Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

[Anonymous]

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.

I’m talking about previous posters stating no one else is above the law. There is absolutely no doubt that HB falsified a form to get the weapon. The form is available to see. Why hasn’t he been arrested yet for breaking the law?

There is an ongoing investigation. You can keep repeating the same question and I'll keep repeating the same answer. Sometimes justice moves slowly.

Maybe because they fear prosecuting now would interfere with a presidential election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

Statute of limitations in NY is 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

Curious if Bragg is going to be just as dogged about going after the person who leaked details of the Grand Jury (which is a felony) as he has about going after a political opponent.

[Anonymous]

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.

What is falsified? Making these payments as a direct payout or legal expenses doesn't change the tax situation, and reporting as a legal expense is valid.
The only falsification issue was as campaign finance.

[jsteele]

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.

What is falsified? Making these payments as a direct payout or legal expenses doesn't change the tax situation, and reporting as a legal expense is valid.
The only falsification issue was as campaign finance.

I suspect your questions will be answered Tuesday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just hope Trump is rapidly indicted on the more serious charges against him. I understand the Daniels case could be a misdemeanor or a felony, and that it's worth of indictment, but it does seem petty on the face of it, which is probably why conservatives writ large are complaining the way they are. I don't think there would have been so much show of support for Trump had the Georgia indictment come first. It's the most politically powerful case, pitting Republican against Republican. I'm afraid that now Republicans of all stripes have come out in Trump's favor, they will feel obliged to also defend him on the more serious charges... and this might NOT have been the case had the other indictments come first.

The NY case seems to not just be about Stormy Daniels, there are 34 counts. But it seems to be more about business fraud than anything else. I hope the Fani Willis case comes soon - and the Federal case as well. It would be ideal to have a perfect storm of three different and unrelated cases all hitting at the same time to send Trump's legal team reeling.

34 counts would be a violation of DOJ guidelines, which suggest a maximum of 15 counts, though it is not mandatory.
This many counts is a sign of a weak case, where the prosecutor just throws up a whole bunch of counts so the jury would take something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

Curious if Bragg is going to be just as dogged about going after the person who leaked details of the Grand Jury (which is a felony) as he has about going after a political opponent.

Do we know who leaked? Bragg?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just hope Trump is rapidly indicted on the more serious charges against him. I understand the Daniels case could be a misdemeanor or a felony, and that it's worth of indictment, but it does seem petty on the face of it, which is probably why conservatives writ large are complaining the way they are. I don't think there would have been so much show of support for Trump had the Georgia indictment come first. It's the most politically powerful case, pitting Republican against Republican. I'm afraid that now Republicans of all stripes have come out in Trump's favor, they will feel obliged to also defend him on the more serious charges... and this might NOT have been the case had the other indictments come first.

The NY case seems to not just be about Stormy Daniels, there are 34 counts. But it seems to be more about business fraud than anything else. I hope the Fani Willis case comes soon - and the Federal case as well. It would be ideal to have a perfect storm of three different and unrelated cases all hitting at the same time to send Trump's legal team reeling.

34 counts would be a violation of DOJ guidelines, which suggest a maximum of 15 counts, though it is not mandatory.
This many counts is a sign of a weak case, where the prosecutor just throws up a whole bunch of counts so the jury would take something.

Do they have to publicly release the counts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

Curious if Bragg is going to be just as dogged about going after the person who leaked details of the Grand Jury (which is a felony) as he has about going after a political opponent.

Do we know who leaked? Bragg?

No. But, it would not surprise me if he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just hope Trump is rapidly indicted on the more serious charges against him. I understand the Daniels case could be a misdemeanor or a felony, and that it's worth of indictment, but it does seem petty on the face of it, which is probably why conservatives writ large are complaining the way they are. I don't think there would have been so much show of support for Trump had the Georgia indictment come first. It's the most politically powerful case, pitting Republican against Republican. I'm afraid that now Republicans of all stripes have come out in Trump's favor, they will feel obliged to also defend him on the more serious charges... and this might NOT have been the case had the other indictments come first.

The NY case seems to not just be about Stormy Daniels, there are 34 counts. But it seems to be more about business fraud than anything else. I hope the Fani Willis case comes soon - and the Federal case as well. It would be ideal to have a perfect storm of three different and unrelated cases all hitting at the same time to send Trump's legal team reeling.

34 counts would be a violation of DOJ guidelines, which suggest a maximum of 15 counts, though it is not mandatory.
This many counts is a sign of a weak case, where the prosecutor just throws up a whole bunch of counts so the jury would take something.

Andrew McCarthy had a good piece as to why so many charges......

The federal prosecutors and regulators, who actually have jurisdiction over and expertise in campaign-finance law, looked hard at the Stormy Daniels caper and decided it was worthy of a goose-egg — zero, zip, nada counts. And mind you, the Biden administration has been running the Justice Department for more than two years, and has been moving heaven and earth — now, with a special counsel appointed — to make a criminal case against former president Donald Trump. Still, with Biden prosecutors now responsible for enforcing federal law, Trump’s 2016 hush-money arrangement with the porn star who alleges a long-ago fling with him has resulted in 0 criminal counts.

Alvin Bragg is more accurately seen not as a law-enforcement official, but as an elected progressive Democrat who won his political office in one-party Manhattan by vowing to his progressive base that he would exploit the district attorney’s law-enforcement powers against Trump, the Democrats’ arch-nemesis. Unlike the feds, Bragg has no jurisdiction over or expertise in federal campaign-finance laws.

So, how’s this for a shocker? Bragg looked at exactly the same evidence as the feds did, and has decided it is worth 34 criminal counts. Not one or two — 34.

I have a short opinion column over at Fox News explaining this notorious prosecutorial abuse: the effort to camouflage with quantity what a criminal case lacks in quality — loading up a dubious case with charges to suggest to the jury that the defendant is a dangerous criminal even if the evidence of any one alleged crime is weak. The column excerpts Justice Department guidance that admonishes federal prosecutors to steer clear of this unseemly tactic.

Why is Bragg doing this? Because for him to “win” the case in the all-important political realm, the court of public opinion, he just needs a jury to convict on one count. Then, no matter how flimsy the case Bragg has presented, Trump will be branded a convicted felon. By contrast, Trump can only “win” if he prevails on all 34 counts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-to-make-of-34-counts-against-trump-that-bragg-just-needs-one/


He continues with how this plays out with the jury.

[Anonymous]

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.

What is falsified? Making these payments as a direct payout or legal expenses doesn't change the tax situation, and reporting as a legal expense is valid.
The only falsification issue was as campaign finance.

Reporting as a legal expense is not valid. Cohen's work on the payment could theoretically be but the payout itself is most definitely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because once the 30+ charges are public they will be unable to defend trump.

Statute of limitations in NY is 5 years.

Do you think Trump stopped criming in those five years?

[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.

I’m talking about previous posters stating no one else is above the law. There is absolutely no doubt that HB falsified a form to get the weapon. The form is available to see. Why hasn’t he been arrested yet for breaking the law?

There is an ongoing investigation. You can keep repeating the same question and I'll keep repeating the same answer. Sometimes justice moves slowly.

Maybe because they fear prosecuting now would interfere with a presidential election?

I didn’t realize HB had announced he was running for any elected position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just hope Trump is rapidly indicted on the more serious charges against him. I understand the Daniels case could be a misdemeanor or a felony, and that it's worth of indictment, but it does seem petty on the face of it, which is probably why conservatives writ large are complaining the way they are. I don't think there would have been so much show of support for Trump had the Georgia indictment come first. It's the most politically powerful case, pitting Republican against Republican. I'm afraid that now Republicans of all stripes have come out in Trump's favor, they will feel obliged to also defend him on the more serious charges... and this might NOT have been the case had the other indictments come first.

The NY case seems to not just be about Stormy Daniels, there are 34 counts. But it seems to be more about business fraud than anything else. I hope the Fani Willis case comes soon - and the Federal case as well. It would be ideal to have a perfect storm of three different and unrelated cases all hitting at the same time to send Trump's legal team reeling.

34 counts would be a violation of DOJ guidelines, which suggest a maximum of 15 counts, though it is not mandatory.
This many counts is a sign of a weak case, where the prosecutor just throws up a whole bunch of counts so the jury would take something.

DP. This post is pretty desperate. Today is Sunday and we know no more now than we did on Friday - yet here you are, denouncing the prosecutor and the case.

Instead of trying to change reality, why don't you take a nice walk? It's beautiful and sunny out. At least in this part of the country.