Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Trump going to be a US version of Navalny?

Prosecuted for going against government? Yes.

Trump wasn't prosecuted for going against government. He is being prosecuted for fraud.

Pelosi said he has to prove his innocence. That tells me they know there’s no crime.

Who is the “they”?

[Anonymous]

Explain to me.... If he is being charged with "falsifying business records" in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment, how is this markedly different from what Hillary Clinton's campaign did in falsifying records saying the payment to fund the Steele dossier was "legal services" for which her campaign was fined?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Trump going to be a US version of Navalny?

Prosecuted for going against government? Yes.

Trump wasn't prosecuted for going against government. He is being prosecuted for fraud.

Pelosi said he has to prove his innocence. That tells me they know there’s no crime.

Sad that a woman in her position knows so little about our justice system.

I agree. And, her statement was even clarified with a "context" note on Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait til his lawyers raise a competency defense.

He isn’t fit to stand trial.

[Anonymous]

1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A line has been crossed, and a precedent set.

You will regret this, dems.

What line? If he committed a crime, and there is evidence thereof, why shouldn't he be indicted? I want to hear your reason.

You don't like it? I get that. I don't much care but I get it. But what's your excuse for why he shouldn't be indicted if there is evidence of a crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Now that the taboo has been broken, there's no reason not to try and lock up your political opponents.

It's not like a politician can't win if they've been to prison or been indicted. See the PM of Israel and President of Brazil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

[Anonymous]

Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me.... If he is being charged with "falsifying business records" in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment, how is this markedly different from what Hillary Clinton's campaign did in falsifying records saying the payment to fund the Steele dossier was "legal services" for which her campaign was fined?

[Anonymous]

Is there going to be a perp walk so we can shout Lock Him Up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Now that the taboo has been broken, there's no reason not to try and lock up your political opponents.

It's not like a politician can't win if they've been to prison or been indicted. See the PM of Israel and President of Brazil.

Trump broke lots of norms. But everyone agreed, then and now, that he was the only one. He wasn't trailblazing, when he was finished, we would all go back to normal rather than follow in his footsteps.

So no taboo has been broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there going to be a perp walk so we can shout Lock Him Up?

Nope. Your wet dream is not coming true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

We shall see. If Bragg is relying on Michael Cohen - good God he is truly dumb. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

We shall see. If Bragg is relying on Michael Cohen - good God he is truly dumb. .

Trumpie doesn’t surround himself with the best and brightest.