Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, you really have to be a Russian bot to keep harping on this. Or a MAGA.
Which are you?

I'm someone who loves the fact that our judicial system presumes innocence and the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. You don't have to be MAGA or a Russian bot to feel this way.

MAGAS are getting increasingly shrill.

[Anonymous]

Donald Trump will get his day in court.

His law breaking was evident and obvious throughout his term. Newspapers reported on it, billions of pixels were spilled on discussing them as they occurred/as we found out about them.

If it’s need to you that Donald Trump violated the law six ways to Sunday just about every week, that’s on you. You’ve made bad media choices.

There’s no witch hunt here. There’s no “you’ve gone too far.” This is the barest of consequences for a man who broke multiple laws and rules (and beyond anything that’s prosecutable, he violated norms and decency).

Quit pretending to rend your garments over a tweet from Nancy Pelosi. You’re reaching so hard. Now whether the treason pig bothers to show up for all his court dates is another thing, but he’s getting more consideration than any other common criminal.

Quit whining.

[Anonymous]

I think the pro-Trump troll is here for giggles. Can we just agree to ignore? It’s hard to have a convo with everyone responding to that poster.

When will we be able to read the indictment? All of the speculation about charges is getting on my last damn nerve.

[Anonymous]

Which is worse - filing an indictment 5 years after the statue of limitation expired or ignoring that Vance declined same?

[Anonymous]

Anyone else who's last name isn't Trump would not have been prosecuted for this. Tells me all I need to know- politically motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else who's last name isn't Trump would not have been prosecuted for this. Tells me all I need to know- politically motivated.

Oh please. Anyone whose name wasn’t Trump would have been jailed long again for various crimes …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the pro-Trump troll is here for giggles. Can we just agree to ignore? It’s hard to have a convo with everyone responding to that poster.

When will we be able to read the indictment? All of the speculation about charges is getting on my last damn nerve.

Apparently it gets unsealed once he does to court - so, maybe next week?

[Anonymous]

Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

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?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

These are apple and oranges violations. Clinton was accused of misrepresenting the payments on a form filed with the FEC, not business forms filed with the state. As such, Clinton was fined by the FEC but doesn't appear to have violated any state laws.

Trump was also investigated by the FEC but the case was dropped when Republican members of the Commission voted to drop the case. This despite the recommendation by the General Counsel that the Commission find that Trump violated multiple campaign finance laws. So, the real question you should ask is why Trump didn't receive the same penalty that Clinton did? Trump clearly benefited from preferential treatment by the FEC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else who's last name isn't Trump would not have been prosecuted for this. Tells me all I need to know- politically motivated.

OFFS. Tell that to all the people without means who were sent to jail for things rich people get away with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, you really have to be a Russian bot to keep harping on this. Or a MAGA.
Which are you?

I'm someone who loves the fact that our judicial system presumes innocence and the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. You don't have to be MAGA or a Russian bot to feel this way.

Well the prosecution side will have their day in court to prove his guilt.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else who's last name isn't Trump would not have been prosecuted for this. Tells me all I need to know- politically motivated.

Oh please. Anyone whose name wasn’t Trump would have been jailed long again for various crimes …

Here is a list of people prosecuted for the same crime whose last name is not Trump:

https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/

Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.

Here is a separate document listing dozens of cases of such prosecutions:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/survey-new-york-felony-falsification-of-business-records-just-security.pdf

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

These are apple and oranges violations. Clinton was accused of misrepresenting the payments on a form filed with the FEC, not business forms filed with the state. As such, Clinton was fined by the FEC but doesn't appear to have violated any state laws.

Trump was also investigated by the FEC but the case was dropped when Republican members of the Commission voted to drop the case. This despite the recommendation by the General Counsel that the Commission find that Trump violated multiple campaign finance laws. So, the real question you should ask is why Trump didn't receive the same penalty that Clinton did? Trump clearly benefited from preferential treatment by the FEC.

How can a city's/county's DA prosecute a federal crime?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

These are apple and oranges violations. Clinton was accused of misrepresenting the payments on a form filed with the FEC, not business forms filed with the state. As such, Clinton was fined by the FEC but doesn't appear to have violated any state laws.

Trump was also investigated by the FEC but the case was dropped when Republican members of the Commission voted to drop the case. This despite the recommendation by the General Counsel that the Commission find that Trump violated multiple campaign finance laws. So, the real question you should ask is why Trump didn't receive the same penalty that Clinton did? Trump clearly benefited from preferential treatment by the FEC.

How can a city's/county's DA prosecute a federal crime?

They can't and there is no indication that Bragg intends to do so. While we haven't seen the indictment, it is expected that Trump will be charged with violating New York State laws regarding the falsification of business records.

In the course of paying off Stormy Daniels, Trump appears to have violated Federal campaign expense laws, but was not prosecuted for doing so (contrary to Clinton who was fined). But, he also misreported the expenses in violation of state law. Additionally, he may be on the hook for tax code violations. The indictment should be an interesting read.

[Anonymous]

This man is a criminal through and through. Not just a criminal - a violent criminal. His own wife accused him of marital rape. The outrage at him being held accountable for something is a bit much.

He’s also a horrendous business man who has committed fraud at every turn, usually at the expense of average citizens.

Sexual misconduct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Trump university fraud: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/judge-finalizes-25-million-settlement-victims-donald-trumps/story?id=54347237

These are all actions he too before the presidency - just like the NY indictment. I think supporters are upset he’s being exposed as the common criminal that he really is. It’s probably very embarrassing that they were duped just like the trump university “students”