Trump Presidency

[yankeehater]

Prove innocence? Our government officials are hopelessly stupid.

Scary when such a high-ranking career politician believes it is the defense who must prove innocence.

 

[GoIrish41]

It will be interesting to see how long this is drug out before they actually get into a courtroom. With so many indictments you wonder if they can get a conviction on all of them or is this the DA filing so many to make sure he gets one or two? Regardless I don’t see him spending time behind bars.

The NFL moved the goal posts from the goal line to the back of the end zone in 1974.

 

[IrishLax]

Can anyone give me a one sentence answer on why Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes a grand jury thinks there is evidence that he committed?

 

[Irish#1]

The NFL moved the goal posts from the goal line to the back of the end zone in 1974.

Who's moving the goal post? If the evidence is there, prosecute him, but if you think this is going to be taken care of relatively quickly and handled as if he was a guy who owned a couple of restaurants and committed the fraud you're sadly mistaken. And yes, if found guilty, I will be surprised if he spends time behind bars.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Can anyone give me a one sentence answer on why Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes a grand jury thinks there is evidence that he committed?

This statement made by James Comey back when it was fairly obvious that Hillary broke the law seems to answer your question.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

Ultimately, in any case, but especially with a former President, the prosecutor should be weighing the likelihood of getting a conviction. I'm sure there are lots of times prosecutors think to themselves, "I think I have enough evidence to probably get an indictment, but I have close to zero chance of getting a conviction" and so they choose to not proceed.

This case has some similarities to the John Edwards case that was unsuccessful when he was Federally indicted. The Justice Department refused to pursue Trump federally because I'm assuming they recognized the likelihood of getting a conviction and weighed the political fallout of pursuing an indictment. This is a State prosecutor who has had to do some legal maneuvering in this case to potentially prosecute him at the State level. It's kind of unprecedented.

The Trump Indictment: Making History in the Worst Possible Way

Below is my column in Fox.com on the Trump indictment. There is a report of 34 counts against former President Donald Trump, which may be count stacking based on individual payments or documents. W…

jonathanturley.org

The only crime that has been discussed in this case is an unprecedented attempt to revive a misdemeanor for falsifying business documents that expired years ago. If that is still the basis of Thursday’s indictment, Bragg could not have raised a weaker basis to prosecute a former president. If reports are accurate, he may attempt to “bootstrap” the misdemeanor into a felony (and longer statute of limitations) by alleging an effort to evade federal election charges.

I have zero love for Donald Trump. If he committed a crime and they can get a conviction of Donald Trump I hope he disappears from political life.

 

[Irish#1]

Good read. Raises a lot of questions, especially since a lot of what Bragg is filing on is the same stuff the Feds decided not to pursue.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Good read. Raises a lot of questions, especially since a lot of what Bragg is filing on is the same stuff the Feds decided not to pursue.

Frankly, it's over my head. The combination of State and Federal laws, statute of limitations has ended. But if we bootstrap this State misdemeanor to this Federal election law we can create a felony and now the statute of limitations hasn't expired. My head starts swimming.

From what Turley has mentioned, he thinks the Georgia case has more legal credence and the chances higher for some kind of eventual conviction.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Can anyone give me a one sentence answer on why Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes a grand jury thinks there is evidence that he committed?

Because if they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone.

Not really me because I don't commit obvious crimes in public like some stupid slapdick. In fact, I don't commit any crimes at all, so I'm probably straight for life, bruv.

But, yeah, seriously. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you, because he's an every man just like us.

 

[yankeehater]

Can anyone give me a one sentence answer on why Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes a grand jury thinks there is evidence that he committed?

We will know more once the charges are revealed. This case has reportedly been looked at three time including at the Federal level and even once by Bragg and all chose not to pursue charges until now. What changed? To indict a sitting or former President for the first time in our countries history there better be more than what appears on the surface. We know Bragg ran on prosecuting Trump and even had employees quit underneath him when at first he declined to indict because of this fact. That doesn't sound politically motivated?!?! I heard someone yesterday call Bragg a modern day Soros' slave because the speculation is Soros and possibly the DOJ got to him changing his mind. I know the Republicans are trying to get him to testify to find out. We will hopefully know more soon. I hope for the sake of our country this is just not a political witch hunt.

What is the old saying, You can indict a ham sandwich if that is what you wanted.

 

[TorontoGold]

@NorthDakota Can you walk us through how someone can get a 30+ indictment charge on a relatively straightforward scheme? It seems wild that he could rack up 30+ counts.

The election campaign stuff I don't understand at all, but the potential tax crimes from the $150K stuff are insane because if that's the case then I am on my way to the nearest Buffalo courthouse. I've had countless moron clients go through audits for improper tax treatments of expenses for exponentially higher amounts. The inflation of building values can (IMO) be the only thing that would lead them to tax fraud stuff because that it is on a much grander scale than some pornstar pay off.

 

[ab2cmiller]

@NorthDakota Can you walk us through how someone can get a 30+ indictment charge on a relatively straightforward scheme? It seems wild that he could rack up 30+ counts.

The election campaign stuff I don't understand at all, but the potential tax crimes from the $150K stuff are insane because if that's the case then I am on my way to the nearest Buffalo courthouse. I've had countless moron clients go through audits for improper tax treatments of expenses for exponentially higher amounts. The inflation of building values can (IMO) be the only thing that would lead them to tax fraud stuff because that it is on a much grander scale than some pornstar pay off.

I don't think it's been disclosed what all the counts are, we will have to wait and see.

Turley's take again on the 34 counts from the same article I linked above.

While other crimes have not been discussed in leaks or coverage for months, it is always possible that Bragg charged Trump on something other than the state/federal hybrid issue in his indictment. There could be other business or tax record charges linked to banks or taxes. Ironically, the bank and tax fraud issues were also a focus of the Justice Department, which again did not charge on those theories. Moreover, Bragg could face the same statute of limitation concerns on some of the issues previously investigated by the Justice Department.

Finally, Bragg could stack multiple falsification claims to ramp up the indictment. There are reports of 34 counts of business record falsification. But multiplying a flawed theory 34 times does not make it 34 times stronger. Serial repetition is no substitute for viable criminal charges.

It all goes back to this untested theory of trying to link State and Federal Election laws. All of which I still don't totally understand. If they can convince a judge and jury that there is legal justification, then the 34 counts might have some effect on sentencing, But having 5 counts vs 34 counts (if they are simply the same type of count) is probably mostly meaningless. as it relates to getting a conviction.

 

[Redbar]

The reason it was not pursued by the Feds is that he was a sitting president at the time and it is almost impossible to bring a federal charge against the head of the federal government. It was not because there was no merit or that the Feds did not think a crime had been committed. Someone was charged by the Feds and did serve time on the same exact fact pattern, but he was not the sitting president.

 

[NorthDakota]

@NorthDakota Can you walk us through how someone can get a 30+ indictment charge on a relatively straightforward scheme? It seems wild that he could rack up 30+ counts.

The election campaign stuff I don't understand at all, but the potential tax crimes from the $150K stuff are insane because if that's the case then I am on my way to the nearest Buffalo courthouse. I've had countless moron clients go through audits for improper tax treatments of expenses for exponentially higher amounts. The inflation of building values can (IMO) be the only thing that would lead them to tax fraud stuff because that it is on a much grander scale than some pornstar pay off.

I dont really know how this works. I dont deal with criminal law really. Would need to see the indictments! But the first thought that came into my head is that they "falsified" several business records as a result of the hush money.

Most of the legal commentators (left and right) seem to be rolling their eyes. I guess we will see.

 

[NorthDakota]

The reason it was not pursued by the Feds is that he was a sitting president at the time and it is almost impossible to bring a federal charge against the head of the federal government. It was not because there was no merit or that the Feds did not think a crime had been committed. Someone was charged by the Feds and did serve time on the same exact fact pattern, but he was not the sitting president.

Feds could've charged him after he left office though?

SDNY has a reputation though for not bringing charges unless its a slam dunk. It would be a career ending defeat to swing at the (former) king and miss.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't think it's been disclosed what all the counts are, we will have to wait and see.

Turley's take again on the 34 counts from the same article I linked above.


It all goes back to this untested theory of trying to link State and Federal Election laws. All of which I still don't totally understand. If they can convince a judge and jury that there is legal justification, then the 34 counts might have some effect on sentencing, But having 5 counts vs 34 counts (if they are simply the same type of count) is probably mostly meaningless. as it relates to getting a conviction.

Ayyy glad my brain went to the same place as Turley.

 

[Irish#1]

Frankly, it's over my head. The combination of State and Federal laws, statute of limitations has ended. But if we bootstrap this State misdemeanor to this Federal election law we can create a felony and now the statute of limitations hasn't expired. My head starts swimming.

From what Turley has mentioned, he thinks the Georgia case has more legal credence and the chances higher for some kind of eventual conviction.

Yep. We're going to need one of those boards with post it notes and pictures you always see in the TV crime shows just to have a general idea of how this works.

While it didn't say it specifically, the article kind of inferred that some of these charges might be questionable from a legal standpoint.

 

[Irish#1]

The reason it was not pursued by the Feds is that he was a sitting president at the time and it is almost impossible to bring a federal charge against the head of the federal government. It was not because there was no merit or that the Feds did not think a crime had been committed. Someone was charged by the Feds and did serve time on the same exact fact pattern, but he was not the sitting president.

Any idea why they didn't pursue it after he left office?

 

[Irish#1]

Feds could've charged him after he left office though?

SDNY has a reputation though for not bringing charges unless its a slam dunk. It would be a career ending defeat to swing at the (former) king and miss.

Well after deciding not to pursue, it looks like he was influenced to pursue, so maybe it's not a slam dunk?

 

[Irish#1]

Let's say Trump gets convicted and is sentenced to serve time in jail. Imagine the expense and nightmare of housing him. I would imagine he would still have the protection of the Secret Service. You couldn't put him in the general population.

 

[GATTACA!]

Let's say Trump gets convicted and is sentenced to serve time in jail. Imagine the expense and nightmare of housing him. I would imagine he would still have the protection of the Secret Service. You couldn't put him in the general population.

Solitary it is!

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Can anyone give me a one sentence answer on why Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes a grand jury thinks there is evidence that he committed?

 

[GATTACA!]

I refuse to believe that's real.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

@NorthDakota Can you walk us through how someone can get a 30+ indictment charge on a relatively straightforward scheme? It seems wild that he could rack up 30+ counts.

The election campaign stuff I don't understand at all, but the potential tax crimes from the $150K stuff are insane because if that's the case then I am on my way to the nearest Buffalo courthouse. I've had countless moron clients go through audits for improper tax treatments of expenses for exponentially higher amounts. The inflation of building values can (IMO) be the only thing that would lead them to tax fraud stuff because that it is on a much grander scale than some pornstar pay off.

I think there is more to it than just the payoff which seems to be what MAGA world is losing their shot over. I think it will be more charges related to the way the books were done and paying back Cohen and such to hide the payment which may have revealed a system of fraud practices on the whole. Just a theory.

 

[chisea03]

I think there is more to it than just the payoff which seems to be what MAGA world is losing their shot over. I think it will be more charges related to the way the books were done and paying back Cohen and such to hide the payment which may have revealed a system of fraud practices on the whole. Just a theory.

Each payment made by trump to Cohen as repayment, occurred while as the sitting president. And remember, trump’s DOJ declared this act as a crime. Hence, Cohen went to prison.

 

[chisea03]

Yep. We're going to need one of those boards with post it notes and pictures you always see in the TV crime shows just to have a general idea of how this works.

While it didn't say it specifically, the article kind of inferred that some of these charges might be questionable from a legal standpoint.

Each payment to Cohen is considered as 11 separate charges. There maybe inclusion of the payment to Karen McDougal as well. State taxes etc…

He wasn’t charged while office or after because the Dems needed four votes to proceed but the Republicans would not help even though they agreed that trump committed multiple crimes.

 

[NorthDakota]

Death, taxes, and cack falling for fake tweets.

 

[NorthDakota]

I refuse to believe that's real.

It says "parody" so your instinct is correct.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Lindsey looks like he ready to cry. Can’t stop won’t stop with the grift.

 

[chisea03]

 

[NorthDakota]

I think there is more to it than just the payoff which seems to be what MAGA world is losing their shot over. I think it will be more charges related to the way the books were done and paying back Cohen and such to hide the payment which may have revealed a system of fraud practices on the whole. Just a theory.

Occam's Razor says its a lot of duplication. Not some massive ezplosive discovery of separate criminal conduct.

MAGA world is losing their minds because it's a political hit job. They are also trying to stir up outrage to get support/energize.