Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Trump whined this morning about MAGA protestors supposedly being kept out of the court house area by the police.

Of course, he's lying: Here's an interview with two random teenagers who were able to GET SEATS IN THE COURTROOM today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVqmqwR9I0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wandering the halls like a mental patient, brandishing printouts from goons like Turley proclaiming his innocence. Meanwhile, no MAGA Woodstock outside the courthouse. Sad.

The party is over, you can't replay the same hits that were popular in 2016.

The MAGA flags have been folded up and stuffed into the back of junk closets. 15 years from now, kids cleaning out their dead parents' home will find all that junk and toss it out.

This. You can really see the air going out of the balloon. Apart from the online trolls, there’s not a lot of energy around Trump. His supporters must also be getting tired of the constant rattling of his tin cup. He’s been soliciting donations nonstop since his 2016 campaign. That’s 8 years!!

And his nonstop whining about his court cases. His rallies are just boring and have none of the 2016 (or even 2020) energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump whined this morning about MAGA protestors supposedly being kept out of the court house area by the police.

Of course, he's lying: Here's an interview with two random teenagers who were able to GET SEATS IN THE COURTROOM today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVqmqwR9I0

Alright Hope and Owen! They look about 14!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So one of Trump’s arguments has been that he wanted to keep this quiet so Melania wouldn’t find out. Pecker testified today that his first meeting with Trump and Cohen about the catch and kill plan was in August 2015 when Trump won the nomination. 🤔

And Pecker testified today that if the illegitimate child story had checked out he would have published it - after the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So one of Trump’s arguments has been that he wanted to keep this quiet so Melania wouldn’t find out. Pecker testified today that his first meeting with Trump and Cohen about the catch and kill plan was in August 2015 when Trump won the nomination. 🤔

And Pecker testified today that if the illegitimate child story had checked out he would have published it - after the election.

Note that Trump is attacking everyone except Pecker even though Pecker’s testimony is proving he committed campaign fraud. Trump must know that Pecker has a safe full of evidence of Trump crimes that we don’t even know about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So one of Trump’s arguments has been that he wanted to keep this quiet so Melania wouldn’t find out. Pecker testified today that his first meeting with Trump and Cohen about the catch and kill plan was in August 2015 when Trump won the nomination. 🤔

Pecker has been VERY forthcoming today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law. There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'. What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor. Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law. There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'. What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor. Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.

You’re replying to a post that explains what you clearly don’t understand. Here it is again: “Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.” Hope that helps! 🙂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law. There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'. What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor. Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.

You’re replying to a post that explains what you clearly don’t understand. Here it is again: “Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.” Hope that helps! 🙂

Not indicted by the grand jury. Indeed Bragg can't enforce federal campaign finance law. The Feds looked at it and passed. It is not a campaign expenditure. Not everything that helps a campaign counts as campaign expenditure.
However, this is not the crime Bragg is arguing, but a NY election law. This NY election law requires unlawful means, at which point Bragg is back to trying to enforce federal law.

The surprising part is that the NYT editorial page ran a column by a liberal arguing how weak this case is. The whole point is to try and get a jury full of Democrats to convict Trump for election headlines, regardless of how weak the case is and that it will fall on appeal. Having the jury's main news source explaining the weak case is unexpected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law. There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'. What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor. Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.

You’re replying to a post that explains what you clearly don’t understand. Here it is again: “Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.” Hope that helps! 🙂

Not indicted by the grand jury. Indeed Bragg can't enforce federal campaign finance law. The Feds looked at it and passed. It is not a campaign expenditure. Not everything that helps a campaign counts as campaign expenditure.
However, this is not the crime Bragg is arguing, but a NY election law. This NY election law requires unlawful means, at which point Bragg is back to trying to enforce federal law.

The surprising part is that the NYT editorial page ran a column by a liberal arguing how weak this case is. The whole point is to try and get a jury full of Democrats to convict Trump for election headlines, regardless of how weak the case is and that it will fall on appeal. Having the jury's main news source explaining the weak case is unexpected.

Bragg isn’t enforcing federal law. Under NY law, the second crime that leads to the felony upgrade can be a federal crime. You may not like that, but that’s the law. Bragg submitted a declaration listing dozens of cases where this statute has successfully been used in conjunction with federal crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So one of Trump’s arguments has been that he wanted to keep this quiet so Melania wouldn’t find out. Pecker testified today that his first meeting with Trump and Cohen about the catch and kill plan was in August 2015 when Trump won the nomination. 🤔

And Pecker testified today that if the illegitimate child story had checked out he would have published it - after the election.

Note that Trump is attacking everyone except Pecker even though Pecker’s testimony is proving he committed campaign fraud. Trump must know that Pecker has a safe full of evidence of Trump crimes that we don’t even know about.

And that we’ll never get to know about. Annoyingly. If it’s enough to make Trump be nice to him it must be choice and something that would actually cause him damage. I remember my pet theory from a few years ago and it’s familial for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law. There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'. What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor. Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.

You’re replying to a post that explains what you clearly don’t understand. Here it is again: “Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.” Hope that helps! 🙂

Not indicted by the grand jury. Indeed Bragg can't enforce federal campaign finance law. The Feds looked at it and passed. It is not a campaign expenditure. Not everything that helps a campaign counts as campaign expenditure.
However, this is not the crime Bragg is arguing, but a NY election law. This NY election law requires unlawful means, at which point Bragg is back to trying to enforce federal law.

The surprising part is that the NYT editorial page ran a column by a liberal arguing how weak this case is. The whole point is to try and get a jury full of Democrats to convict Trump for election headlines, regardless of how weak the case is and that it will fall on appeal. Having the jury's main news source explaining the weak case is unexpected.

Bragg isn’t enforcing federal law. Under NY law, the second crime that leads to the felony upgrade can be a federal crime. You may not like that, but that’s the law. Bragg submitted a declaration listing dozens of cases where this statute has successfully been used in conjunction with federal crimes.

And Pecker testified today that he knew this was a crime because he had done the same thing for Arnold Schwarzenegger while he was running for governor and he asked two different lawyers about it. He still did it because it was good for business, but he knew what he was doing was an illegal in kind undisclosed campaign contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump whined this morning about MAGA protestors supposedly being kept out of the court house area by the police.

Of course, he's lying: Here's an interview with two random teenagers who were able to GET SEATS IN THE COURTROOM today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVqmqwR9I0

I read it was down to just one today. It’s going to be rough for him to realize he’s being abandoned by his little people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.