Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The person on here saying that we should NEVER indict a president is crazy. The whole point of America is not to have a king. If any president should be indicted it's Trump. And I agree that this is to be celebrated. There is nothing more American than this. If you don't like it and want a dictator, there are plenty of other countries. Let Trump have his day in court.

+1

You don’t want a POTUS to be indicted? Then don’t vote for a crook.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

I could but you would delete my post and lock my account (see previous deleted posts for some examples if you are seriously interested).

If this Trump indictment is allowed to proceed I am sure several red state DAs will convene grand juries to indict the Biden’s before the 2024 election.

So, what you are saying is that you can't list any crimes committed by former presidents. Thanks for clarifying that.

If Biden has violated state laws in any state, red or blue, I hope that he is indicted.

Jeff, what is the point of deleting some responses if they don't violate the forum policies?

The posts that I removed were off-topic. Is there any reason that you are struggling to address the topic at hand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just so very dumb.

I agree he sounds a little crazy. But there is some truth to what he is saying.

Truth? That American public and private institutions have sought to hold Trump accountable? Okay then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Prosecuted for going against government? Yes.

Trump is not charged with treason. But it is beginning to look more and more like Russia these days in US: charge and jail your political opponent.

DP. Trump is not Bragg's political opinion. Fwiw

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

I could but you would delete my post and lock my account (see previous deleted posts for some examples if you are seriously interested).

If this Trump indictment is allowed to proceed I am sure several red state DAs will convene grand juries to indict the Biden’s before the 2024 election.

If there are grounds for a DA to bring evidence of crimes to a grand jury and have that grand jury approve an indictment, then sure. What grounds are you suggesting there are crimes that have been committed by Joe Biden?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Prosecuted for going against government? Yes.

Trump is not charged with treason. But it is beginning to look more and more like Russia these days in US: charge and jail your political opponent.

So you are saying anyone in politics can commit crimes and not be charged because they are an opponent? Doesn't that put all politicans above the law? Is that what you want? Because that doesn't sound very American to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did he really qualify his statement with “directly”? If he did that sounds like an admission.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did he really qualify his statement with “directly”? If he did that sounds like an admission.

It is well known that Soros contributed to an organization that made indirect expenditures in support of Bragg. It's not clear that those expenditures made a significant impact on the race.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, it’s not unusual for politicians to get indicted, and convicted! Happens all the time. Former presidents, no, but there has only been 45 of them. So, really, it was bound to happen. It’s really something. To see republicans hyperventilate over this. Telling. All of the lower level politicians that thought they might get away with criming in the wake of TFG are probably thinking twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it’s not unusual for politicians to get indicted, and convicted! Happens all the time. Former presidents, no, but there has only been 45 of them. So, really, it was bound to happen. It’s really something. To see republicans hyperventilate over this. Telling. All of the lower level politicians that thought they might get away with criming in the wake of TFG are probably thinking twice.

Then, you won't find it surprising at all when a Republican DA indicts and prosecutes Biden, or another Democratic president in the future.
Because it seems that is the way this game is played.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it’s not unusual for politicians to get indicted, and convicted! Happens all the time. Former presidents, no, but there has only been 45 of them. So, really, it was bound to happen. It’s really something. To see republicans hyperventilate over this. Telling. All of the lower level politicians that thought they might get away with criming in the wake of TFG are probably thinking twice.

Then, you won't find it surprising at all when a Republican DA indicts and prosecutes Biden, or another Democratic president in the future.
Because it seems that is the way this game is played.

DP. If Biden or a future Democratic president commit crimes and are indicted by a grand jury, most Dems will be fine with that. One would hope that the grueling process of running for president and the common practice of opposition research would weed out candidates who have committed past crimes or are suspected of having committed crimes. If anyone becomes president despite committing crimes in their past and/or is found to have committed crimes during or after their presidency, then by all means charge them--regardless of party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it’s not unusual for politicians to get indicted, and convicted! Happens all the time. Former presidents, no, but there has only been 45 of them. So, really, it was bound to happen. It’s really something. To see republicans hyperventilate over this. Telling. All of the lower level politicians that thought they might get away with criming in the wake of TFG are probably thinking twice.

Then, you won't find it surprising at all when a Republican DA indicts and prosecutes Biden, or another Democratic president in the future.
Because it seems that is the way this game is played.

Naturally. You’re the only one who seems bothered about this. Please don’t hold back on our behalf!

[Anonymous]

To the posters above who are maligning Bragg...why don't you wait until you read the actual charges against Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it’s not unusual for politicians to get indicted, and convicted! Happens all the time. Former presidents, no, but there has only been 45 of them. So, really, it was bound to happen. It’s really something. To see republicans hyperventilate over this. Telling. All of the lower level politicians that thought they might get away with criming in the wake of TFG are probably thinking twice.

Then, you won't find it surprising at all when a Republican DA indicts and prosecutes Biden, or another Democratic president in the future.
Because it seems that is the way this game is played.

If any DA can convince a grand jury to indict a president, then I want to see the trial proceed.

This isn't a game. It's a democracy. At least, for now.