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?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Doesn’t matter. Those organizations still backed Bragg

Anonymous wrote:What happens when Trump is found guilty? He goes to jail and then … what?

In the remote instance that Trump is found innocent of the charges, then what happens?

Will there be any difference (besides whether Trump does jail time)?

Also will the case be sped up because of the presidential election or will it be slow-walked? People will have their spin on it depending on their POV, but how does it work in reality?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Doesn’t matter. Those organizations still backed Bragg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Note: Directly to his campaign. Soros donates to foundations that then donate to campaigns.

jsteele wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

jsteele wrote:

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

I removed the post that contained two tweets about Bragg. They contained misinformation. In the first case, the garage attendant was charged by police, not prosecutors. Prosecutors haven't addressed the case yet. In the second case, prosecutors asked that charges be dropped.

The anti-Bragg folks basically have nothing other than misinformation and lies.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has finally dropped the controversial murder charge against bodega worker Jose Alba — with his office conceding Tuesday there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute the case that sparked widespread outrage.

The DA’s Office filed a motion in Manhattan Criminal Court to dismiss the case against 61-year-old Alba, who fatally stabbed an ex-con who attacked him behind the counter of a Hamilton Heights store on July 1.

The slay charges brought by Bragg’s office prompted an uproar, with Alba and his many backers — who ranged from Mayor Eric Adams to former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton — arguing his actions were clearly self-defense.

Following an investigation, prosecutors concluded they couldn’t prove that Alba “was not justified in his use of deadly physical force,” the motion said. Surveillance footage of the attack showed Alba being attacked by Austin Simon, 35, and even telling the assailant, “Papa, I don’t want a problem.’’

The decision to dismiss the second-degree murder rap came after The Post began highlighting Alba’s plight, which saw the hardworking employee initially held at Rikers Island on a $250,000 bond, before the amount was lowered.

“If it weren’t for the New York Post, Mr. Alba would still be in jail,” said Frank Garcia, chairman of the National Association of Latino State Chambers of Commerce.

During a brief hearing Tuesday, Judge Laurie Peterson officially tossed the case, allowing Alba to have his ankle monitor — a condition of his bail — removed a few hours later.

“I feel better because I don’t have it anymore,” Alba said of the monitor as he spoke briefly to reporters at his home.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Where does Obama taking foreign donations fall?

You are making quite the effort to divert this discussion to off-topic whataboutisms. There was a fraudulent conspiracy by foreign nationals to make donations to to Obama's campaign. The DOJ indicted the foreign nationals for this:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/entertainerbusinessman-and-malaysian-financier-indicted-conspiring-make-and-conceal-foreign

Obama's campaign was the victim of the fraud and not involved in the crime.

So, apparently, you are asking how a conspiracy by foreign nationals to fraudulently disguise payments fits in with Trump's conspiracy to fraudulently disguise a payment. I think the fit is pretty close and, therefore, Trump's indictment is consistent with the indictments of the foreign nationals.

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.

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