Merged So what's next for Trump?

[Derec]

Or perhaps the Jean Caroll rape case gets serious.

Jean Caroll is a nutcase, and her whole storyline is utterly unbelievable. It's UVA/Jackie Coakley/Rolling Stone "A rape on campus" for Boomers.
Ask yourself this - if she accused somebody not Trump, would you believed her "Kevin Pollack in L&O SVU" story? If she was targeting Biden or some other politician you actually liked?

Radical Republicans will pine for the good old days of the Stormy Daniels bribery case. November 2024 is a long way away. Trump will eventually be political roadd kill as everybody tires of Trumpo and GOP antics.

The Alvin Bragg case looks like a witchhunt and will likely help him politically.
The Georgia case is far more serious, though, and that one could bring him down.

A lot of far right media pundits and GOP politician hacks are shrieking about this in rather outrageous and apocalyptic terms. It is going to be fun to see this lot have to walk all of this partisan outrage back as all of these legal issues just get worse.

You do not have to be "partisan" to realize that this is a bad move, by a DA who is a disgrace to the office. A man who undercharges violent criminals and overcharges political enemies and shopkeepers who defend themselves from violent criminals.

 

[Derec]

Nobody cares about the sex with paid professionals.

Many do, on both sides of the aisle. On the Left, it is particularly the radical feminists who care very much (see Toni on this very forum. Also Frikki - whatever happened to him?)

Which is why Trump paid at least 2 women hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep quiet about it.

If they demanded payment, isn't that extortion? And they babbled anyway, so why is that not breach of contract?
It seems to me that Trump is the victim here. But of course, Bragg is known for going after victims he doesn't like.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg facing bipartisan calls to drop case against bodega clerk charged with murder

Nobody actually cares who he has sex with, so long as it is another consenting adult. Shit, if he just said he was going through a rough patch in his marriage, almost everybody would have shrugged their shoulders.

It doesn't really matter. The Clinton impeachment case was technically about perjury, but everybody remembers the oral sex. This case is technically about bookkeeping (boring!), but everybody focuses on the sex as well.

What made the US look bad was electing an obviously incompetent sociopath.

That is true, but beside the point in whether he should be charged with felonies in the Stormy Daniels payoff case.

What would make the US look worse is by not applying the rule of law to the highest elected (former) official in the country.

When you have a DA that is loathe to apply the law to violent criminals in his own jurisdiction, but is giddy to try a political opponent with a jurisdictionally questionable felony, that should raise eyebrows.
The Feds charged and convicted Cohen, but passed on Trump. So why is Bragg going after him now, except for him being a partisan hack?
The Georgia case is on much firmer ground, and Bragg should have given Fannie Willis precedence.

It's true. The Left are the last people to balk at a sex worker's line of work.

That is categorically not true. Many on the Left do balk at that. It is the Left in Sweden, France, Spain that has banned sex work. The Left in Iceland even went so far as to ban strip clubs. The Left does a lot of balking at sex work.

Clinton was impeached for waaay less by rabid Republicans who's goal it was to amplify every last detail about a blowjob to humiliate him.

And it backfired. I think that this will too.
But I am not so sure it was "waay less" given that Monica Lewinsky was technically a subordinate and he did the deed while in office, whereas Trump was a private citizen at the time.

Besides, he really only seems "cool" to the core MAGA idiots, and maybe as in Dr. Zs case, those who don't really know what he's about.

Trump is definitely not "cool" in my eyes. At the same time, the body shaming by Stormy, and cheering on of that body shaming by the Left is distasteful. As is this questionable prosecution. And it's a distraction from things like the Georgia case.

 

[Elixir]

That is true, but beside the point in whether he should be charged with felonies in the Stormy Daniels payoff case.

You mean should have been charged.
Anyone speculating on that without even knowing what Cheato is charged with and on what basis, is blowing smoke. All we know for sure is that 12 impartial jurors unanimously agreed that he should be charged, based on evidence that nobody outside the grand jury hearings knows in full.

 

[Elixir]

body shaming by the Left is distasteful. As is this questionable prosecution

What is questionable about this prosecution? INDIVIDUAL-1 was already named co-conspirator in a felony.
I’d say you need exceptional evidence of malfeasance to call the prosecution of INDIVIDUAL-1 ”questionable” - especially since you don’t even know what charges have been filed or any of the evidence or testimony supporting them.
You’re blowing RW smoke.

It’s great that your side doesn’t include anyone who indulges in body shaming.

 

[Derec]

What is questionable about this prosecution? INDIVIDUAL-1 was already named co-conspirator in a felony.

Because federal campaign laws are not Bragg's bailiwick. Crime, particularly violent crime, in Manhattan is. He should focus on that for a change.

I’d say you need exceptional evidence of malfeasance

No. It is Bragg who needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, unless his case gets dismissed by a judge, which is a possibility.

 

[Elixir]

Because federal campaign laws are not Bragg's bailiwick.

He isn’t prosecuting federal crimes, duh.

Crime, particularly violent crime, in Manhattan is. He should focus on that for a change.

If he could stop cheats like Cheato he might have more funds to go after window breakers and shoplifters. But you’re probably thinking he should get the muggers, and leave the mobsters alone to steal from EVERYONE.
If Bragg didn‘t believe he would win his case based on the evidence he probably wouldn’t have risked his career on it. And I know it’s barely possible, but you should consider that he might know more about that than you do.

 

[Derec]

You mean should have been charged.

Playing semantic games now?

Anyone speculating on that without even knowing what Cheato is charged with and on what basis, is blowing smoke.

Sure. Maybe he shot somebody on 5th Ave. But overwhelming chances are that the charges are about Trump's payoff to that babbling extortionist Stormy Daniels.

All we know for sure is that 12 impartial jurors unanimously agreed that he should be charged, based on evidence that nobody outside the grand jury hearings knows in full.

LMAO at "impartial", esp. in a high profile case like this. And it is well known that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Besides, you are wrong on how grand juries work. Grand juries in NY normally have 23 people on them (but 16 is the minimum quorum), and they do not have to be unanimous. Bragg only needed 12 jurors to indict.

 

[laughing dog]

Part of Trump's legal problem is not the seamy little payoff itself. But illegal diversion of campaign funds to Stormy Daniels. This is conspiracy to commit fraud. Conspiracy can very well be a felony.

But aren't campaign laws federal? Michael Cohen was tried in federal court. Federal prosecutors passed on prosecuting Trump in this matter though.
Also, why isn't Stormy Daniels prosecuted for extortion? And/or sued for breach of contract? He paid her hush money, and yet she babbled to anybody who would listen. And in a way that is body shaming and would be attacked if anybody spoke that way about any woman, esp. a female politician. Imagine if Hillary or Fauxcahontas had paid James Deen or somebody like that hush money after a sexual affair, and he nevertheless started blabbing and making fun about how she looked naked, including particulars about the shape of her genitals. The feminist Left would go apoplectic calling him misogynist etc. And yet they are cheering Stormy on for making fun of Trump's junk.
I don't particularly like Trump, but this whole sordid affair - and blatant double standards surrounding it - is making me more sympathetic toward him.

Of course it does. Ignoring the pointless "whataboutism" in your response, I am curious should anyone who espouses law and order think that criminal business fraud be ignored? Is it because Mr. Trump got some nooky from a porn actress?

 

[Derec]

He isn’t prosecuting federal crimes, duh.

He is bringing up felony charges based on an alleged federal crime. If a judge disallows that, the whole case collapses.

If he could stop cheats like Cheato he might have more funds to go after window breakers and shoplifters.

His lack of felony prosecution for armed robbers is not due to lack of funds, but due to his far-left ideology.

But you’re probably thinking he should get the muggers, and leave the mobsters alone to steal from EVERYONE.

Why not both? What he should not do is go after political opponents for political reasons.

If Bragg didn‘t believe he would win his case based on the evidence he probably wouldn’t have risked his career on it. And I know it’s barely possible, but you should consider that he might know more about that than you do.

I doubt voters in Manhatten will vote him out because he was gunning for Trump and missed.
They should vote him out for his attitudes about violent crime.

 

[Derec]

He isn’t prosecuting federal crimes, duh.

He is bringing up felony charges based on an alleged federal crime. If a judge disallows that, the whole case collapses.

If he could stop cheats like Cheato he might have more funds to go after window breakers and shoplifters.

His lack of felony prosecution for armed robbers is not due to lack of funds, but due to his far-left ideology.

But you’re probably thinking he should get the muggers, and leave the mobsters alone to steal from EVERYONE.

Why not both? What he should not do is go after political opponents for political reasons.

If Bragg didn‘t believe he would win his case based on the evidence he probably wouldn’t have risked his career on it.

I doubt voters in Manhatten will vote him out because he was gunning for Trump and missed.
They should vote him out for his attitudes about violent crime.

And I know it’s barely possible, but you should consider that he might know more about that than you do.

Does Bragg know more about law than I do? Of course he does.
Does he care far less about law than about politics? Equally emphatically: of course he does.

 

[laughing dog]

But that’s a federal offense, not something that the Manhattan DA has any authority over.

And this DA is one of those fauxgressive prosecutors who is loathe to bring felony charges even for violent crimes completely within his bailiwick, such as armed robbery.
Knife-wielding suspect has felony charge reduced under Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s policies

You are misinformed. Within a month of that decision, Bragg reversed the policy (Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg reverses pair of controversial policies )

 

[Elixir]

Playing semantic games now?

Nope. Telling it like it is. Your boy has been indicted. There is open question about whether and when he should be indicted again. Grand juries will decide, not RW bloviators.

overwhelming chances are that the charges are about Trump's payoff to that babbling extortionist Stormy Daniels.

Nope. More likely it’s about falsifying business records in furtherance of a presidential campaign.

Extortion is a crime BTW. Your boy’s lawyers would by suing and screaming to high heaven if there was one shred of credible evidence of extortion. But just keep babbling; Cheato needs people like you.

 

[Ford]

Because federal campaign laws are not Bragg's bailiwick.

He isn’t prosecuting federal crimes, duh.

Crime, particularly violent crime, in Manhattan is. He should focus on that for a change.

If he could stop cheats like Cheato he might have more funds to go after window breakers and shoplifters. But you’re probably thinking he should get the muggers, and leave the mobsters alone to steal from EVERYONE.
If Bragg didn‘t believe he would win his case based on the evidence he probably wouldn’t have risked his career on it. And I know it’s barely possible, but you should consider that he might know more about that than you do.

It's funny how right wingers think Bragg is the only one working on crime in New York. The NY DA's office is huge. They pursue rather a lot of crime, all at one time. Trump is just one of many criminals they're prosecuting.

 

[Elixir]

You are misinformed. Within a month of that decision, Bragg reversed the policy (Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg reverses pair of controversial policies )

Massively misinformed. Our ”I’m not a trumpsucker” thinks Bragg should be out gumshoeing it and preventing Property Damage instead of prosecuting white collar crimes. But he already got $2m out of Trump (that’s a good bit of Property Damage) for stealing from his own charity so he knows what a scumbag Trump is, and is familiar with his evasions. He knows Trump will easily convince rubes like our esteemed misinformed seer, to oppose and criticize him. But he is proceeding nonetheless so I would guess he has Cheato dead to rights for something of note.

 

[Copernicus]

But aren't campaign laws federal? Michael Cohen was tried in federal court. Federal prosecutors passed on prosecuting Trump in this matter though...

Michael Cohen was tried in federal court, but every state has campaign and election laws. In the state of New York, state election campaign laws apply explicitly to federal elections. If you have a problem with that, think about the Georgia case against him--state law. Think about the stupid electoral presidential system in the US--different laws in every state, including all of the voter suppression laws that Republicans love so much. Bragg can link the prosecution to state election law, so Trump will need to fight any evidence suggesting that his hush money was used to help him with his election, not just to keep out of trouble with his third wife, who likely knew his past history of cheating on marriages.

See NY Times article on this subject:

Here are the legal intricacies that could make or break the case against Trump.​

 

[EricH]

From a European perspective I think this "scandal" reads like this. Trump is awesome and fucks porn stars. Democrats are pathetic moralists who can't deal with a guy enjoying life a little.

This entire indictment makes USA look bad.

Hi.
I disagree. Based on what has been reported so far in the press, it appears that the charges are related to two distinct lines of inquiry:
1. Misreporting the money spent on the payments to Ms Daniels as corporate business expenses on Mr Trump's and the Trump organization's taxes, and
2. Violation of federal campaign finance laws that limit the amount an individual can contribute to a political campaign and how such contributions are reported, in an effort to allow Mr Trump to win the 2016 election.

The charges are not related to Mr Trump having an extramarital affair with Ms Daniels, which, in itself, is not illegal in the US.

The charges will be revealed in court when Mr Trump is indicted, so this is speculation on my part. I also suspect that there is more to the story than what we know right now.

I'm not sure what you find objectionable. Shouldn't people be held accountable for their criminal actions? Should we give Mr Trump a pass just because he was President? And how does any of this make the US look bad?

 

[SLD]

Part of Trump's legal problem is not the seamy little payoff itself. But illegal diversion of campaign funds to Stormy Daniels. This is conspiracy to commit fraud. Conspiracy can very well be a felony.

But aren't campaign laws federal? Michael Cohen was tried in federal court. Federal prosecutors passed on prosecuting Trump in this matter though.
Also, why isn't Stormy Daniels prosecuted for extortion? And/or sued for breach of contract? He paid her hush money, and yet she babbled to anybody who would listen. And in a way that is body shaming and would be attacked if anybody spoke that way about any woman, esp. a female politician. Imagine if Hillary or Fauxcahontas had paid James Deen or somebody like that hush money after a sexual affair, and he nevertheless started blabbing and making fun about how she looked naked, including particulars about the shape of her genitals. The feminist Left would go apoplectic calling him misogynist etc. And yet they are cheering Stormy on for making fun of Trump's junk.
I don't particularly like Trump, but this whole sordid affair - and blatant double standards surrounding it - is making me more sympathetic toward him.

1). Trump’s charges are about business fraud due to falsification of business records. The campaign finance laws come into it because falsification of business records is a felony if it is done in furtherance of another crime. It’s undeniable that this did happen, since Cohen pled guilty to it. It only remains to connect Trump to the deed.

2) Stormy didn’t commit extortion. She was offered the money through the national enquirer who would have exclusive publishing rights, although Pecker intended to bury it. She can’t sell her story to another news outlet. That’s all. Nothing prevents her from telling the story. That’s not extortion.

3) If you can find someone who had an affair with Hillary Clinton or Sen. Warren, then, and only then, can you claim a double standard. Until then, just read the details. It’s all in the news.

And this DA is one of those fauxgressive prosecutors who is loathe to bring felony charges even for violent crimes completely within his bailiwick, such as armed robbery.
Knife-wielding suspect has felony charge reduced under Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s policies
And now he is bringing felony charges on dubious jurisdictional grounds for payment of hush money. That strengths the claims that this is really a political prosecution of a political enemy.

Tell you what go commit an armed robbery in Manhattan and see what happens. And Trump could easily get these charges reduced to a misdemeanor. But he’d have to plead guilty. No jail time. Happens all the time. Seen it.

 

[Ford]

3) If you can find someone who had an affair with Hillary Clinton or Sen. Warren, then, and only then, can you claim a double standard. Until then, just read the details. It’s all in the news.

Yeah...about that...

Speaking of double standards, I'd like to bring up the only other President in all our lifetimes that was impeached. People can quibble about whether it was about a blowjob or lying about a blowjob, but you can't argue that the Republican Party didn't make Bill Clinton's infidelity a part of their campaigns in the 90s. In fact, the GOP rebranded themselves as the "Party of Family Values" years before Clinton even began his affair with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky." To say they leaned into it is the understatement of the last decade of the 20th Century. A person who stepped out on their spouse simply didn't have the moral character to be President of the United States according to the 90's GOP. When George W. Bush was set to succeed Clinton as President, Republicans suggested that the Oval Office be deep-cleaned to "remove the stain of infidelity" from that "sacred" space. "OMG, he cheated on his WIFE!!!"

At the moment, the far and away front-runner for the 2024 Presidential nomination and a man who is the de facto leader of the GOP - former President Trump - (draws deep breath):

Cheated on his first wife with his second wife.

Cheated on his second wife with his third.

Cheated on his third wife with a porn star while said third wife was home with their newborn son.

Paid off said porn star to keep the infidelity secret so that he could secure the nomination and win for the GOP.

The "Party of Family Values" then spun around 180 degrees multiple times and told us all that their leader didn't need to be held to account because that was "part of his personal life, and was nobody's business."


Double standards? Really? Really...

 

[Patooka]

Of course it does. Ignoring the pointless "whataboutism" in your response, I am curious should anyone who espouses law and order think that criminal business fraud be ignored? Is it because Mr. Trump got some nooky from a porn actress?

If I can understand Derec's line of reasoning, New York hasn't prosecuted enough "other" people so Trump should get a walk.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Trumpo digs himself a deeper hole. It is almost as if he wants to end up in a prison cell. There is something mentally very wrong with Trump.

.....
The Washington Post reported Sunday afternoon that more evidence might have become available to prove obstructions of justice for the theft of the government documents taken back to Mar-a-Lago.

"Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes," the Post said, citing their sources. "While Trump’s team returned some documents with classified markings in response to the subpoena, a later FBI search found more than 100 additional classified items that had not been turned over."

DOJ warrant cites fresh evidence Trump may have moved his documents around to hide them after FBI searches

The Washington Post reported Sunday afternoon that more evidence might have become available to prove obstructions of justice for the theft of the government documents taken back to Mar-a-Lago. Trump refused to turn the documents over for nearly a year when the Justice Department and FBI got...

www.rawstory.com