watched Bragg shatter the hitherto unbroken precedent of the ruling political party never criminally indicting a former and defeated president of the opposite political party, which had been—until this past week—one of the few remaining things to which we might point to distinguish our late-stage republic from its third-world banana republic equivalents the world over. Perhaps additional indictments in those jurisdictions will indeed follow. Either way, the political ramifications for the 2024 Republican presidential primary are legion. (Read more.)

Trump's indictment has destroyed the presumption of innocence, HERE.

From Conservative Brief:

A roughly two-year-old video of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has resurfaced, raising questions about prior comments he made regarding former President Donald Trump. During a January 2021 radio interview with Ebro Darden on HOT 97, which took place when he was running in the election to be the Manhattan district attorney, Bragg boasts about helping “sue the Trump administration over 100 times,” said “rich old white men” need to be prosecuted, and said he had “seen the lawlessness than he [Trump] can do.” (Read more.)

From The Federalist:

In early to mid-February of 2021, Bragg’s predecessor, District Attorney Cyrus Vance, arranged for private criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to be a special assistant district attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office. Pomerantz, whom The New York Times noted was to work “solely on the Trump investigation,” took a temporary leave of absence from his law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, where he had defended former Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., against alleged campaign finance violations. But even before being sworn in as a special assistant to the Manhattan D.A., Pomerantz had reportedly “been helping with the case informally for months…”

According to the Times, “the hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutor’s office.” One must wonder, then, how much more unusual it is for the Manhattan D.A.’s office to receive the “informal” assistance of a private criminal defense attorney. The legacy news outlet, however, justified the hiring of Pomerantz based on the “usual complexity” of “the two-and-a-half-year investigation of the former president and his family business.” A few months later, the D.A.’s office welcomed two more outsiders, Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson, who also both took leaves of absence from the New York powerhouse Paul, Weiss to work on the Trump investigation as special assistant district attorney. For a law firm to lend not one but three lawyers to the Manhattan D.A.’s office seems rather magnanimous, until you consider Paul, Weiss’s previous generosity to Joe Biden. During Biden’s White House run, the law firm hosted a $2,800-per-plate fundraiser for about 100 guests. (Read more.)