NY: Trump on Trial!

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1636737103370285062

Yeah, this is frankly a no-brainer. Although I have zero doubt that Trump and pretty much any one of his attorneys lack the ethics to not ignore this rule at their convenience, I suspect the courts and bar associations will force them to.

[Badger]

Time to see whether Americans who constantly say "no one is above the law" actually believe that.

(Narrator: "They didn't actually believe that.")

[Badger]

This is a politically motivated witch-hunt

Considering you've never posted a single thing worth merit, why I haven't put you on ignore before this more moment is beyond me. Bye now!

[Badger]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

True but we can’t let Trump or his supporters use violence or the threat of it to make themselves above the law

Exactly. After all, that's how Mussolini came to power.

Great. Let's have cops patrolling through Staten Island in armored trucks and the like. See how they like it whenever the shoes on their foot about potential Mass violence.

[Badger]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest


But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Nixon would have been indicted but for Ford's pardon. Ford calculated that Nixon being dragged from office and forced to resign in disgrace was sufficient sanction to keep wrongdoing from happening again. Apparently he was wrong. Trump's misdeeds are frankly far worse than Nixon's, and he suffered basically no sanction as a result. Indictment of his many crimes is warranted or else the system here is failed. Letting presidents get off with stuff as you suggest is the road to nothing short of anarchy.

[Badger]

It's a good precedent to indict a former president who has provably committed a crime, let alone one who tried to use a mob to install himself as dictator. America survives if we're equal under the law.

If his fans start rioting, targeting politicians, blowing up our power grid, that doesn't change that justice is always the right decision. It'll be awful, but we'll have to safeguard our country from the demands of criminals. If he gets off and screams "TOTAL VINDICATION" (which he will do either way), then at least we'll have shown we strive for equality under the law.

Charge him for Jan 6th then or the GA Fake Electors stuff

Charge him for every crime he's done, because we're not sniveling, gutless, unamerican worms.

[Badger]

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Sweet Christmas OSR. So just no rules for presidents? But rules for other politicians? (ostensibly)

This country truly does deify POTUS. Absolutely atrocious. The president is just another person who won an election. If they break the law, treat them like anyone else would be.

I’m just going if precedent of what we have pretty much always done and I gave 3 examples of where we decided not to prosecute a president even though there was a case to be made that you could have . Keep in mind I do think Trump should be prosecuted but over Jan 6th and the fake electoral scheme in GA.

Like people forget that Obama made this decision in 2009:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aide-obama-wont-prosecute-bush-officials/

It  was the right decision imo

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

The President should not be above the law. They should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

Yeah it’s not as simple as that . It’s easy to say this but reality is different than theory .

You know who agrees with me on this , Barack Obama

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Etc. Ad infinitum.

[Badger]

Yeah it’s not as simple as that . It’s easy to say this but reality is different than theory .

You know who agrees with me on this , Barack Obama

Obama was wrong.

I disagree as arresting Bush and Cheney would have not been good for our nation .

You keep saying that, but beyond ramblings of "muh precedent" you failed even begin stating a coherent reason why.

Either presidents are subject to the law or they're not. Considering that the Atlanta and New York investigations are only indirectly related to Trump's role as president, your level of arguing President should be above the law except if it violates National Security interests would basically mean that they could get away with Petty embezzlement, assault, and anything else unless it involves something Watergate or January 6th level. If anything, the inverse is true. If somehow the Atlanta and New York City investigations in your mind are directly related to his being president, and supposedly the other party will play politics likewise, then you really don't believe presidents should be beholden to the law. You say it, but you spend much much more time decrying that view then supporting it. And just repeating on your not ending Loop of my president and Country needs it isn't going to convince anyone other than yourself.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1637282221932560384

Saw this and it kind of crystallized something I've been mulling over.  I don't think an indictment will change very many votes in either direction.  Here's why:

Who will change their mind to vote for Trump solely because he's been indicted?  If someone wasn't already going to vote for him, an indictment is surely no plus.  Perhaps there are a few people who might do it as a root-for-the-underdog thing (although the idea of Trump as an underdog in life is rather laughable), but it's got to be a very small number.

Who will change their mind to NOT vote for Trump because of the indictment?  Most people who have stuck with him this long are solidly behind him regardless of any of his negatives, as in his famous "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue" quote.  He won't lose many, if any, diehard supporters over this.

The only place I can see it making a difference is among truly undecided voters, in either the primary or general election, trying to make up their minds at the last minute, and this could be the straw that tips them into voting for someone else or just sitting out.

On balance, I see at most a small negative electoral effect for Trump.

I think you're misconstrued too much of what people in the general voting populist versus the GOP Primary populace believe. This will be a boost for him in the primaries, but a negative for him in the general election.

[Badger]

I really don't understand why this is such a huge deal for some or why they're triggered. Just don't get it. Regardless of whether you like Trump's policies or not, at this point you need to accept that there's very strong evidence he broke multiple laws and on issues that aren't minor.

If he's really innocent as claims, let an investigation and trial happen. Whether he's a former POTUS or not is irrelevant. The law is the law. If anything, politicians should be held to higher standard that average Joe's, not to a lesser standard.

There's basically three kinds of conservatives responding to this.

Some, like OSR, fundamentally believe that the president should be above the law. He agrees that Trump broke the law, but thinks that he should get a free pass just because he was the president. These people are the "wishy-washy faux Never Trumpers".

Others sincerely believe that even if Trump is completely innocent of all crimes, and that any efforts to prosecute him are politically motivated and that the charges are 100% fabricated. These people are the "true believers".

And then a lot of them know that he's guilty, but don't care because they like Trump and agree with his politics. They're closer to Republican loyalists than Trump loyalists, and will change their arguments in half a second if they think that this is the way that the party is moving. They make similar arguments as the true believers group, but deep down know that Trump is guilty. They just don't care. They don't care about institutions or principles, all they care about is advancing the conservative agenda. These people are "the hacks".

I think you'll find that categories 1 and 3 have about a 98% overlap.

[Badger]

Hopefully the DA has been talked out of it.  Whatever you think of Trump, this leads nowhere good.  Would likely result in every former president being prosecuted going forward. 

This is equivalent to saying that former Presidents should be entitled to break laws with impunity.

We all break laws, mostly with impunity. You have assuredly committed multiple felonies over the last year. Most of them go uncharged, but if a DA doesn't like you, he'll find something.

I am extremely confident that I didn’t commit any felonies last year

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1638527927079034881

If this is true then this would be a massive own goal

>Fox News

Genetic Fallacy

Fox News has literally zero credibility. Get another source.

MSNBC is just as inaccurate so please don’t play this game .

"
Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously"

Why is it always projection with Republicans?

Their opinion hosts aren’t the same as their news hosts . There is a difference and yes we should know what is being referred to in that tweet

Dear childish hack. Please cite the instance where MSNBC was discovered to have vociferously and constantly reported "news" relying on "experts" where the journalists and editors universally privately believed were total BS and utter crackpots.

We'll wait.

[Badger]

Can we please unsticky this thread until when and if, probably the former, Trump is actually indicted?

[Badger]

The grand jury keeps getting more an more incompetent, yet an indictment is supposed to "hurt" him.

What the hell are you even talking about? What "incompetence" are you referring to?

All that happened is Trump claimed, out of the blue, that he was going to be arrested, and then he wasn't.

This times 10.

I'm going to tell you personally as a former full-time grand jury prosecutor. If a prosecutor asks a grand jury to indict a defendant on criminal charges a b and c, they will literally more than 99% of the time get the indictment they ask for.  Now, maybe this might be an exception because it is such an incredibly complex and high profile case, but I will surely bet you the only reason there is no indictment issued at this time is because Bragg hasn't asked for one.

So the only way Trump isn't getting indicted is if Bragg decides not to request one. Anyone want to bet the over / under on that?

[Badger]

Democrats want to run against Trump . Republican voters : You need to vote for DeSantis to ensure democrats don’t get what they want from this witch-hunt

Why is this a "witch hunt"?

Because beep boops mummy and daddy and many members of his family and friends of family voted for trump. And they couldn't have voted for someone who committed a crime!

[Badger]

Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.[/i]
- @GovRonDeSantis on Twitter; 3/30/2023

DeSantis has made Florida a sanctuary state.
Disgusting.

Just waiting for our resident Man Child DeSantis Pawn to come in with some sniveling excuse why this is acceptable.

[Badger]

DOJ reportedly 'irritated' by Manhattan DA's decision to indict Trump because they believe hush money charges are weak and could damage more serious Georgia electoral fraud and January 6 probes'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11922971/Justice-Department-irritated-Manhattan-DAs-indictment-Donald-Trump.html

Yeah, that sounds like a bunch of BS. Each case has no bearing on the other, and whether or not one case is stronger than another doesn't affect anything. The Georgia and 1/6 probes are their own things, they will proceed with or without an indictment on this issue.

Yeah I don't know why so many people, including a lot on the left, are saying stuff like "Democrats are fools for doing the NY charges first"... what does that even mean? The DOJ, Georgia, and NY aren't coordinating stuff lol, the investigations have nothing to do with each other.

''

You're niave if you believe the bolded.

Even Democrat Andrew Cuomo said: "It’s a coincidence that Bragg goes after Trump and Tish James goes after Trump and Georgia goes after Trump? That’s all a coincidence? I think it feeds the cynicism and that’s the cancer in our body politic right now."

Good point. That is if the sources for your evidence of collusion weren't a combination of pulled out of your ass and "Dude, trust me."

[Badger]

We may not even get to see the mugshot, depending on how the negotiations with Trump’s lawyers go.

How in the world is that up for negotiation with Trump's lawyers in the first place?

When ordinary people are arrested, there is no negotiation.

"Oh, but I don't want to have a mug shot officer, what if I..."

Apropos to this situation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0&t=92s

[Badger]

What I don't understand about the conservatives claiming that this is a political witch hunt... why did the grand jury vote to indict then? If Trump is so clearly innocent, then why didn't the grand jury see it that way? After all, they had access to all sorts of evidence and information that the public didn't. Are the jurors all in on it? Are they on the Soros payroll too?

To give the devil their due, as I think I've posted elsewhere, speaking as a former grand jury prosecutor if a prosecutor requests a grand jury to indict on counts ABC and d, they will literally over 99% of the time get the counts requested upon.
The old joke about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich if they so choose is absolutely correct. Put another way if a petite jury needs to find sufficient evidence that a house is burned down, a grand jury only needs to have evidence of smelling smoke

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1643415687396831236

You cannot support this clown and be a good person.

Judge Merchan was stupid for not instituting a gag order (even though Trump most likely would have ignored it).

He still can, and absolutely should.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1643415687396831236

You cannot support this clown and be a good person.

Judge Merchan was stupid for not instituting a gag order (even though Trump most likely would have ignored it).

He still can, and absolutely should.

Judge: "You have the right to remain silent."

DT: "I choose to waive that right."

Trump couldn't remain silent if doing so was necessary to avoid being hung, drawn, and quartered.

All the more reason the judge should impose a gag order. First off, I expect Trump will attempt to try this case the media more than literally any other case in our country's history, and the more he gets away with that the more he makes a mockery of the entire system and proceedings. Cases and above all defendants like this are the reason that completely constitutional gag orders were invented.

On a second purely personal and slightly greedy note, I'd love to see the order because it has noted Trump couldn't follow it if his life depended on it. Honestly think his chances of doing any jail time in this case would be at least as likely from a finding of contempt after he inevitably violates the gag order with repeated contempt hearings until the judge loses his patience and actually remains him to custody.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1643415687396831236

You cannot support this clown and be a good person.

Judge Merchan was stupid for not instituting a gag order (even though Trump most likely would have ignored it).

He still can, and absolutely should.

Judge: "You have the right to remain silent."

DT: "I choose to waive that right."

Trump couldn't remain silent if doing so was necessary to avoid being hung, drawn, and quartered.

All the more reason the judge should impose a gag order. First off, I expect Trump will attempt to try this case the media more than literally any other case in our country's history, and the more he gets away with that the more he makes a mockery of the entire system and proceedings. Cases and above all defendants like this are the reason that completely constitutional gag orders were invented.

On a second purely personal and slightly greedy note, I'd love to see the order because as noted Trump couldn't follow it if his life depended on it. I honestly think his chances of doing any jail time in this case would be at least as likely from a finding of contempt after he inevitably violates the gag order multiple times with repeated contempt hearings until the judge loses his patience and actually remands him to custody.

[Badger]

The third world is laughing at us:

<tweet deleted to save space>

In the countries that you’re talking about, do the prosecutors usually sit back and politely let said candidate finish serving out their entire term as President before filing the charges?

How many functioning democracies have a major party promoting the guy who launched an attack on the legislature to keep himself in office as their leading candidate in the next election?

Us and Brazil.

[Badger]

It's time to get back to the case at hand, after an interruption in the usual programming.

One major problem with the Bragg case is mixing and matching state and federal law. Using purported federal violations to extend the SOL for state violations causes considerable skepticism in elite legal circles. But now a new angle is the state bookkeeping fraud was to facilitate state tax fraud, state on state rather than state on federal.

The NYT article does not get very far in the weeds on this, so indulge me while I speculate a bit. Trump seemed to take a phony tax deduction by converting a non-deductible hush money payment into deductible legal services. Cohen converted a non-taxable reimbursement payment into pseudo taxable income for himself, and thus the gross up payment. The state might have ended up net with more tax revenue, but it was attended by fraud and involved switching taxpayers.

Normally a state would not be too motivated to pursue tax fraud where it made money, but nothing about this case is normal. Wheels within wheels within wheels. The new theory is confusingly pleaded, perhaps by design, but soon the prosecution will have to lay its cards on the table, and spill its guts: 

“What is going to happen now is that the prosecutors are obligated to disclose things in discovery,” he said. “Defense counsel will learn in discovery the nature of the elections laws violations and the tax issues that were raised by Mr. Bragg in his statement of facts.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/us/politics/trump-bookkeeping-fraud-taxes.html

Is the New York state statute of limitations for tax fraud longer than the 3 years for the feds?

[Badger]

Oh my God, can we stop with the weight stuff? Holy sh**t. It contributes less than nothing.

Dude, trust me. Just put one or two particular repeat offenders, one in particular, on ignore and your enjoyment level of this thread will skyrocket.