Merged So what's next for Trump?

[Derec]

The case has nothing to do with sex . . . nor with the hush money had it been accounted as required by law.

As I said - a bookkeeping issue. Is it really in the interests of justice to charge a felony for this?

And would Bragg charge a Democrat with a felony under similar circumstances? I seriously doubt it, as the whole point of this prosecution is political.

 

[ZiprHead]

And would Bragg charge a Democrat with a felony under similar circumstances? I seriously doubt it, as the whole point of this prosecution is political.

Do you have proof of this or is this just conjecture pulled from your nether regions?

 

[Derec]

Ignoring the pointless "whataboutism" in your response,

Pointing out sexist and partisan double standards is not "whataboutism".

I am curious should anyone who espouses law and order think that criminal business fraud be ignored?

Ignored? No. But the statute of limitations ran out on the false bookkeeping entry. So Bragg is using questionable legal maneuvering to charge a felony and get around it.
Even the far left, anti-white racist lawyer Elie Mystal, writing for equally far left The Nation calls Braggs effort to make this into felony "legal contortions".

Is it because Mr. Trump got some nooky from a porn actress?

Would it have been better if it were a White House intern?
For the record, I think both the Clinton impeachment and this prosecution are ridiculous.

 

[Derec]

Do you have proof of this or is this just conjecture pulled from your nether regions?

When I say "I seriously doubt it" then that prefaces an opinion, not something one has "proof" for. That said, we know enough about what kind of man Bragg is that this opinion being true is very likely.
Do you disagree? Do you really think he'd charge a Democrat like Elliott Spitzer or Andrew Cuomo with felonies over misreporting a hush money payment in some filing? Seriously?

 

[Derec]

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

I am not misinformed. That he reversed his policy due to considerable pressure does not change the fact that he instituted the policy and downgraded felony charges for armed robbery. It shows what he thinks what crimes should or should not be prosecuted as felonies.

 

[Derec]

Nope. Telling it like it is. Your boy has been indicted.

You could not tell it like it is if your life depended on it.
First off, Trump is not "my boy". I did not vote for him either time. I do not plan to vote for him again. And I fear this prosecution will backfire and make him more popular.

There is open question about whether and when he should be indicted again. Grand juries will decide, not RW bloviators.

The problem is that many DAs, including Bragg, are LW bloviators. And a prosecutor can get a proverbial ham sandwich indicted by a grand jury, so that's not really saying much.

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

For all the legal contortions (Elie Mystal's words, not mine), the underlying issue is still the hush money payment to a babbling porn star.

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.

I agree that it is a crime. She should be investigated for this.

But just keep babbling; Cheato needs people like you.

I would say he needs people like you and Bragg. It is unlikely a jury trial will be done by the time of the election, and no way it will be done by the time for the primaries. If anything, the circus that Bragg commissioned will make Trump more popular.
One note on "Cheato". You far leftists have been calling Trump that since the 2016 election, even though he beat your girl fair and square. It says more about you - i.e. being sore losers - than about him. 2020 was different as he lost and showed himself a sore loser as well.

Btw, I could not stomach voting for either of them in 2016. It was truly a "giant douche vs. turn sandwich" election.

 

[Elixir]

I said - a bookkeeping issue.

As I said, that’s woefully wrong and ignorant. Bookkeeping “errors” are misdemeanors- UNLESS done in furtherance of a crime.

 

[Derec]

It's funny how right wingers think Bragg is the only one working on crime in New York.

It's only "funny" to you because you are amused by knocking down flimsy straw men you erect.
Neither I, nor any "right wingers" believe that. Nor has anybody said anything approaching that.

The NY DA's office is huge.

You don't say. Of course the Manhattan DA's office is huge. But the DA sets policy for all his ADAs etc. He decides what kind of crimes get charged or not, and whether felonies get downgraded to misdemeanors etc. Therefore, the buck stops with him.

They pursue rather a lot of crime, all at one time.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Trump is just one of many criminals they're prosecuting.

You misspelled "suspects". Innocent until proven guilty still applies. Even in New York County.

 

[Derec]

Massively misinformed.

Says the guy who was utterly ignorant of how grand juries work. You thought it had 12 people on it and that they had to be unanimous, like the petit juries.
Again, I am not misinformed here. I know Bragg runs a "yuge" office and is not personally "gumshoeing".

Our ”I’m not a trumpsucker”

Definitely not. Never voted for him. Never will. But your boy Bragg still may get him reelected.

thinks Bragg should be out gumshoeing it and preventing Property Damage instead of prosecuting white collar crimes.

Nobody said anything about Bragg "gumshoeing". But yes, his office should be prosecuting property damage. Btw, why do left-wingers think property damage is only bad if it affects Nancy Pelosi or an abortion clinic? His office should also be going after violent criminals such as armed robbers, carjackers etc. Instead he is giving criminals deals:
Gangbanger tied to high-end NYC heists gets sweetheart deal from DA Alvin Bragg
What his office should not be doing is going after people because they are a political enemy based of half-cooked legal theories that even some commentators on the left are scratching their heads about.

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.

What evidence he has remains to be seen. It is also possible a judge disallows the felony, which would leave Bragg with nothing.

 

[Derec]

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,

A lot of legal commentators have a problem with that.
Many Top NYC Attorneys Loathe Trump — But Don’t Like Bragg’s Chances

think about the Georgia case against him--state law.

I am not a lawyer, but what commentary I have heard and read, the Georgia case is considered much stronger on its merits. Unfortunately, Fani Willis and Fulton County DA's office have their hands full with another high profile case (rapper Young Thug and his YSL record label/criminal gang; the jury selection in that case has been dragging on for almost three months now).

See NY Times article on this subject:

I see it.

A New York Times review and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York state prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign. Bringing an untested case against anyone, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or narrow the case.

Although the NY Times writers are more favorably inclined toward Bragg than most I have seen, even they acknowledge that there are problems. That's why both the federal prosecutors and the politically more moderate former Manhattan DA passed on indicting Trump.

​

 

[Derec]

Gotta go for now, but here's some sage advice for Alvin Bragg.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

There was no demand for payment. There was an offer of payment for exclusive rights to the story.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/new...se-against-bodega-worker-charged-with-murder/

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.

He was not allowed to go after His Flatulence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is funny how obsessed with the sex angle of Daniels you are, when we really don't give a fuck that he fucked Daniels. The problem with Daniels is the falsification of documents to hide a payment to her. If I try to open up a bank account under a fake name, I can get into trouble. If I try to get a credit card under a false identity, that can get me (and anyone else in here) into trouble. Why should Trump be able to get away with fraud? Just because he committed worse crimes?

I actually care somewhat--because he felt the need to hide it. I have a problem with a politician that thinks their record needs to be hidden even if I have no problem with what's in that record. The main issue, though, is how he hid it.

 

[Copernicus]

The case has nothing to do with sex . . . nor with the hush money had it been accounted as required by law.

As I said - a bookkeeping issue. Is it really in the interests of justice to charge a felony for this?

So was Al Capone's crime, wasn't it? It's a shame that so many good people get charged with bookkeeping errors that look like crimes. In this case, it looks like the hush money was a "bookkeeping error" paid off to cover up campaign finance crimes, and the idiot running for office actually happened to sign some of the checks that became some of the trail of evidence in the bookkeeping coverup hush money incident. But the guy is a Republican, so you think he should get off because there is corruption in the world and Republicans should be let off the hook for crimes and coverups that you think Democrats may have gotten away with. Fair's fair, right?

And would Bragg charge a Democrat with a felony under similar circumstances? I seriously doubt it, as the whole point of this prosecution is political.

I don't know, but I believe that Bragg likely would charge a prominent Democrat for a similar crime, if he thought he had sufficient evidence to convict. After all, the man is a prosecutor who wants to get elected to public office, and high profile wins are the opposite of a problem for him. However, you admit that this is just your personal opinion and that you have no other reason than conjecture to make such claims. Why would you expect liberals and Democrats to feel the same way as you? You keep asking as if you expected some kind of affirmation. Bragg actually took a lot of heat for shutting down what looked like an imminent indictment of Trump when Bragg first took office, so he wasn't expected to actually see the grand jury investigation through to this conclusion.

 

[Copernicus]

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,

A lot of legal commentators have a problem with that.
Many Top NYC Attorneys Loathe Trump — But Don’t Like Bragg’s Chances

These are primarily defense lawyers without access to the secret testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury that approved the indictment. Many are primed to criticize prosecutors, since their job is to litigate against prosecutions. The fact remains that Bragg did not follow the advice of top prosecutors conducting the Vance probe when he first took over from Vance. That triggered resignations and cause howls of rage from many Democrats. So Bragg isn't afraid to buck popular sentiment among Democrats. Apparently, Bragg agreed with these commentators before now. You can also find commentators saying that Bragg must feel he has a solid case. Otherwise, he wouldn't have proceeded with the indictment.

think about the Georgia case against him--state law.

I am not a lawyer, but what commentary I have heard and read, the Georgia case is considered much stronger on its merits. Unfortunately, Fani Willis and Fulton County DA's office have their hands full with another high profile case (rapper Young Thug and his YSL record label/criminal gang; the jury selection in that case has been dragging on for almost three months now).

OTOH, the Republican legislature and governor of Georgia have given themselves the power to summarily remove the prosecutor, which would pretty much terminate that probe. I'm guessing that this possibility is making the prosecutor think long and carefully about bringing an indictment no matter how strong her case.

See NY Times article on this subject:

I see it.

A New York Times review and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York state prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign. Bringing an untested case against anyone, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or narrow the case.

Although the NY Times writers are more favorably inclined toward Bragg than most I have seen, even they acknowledge that there are problems. That's why both the federal prosecutors and the politically more moderate former Manhattan DA passed on indicting Trump.

That has been a Republican talking point, which makes it no surprise that you raised it. However, it is worth reading Cy Vance's side of that story. Why didn't he bring charges? His main reason was that the federal government asked him to step down and let them use their stronger federal case. Indeed, they got a conviction, but, as we all know, Trump was not allowed to be indicted by his own administration, and his name wasn't even spelled out in the Cohen case.

See the NPR story, which specifically asked about the Republican talking point that he had not taken his investigation to a prosecution phase:

Former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance calls Trump indictment 'extraordinary event'​

DETROW: So to put it mildly, there's been a lot of criticism at the moment of your successor, Alvin Bragg - a lot of commentary, especially from Republicans. You've got a unique vantage point here, so I want to start with that. And I'd like to start with a tweet from Jeb Bush, who I don't think anyone would mistake for a MAGA Republican because I think that sums up a lot of the pushback that's happening right now.

Bush tweeted, Bragg's predecessor - which is you - didn't take up the case. The Justice Department didn't take up the case. Bragg first said he would not take up the case. This is very political, not a matter of justice. In this case, let the jury be the voters.

What do you make of that general line of criticism?

VANCE: Well, I think the indictment of the president's - former president himself is an extraordinary event. There's no getting around that. And it's an important event, legally and culturally. So that's - my first reaction is we - is that everybody has reason to be very focused on the sort of severity of where we are right now and the divisions within our country. That said, I also agree with you, Scott, that we need to all hold our fire. The only person who really knows why he made the decision is Alvin Bragg, and the facts that will support or not support his decision will be laid out when the indictment is dismissed. Until then, I think we all can have our political viewpoints, but we need to let the process play out.


DETROW: You said the only person who knows exactly why this is moving forward at this time is Alvin Bragg. You might be closest to him, though, because you held this job and you were DA when the initial probe into the former president began. Why did you make that decision? Because, look, prosecutors - we know prosecutors make choices - what to investigate, what to charge. Why did you begin that broader investigation? What were you looking for?

VANCE: Well, I'm not going to be able, Scott, to get into the internal conversations of the office, which are confidential and some covered by grand jury privilege. But I will say this, that I think it's public record that we commenced the investigation at around the same time as the Southern District of New York did. I was asked - we were asked by the Southern District of New York to stand down. We did stand down for probably over a year. And then it got to the point where Michael Cohen was indicted and pleaded guilty, and then it stopped. So that was one reason why we didn't move forward at the beginning.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump's Team Is Reportedly Sick Of His 'Loudmouth' Lawyer

Joe Tacopina is getting on the nerves of the former president's other attorneys and advisers, according to a new Rolling Stone report.

www.huffpost.com

Citing a source familiar with the matter and another person close to Trump, Rolling Stone reported that Trump’s other current lawyers privately described Tacopina as “dumb” and a “loudmouth.” Trump’s attorneys and advisers have warned the former president to be wary of Tacopina and told him he can’t trust the lawyer’s loyalty, the sources said. Another source dismissed Tacopina as “such a frickin’ idiot,” Rolling Stone reported.
In a statement, Tacopina told the magazine: “When anonymous sources make comments criticizing others, it reveals jealousy and cowardice. Anyone who takes a look at my track record of trial success and the results I have achieved for my clients couldn’t seriously criticize my work or my intelligence.”

Tacopina has a record of representing cops and high-profile clients, including rapper Meek Mill and baseball player Alex Rodriguez. He’s also spent more than a decade as a top executive across several Italian soccer clubs and worked as a pundit in American media.
During appearances on CNN in 2018 as a legal commentator, Tacopina made comments about Trump and the Daniels hush money payment that conflict with the defense he’s presented since taking on Trump as a client.
In those appearances, he suggested he believed that Trump did have an affair with Daniels and that the payment “could be looked as an in-kind contribution at the time of the election,” which could be “a real problem.”
But now, Tacopina has reversed course, characterizing the payment to Daniels as “extortion,” denying Trump had the affair and dismissing the possibility of campaign finance violations.

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the pointless "whataboutism" in your response,

Pointing out sexist and partisan double standards is not "whataboutism".

Since the "standards" and the alleged hypocrites have nothing to do with the OP, it is.

I am curious should anyone who espouses law and order think that criminal business fraud be ignored?

Ignored? No. But the statute of limitations ran out on the false bookkeeping entry. So Bragg is using questionable legal maneuvering to charge a felony and get around it.

Since the charges are not public, you have no clue whether the statute of limitations ran out on any of them.

Even the far left, anti-white racist lawyer Elie Mystal, writing for equally far left The Nation calls Braggs effort to make this into felony "legal contortions".

So?

 

[laughing dog]

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

I am not misinformed.

You presented that robberies with a knife would be downgraded in charges as current policy. It is not.

That he reversed his policy due to considerable pressure does not change the fact that he instituted the policy and downgraded felony charges for armed robbery. It shows what he thinks what crimes should or should not be prosecuted as felonies.

It might show what he thinks if we knew the reasoning behind the policy. Do you have link to anything where he explains the reason(s) behind the downgrade?

 

[Bronzeage]

The philosopher Alexander Bard (Netocracy etc) has called the government of this age "sensocracy". What matters isn't what's true. But what we feel is true. What we care about is authenticity in communication. And what people are best at faking authenticity? Narcissists and psychopaths.


Bard's explanation to why Trump is successful is that he's too stupid to be smooth. We confuse his stupidity with authenticity. I'm convinced Trump believes all the dumb shit he keeps saying. I think he's geniunely a lunatic. Fully on narcissist.

And there lies the rub. We don't trust a powerful man who doesn't sleep around. It's weird. All Trump's visible foibles makes him human. And in this age that makes him likeable.

There is a difference between trust and entrust. Trump was entrusted with a specific task. This may have been an error in judgment, but it had nothing to do with trusting him, in the common sense of the word.

I have a lot of friends who are Trump supporters. They entrusted Trump with the task of restoring their lives to something they imagined it once was. Instead of "Vote for me and I'll set you free!", Trump's promise was "Vote for me and I'll make everyone else your slave." This does not make him likable. It makes him useful. In the Trumpian universe, cynicism is transactional. It's making friends with the bully, with the hope he shares stolen lunch money. It seldom works that way, but stupidity is a central requirement to even consider the deal.

Meanwhile, in the real world, not a one of them would tolerate Trump behavior in a spouse or employee.

In a denocracy, I don't think many trusts a political leader blindly. When we argue for a candidate, all we are saying is that the other guy is worse

It's never blind trust. I'm not sure there's any such thing after you discover there no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Democracy calls for pragmatic trust.

The best metaphor for democracy is a battle ship at war. No one on a battleship knows everything about the situation. They may be in a compartment deep in the ship, or they may be on the bridge, but they have to trust that everyone else is at their post and doing their job. The reason is simple. If they don't, the battle ship can't function and non functioning battle ships get sunk. No one trusts anyone blindly, but one has to trust they will do their job.

I've never bought into the "other guy is worse" thing. In the case of Trump supporters, it was a cover for voting for a racist misogynist, whose career demonstrated a disdain for the rule of law.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never bought into the "other guy is worse" thing. In the case of Trump supporters, it was a cover for voting for a racist misogynist, whose career demonstrated a disdain for the rule of law.

Admiration, jealousy, etc. "Boy, he's my man! He's my man because he gets way with shit I wish I could get away with."