Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY Civil Lawsuit & Criminal Trial Against Donald Trump & Family

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Can you imagine if he didn’t turn himself in with DeSantis refusing to provide a governors warrant to extradite like he said he wouldn’t? What would happen?
    Last edited by statquo; 31 Mar 23,, 02:25.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by statquo View Post
      Can you imagine if he didn’t turn himself in with DeSantis refusing to provide a governors warrant to extradite like he said he wouldn’t? What would happen?
      A law enforcement agency of one kind or another will politely knock on the door at Mar-a-Lago and haul his bloated orange carcass away.

      DeSantis doesn't have a leg to stand on and he knows it. So he's going to throw a pro forma bone to Trump's MAGAts, even though it basically means nothing.
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #93
        DeSantis Says Florida Will Not Extradite Trump

        Gov. Ron DeSantis called the indictment of Donald Trump “un-American,” CBS News reports.

        He added: “Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.”

        Steve Vladeck: “The legal reality is decidedly to the contrary. If Trump is indicted in New York, both the U.S. Constitution and a federal statute dating to 1793 require DeSantis (or the governor of whatever state Trump is in at the time) to hand him over. And if DeSantis still refuses, a 1987 Supreme Court decision makes clear that federal courts can order him to comply.”

        “Unlike in cases of international extradition, where treaties often leave significant room for political and diplomatic machinations and maneuvering, the law of interstate extradition is both clear and straightforward.”

        _________

        Trump Was Surprised by Indictment

        New York Times: “Trump is at Mar-a-Lago absorbing this information, according to aides. It’s not clear what his next move will be.”

        “Trump aides were caught off guard by this happening today, according to several people close to the former president. They had believed reports by some news outlets that the grand jury in Manhattan was not hearing the Trump case. Some advisers had been confident that there would be no movement until the end of April at the earliest and were looking at the political implications for Trump’s closest potential rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.”

        Washington Post: Trump won’t answer question from reporter on turning himself in.
        _________

        Break out the popcorn boys, cuz no matter what happens, it's gonna be entertaining as hell!
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #94
          Trump Indicted: Three Things to Keep in Mind
          The former president’s problems are now legal, not political—and the rules of the courts are stricter than those of politics.


          WACO, TEXAS - MARCH 25: Former U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a rally at the Waco Regional Airport on March 25, 2023 in Waco, Texas. Former U.S. president Donald Trump attended and spoke at his first rally since announcing his 2024 presidential campaign. Today in Waco also marks the 30 year anniversary of the weeks deadly standoff involving Branch Davidians and federal law enforcement. 82 Davidians were killed, and four agents left dead.

          On Thursday, the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg secured a grand jury indictment of former President Donald J. Trump. Its contents remain sealed. That hasn’t stopped commentators from feverishly debating the pros and cons of this historic step. Is Bragg, an elected Democrat, being fair to Trump? Are the (so far unknown) charges sufficiently serious to justify prosecuting a former president? Who benefits more politically, Democrats or Republicans? And what does this stunning turn of events mean for the office of the president itself?

          All of these questions are understandable and serious. But they miss three critical points.

          The first is that we are in uncharted—and risky—waters, but not because of the Manhattan grand jury.

          We are here because of the actions of Donald Trump, which were unprecedented in pushing the guardrails of the rule of law in thousands of ways. So extreme were his actions that they prompted a special counsel investigation into his campaign’s coordination with the Russian government in the 2016 election and his subsequent eleven potential acts of obstruction of that investigation, two unrelated impeachments, countless civil lawsuits and investigations, and five separate ongoing criminal probes—three by federal prosecutors, two involving New York prosecutors (including Bragg), and one by a district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia. To call all of this a coordinated witch hunt among separate public officials at the federal, state, and local levels—as Republican lawmakers are scurrying to do—is, of course, nonsensical.

          The other points are matters of basic civics.

          Politicians can lie to voters with impunity as long as the voters allow it. Case in point: Unlike many thousands of career employees in the federal government, candidates for president do not have to go through background checks, which are designed to catch and weed out people who are unsuitable for sensitive work or, worse, susceptible to influence by enemies of the United States. Instead, presidential campaigns are supposed to do that for us: In the competitive hurly-burly of the political process, all the important dirt will sift to the surface of public debate to ensure that people have the information needed to cast informed votes. That’s what happened with Trump’s infamous remarks in the Access Hollywood tape. But enough voters shrugged that it didn’t end his campaign.

          But—and this is the second thing to keep in mind—the rules of courts are stricter than the rules of politics.

          Trump allegedly engaged in a “catch-and-kill” scheme orchestrated by then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to hide his relationship with adult film star Stormy Daniels and thereby avoid bad press in the month before the 2016 election. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court to eight criminal counts, including tax evasion and campaign finance violations arising from his payments of $280,000 to prevent Daniels and one other woman from telling their stories. Cohen was allegedly repaid by Trump in $35,000 installments under monthly legal “retainer” agreements that had nothing whatsoever to do with the provision of legal services. One anticipated theory of Bragg’s case against Trump is that he falsified related business records in the first degree in violation of New York Penal Code Section 175.10, which is a felony “when [a defendant’s] intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Although legal pundits have properly noted that using a campaign violation as a predicate crime may be a first under this New York law, the legal website Just Security—which is affiliated with New York University School of Law—researched the crime and concluded that it is pretty routinely used:
          .
          Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.

          Bear in mind that this coverup happened just prior to the election that put Trump in office. Consider, by contrast, Crystal Mason, a Texas woman who was sentenced to five years for trying to vote when she said she didn’t know she was ineligible, even casting a provisional ballot with the help of a poll worker. Mason’s vote—one among many millions—was of no practical consequence. Trump’s misdeed likely was.

          Critics of Bragg have also pointed out that the Department of Justice charged Cohen for the underlying campaign violation, but not Trump, the insinuation being that Bragg is going where the feds would not. But at the time Cohen was prosecuted, Trump was in office and technically in charge of the Department of Justice and immune from prosecution pursuant to its longstanding internal policies. Cohen, moreover, is not Trump. The facts applying to each man’s involvement in the scheme are not identical. While the cases are not interchangeable, neither are the prosecutorial offices. Bragg was elected by Manhattan voters. Manhattan voters served as grand jurors of Trump’s peers, and if it comes to it, Trump will be judged by a trial jury of his peers, as well.

          Which leads to the final point. Unlike for information swirling through elections, there are ample protections in place in the judicial system to ensure a fair trial by reliable evidence. The government’s burden is a high one—beyond a reasonable doubt. But the rules of evidence are strict for both sides, and...

          Trump won’t be able to lie his way out of legal trouble the way he has lied his way out of political trouble so many times.

          Unlike most criminal defendants or even arrestees in the United States, Trump has lots of money for lawyers, who will do everything in their power to ensure that Trump isn’t convicted. Numerous procedural and evidentiary rules are in place to protect against bias, inaccuracy, and unfairness, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For many people ensnared in the criminal justice system, these rules still produce injustices. But it’s hard to imagine Trump will fall prey to the problems of poverty, structural racism, and inadequate counsel that many Americans face. Any conviction will be subject to appeals, too, which, given Trump’s prior position, could well include the Supreme Court—an impossibility for the rest of us.

          Trump is on trial, but the rule of law is also being tested. The most important outcome is that the rule of law wins.
          _________
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #95
            My brother is a retired New York State judge. He believes this is the weakest of all of the possible trials Trump may face. He believed it is hard to draw a line from a to b to c as the other crimes can be. Also it is a hard thing to prove. He feels the documents and the Georgia meddling cases are much stronger. Something to keep in mind.
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #96
              From my brother:

              I think the issue is given the Daniel's payments (1) can he be convicted in state court of a federal election law crime (2) without being charged or convicted previously in Fed court. NYS election law says it applies to all elections. Federal election law says it governs federal (ie presidential) elections. Then connect 1&2 which is a novel legal theory.
              If you think post 2020 was nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                My brother is a retired New York State judge. He believes this is the weakest of all of the possible trials Trump may face. He believed it is hard to draw a line from a to b to c as the other crimes can be. Also it is a hard thing to prove. He feels the documents and the Georgia meddling cases are much stronger. Something to keep in mind.
                I agree with your brother's concerns, and they're widely shared in the Manhattan DA's community (See #86 in this thread)

                For me, this is just the opening act to get Trump's cult warmed up to the idea that their God Emperor isn't above the law. He's just another man and therefore can be criminally indicted, can be arrested and can be put on trial.

                In short, the emperor has no clothes of immunity (at least, not anymore).

                Long before this goes to trial, Georgia will have indicted him and almost certainly the DoJ as well. So, a potential acquittal on these charges is far down the road and will be barely a blip on the radar.

                Getting back to Cult45, as we've discussed pretty extensively, they've got two very good reasons to straighten up and fly right: They'll think any call to arms is an FBI false flag provocation and, while they're loathe to admit it, they've seen exactly what Trump did for their January 6 compatriots. I think that will prompt future prosecutors to remove "mass riots" from the possible hazards of indicting Trump.

                And yeah, 2020 is going to look like a trip to Disney World by comparison.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Braggart, Meet Bragg

                  Donald Trump has gotten far in life with lots and lots of braggadocio and bluster. And, when that didn't work, he deployed his army of lawyers, some of whom actually got paid. But yesterday, Trump suffered a setback unlike any in his life, as a Manhattan grand jury, following an extensive investigation by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and two of his predecessors, voted to indict the former president on 30-plus criminal counts.

                  Trump hoped and expected that his presidency would be historic and, well, it certainly is now. Of the 45 men who have served as president, only one was arrested at any point in his life after being elected. That would be Ulysses S. Grant, who was arrested for... speeding. You might not have thought that possible in an era before automobiles, but it was, and Grant actually got multiple warnings before being popped (there were no tickets back then, and thus no insta-bail, hence the arrest). Needless to say, speeding is not a felony, and there was no chance that Grant's misdeeds were going to land him in prison. Not so for Trump's misdeeds, it would appear (more on this later).

                  Until fairly late on Thursday, Trump's attorneys were negotiating with Bragg's office over the circumstances of Trump's imminent arrest. There has been some suggestion that Trump wants to be arrested forcibly, and to be publicly perp walked into a police vehicle. The general idea is that those photos would be great for enraging the base and driving fundraising. We have considered this possibility for several days, and we're just not buying it. Trump has a giant ego and is extremely image conscious. We just can't believe that he'd allow himself to be humiliated in this way, no matter how much mileage he might think he can get out of the photos. Further, we imagine that Trump's Secret Service detail will insist upon on very orderly process, since they have to provide security for him even while he is in custody.

                  Speaking of the Secret Service, Bragg reportedly wanted to bring Trump in today, but his lawyers refused, saying the U.S.S.S. needs more time to plan. That seems very plausible to us, and further affirms the supposition that they are not going to allow a dramatic, disorderly arrest. The current expectation is that the former president will surrender himself in Manhattan on Tuesday, and will be arraigned that day.

                  Knowing full well that this was coming, and knowing that it could be used to gain money and political support, Team Trump has been making extensive preparations. Last night, they shifted into "go" mode. They have already initiated a barrage of fundraising e-mails, and there will be many more over the weekend and into next week. Some might say that when it comes to hitting people up for money, less is more. Clearly, Trump & Co. don't feel that way. One can also expect that Trump is going to be firing off scorching hot message after scorching hot message on his boutique social media platform this weekend. He might even fire up his recently restored Twitter, YouTube and Facebook accounts. That said, he'll need to be at least a little careful because anything that incites his supporters to commit violence will get his access restricted (or taken away again).

                  In addition, Trump already issued a public statement. You could easily have written it for him, if you had 2 minutes to spare. Or, if your schedule was too tight for that, you could have had ChatGPT write it. In other words, it says exactly what you think it does. Here's the opening paragraph:
                  .
                  This is Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history. From the time I came down the golden escalator at Trump Tower, and even before I was sworn in as your President of the United States, the Radical Left Democrats—the enemy of the hard-working men and women of this Country—have been engaged in a Witch-Hunt to destroy the Make America Great Again movement. You remember it just like I do: Russia, Russia, Russia; the Mueller Hoax; Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine; Impeachment Hoax 1; Impeachment Hoax 2; the illegal and unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid; and now this.
                  And here's the closing:
                  .
                  I believe this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden. The American people realize exactly what the Radical Left Democrats are doing here. Everyone can see it. So our Movement, and our Party—united and strong—will first defeat Alvin Bragg, and then we will defeat Joe Biden, and we are going to throw every last one of these Crooked Democrats out of office so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

                  There is only one thing about this that is interesting to us. And that is: "I believe this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden." This is a rather different from "This Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden." Is Trump revealing a bit of uncertainty about whether or not he can climb out of the latest hole he's dug for himself? Seems that way to us.

                  Similarly, the response of Republican politicians, up and down the line, was predictable. Former VP Mike Pence, for example, said: "I think the unprecedented indictment of a former president of the United States on a campaign finance issue is an outrage." Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) tweeted: "The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American." Nikki Haley decreed: "This is more about revenge than it is about justice." Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) described it as a "travesty." You get the picture.

                  Scott can shoot off his mouth all he wants and it doesn't matter. DeSantis could be in a trickier situation. If Trump shows up in court on Tuesday, all is well and good and DeSantis won't be tested. But he already announced that if Trump refuses to show up and the State of New York issues him an order to extradite Trump to New York, he will refuse to obey it, even though the Constitution explicitly requires governors to extradite people wanted in other states. If DeSantis refuses, Bragg will get a judge to issue a writ of mandamus ordering DeSantis to deliver up Trump. If DeSantis defies the court, then we will definitely be in uncharted territory, but we can't see how defying the courts will help DeSantis with independent voters.

                  It really is remarkable how fully Trump has the Republican Party wrapped around his finger. Historically, when people ran for office, particularly the highest office in the land, they were pretty happy to see their opponents suffer setbacks. Depending on the nature of the setback, those candidates might needle their opponent a bit, or they might remain silent for fear of looking gauche. But to defend that opponent, and in strident terms? Virtually unheard of.

                  The response from these individuals is also—and forgive us for using a highly technical term here—cow dung. None of these people knows exactly what the charges are. None of these people knows exactly what the evidence is. They certainly haven't the faintest idea what Bragg's motivations are, though it's worth noting that the DA actually pulled back from this prosecution for over a year until new evidence presented himself. Doesn't sound like someone determined to grind their political axe to us. In any event, the overall reaction from those on the right it why it's nearly impossible to take anything they say seriously, ever. They just spit out whatever they think the base wants to hear. Truth is not a concern, nor is what these folks actually believe. If either of those elements finds their way into one of these people's public statements, it's really just a coincidence.

                  As to folks on the left, there's been much celebrating from the rank and file, of course. As to Democratic politicians, they are largely silent. Joe Biden, for example, has not yet released a statement (though he or his staff will surely have to say something eventually). Those Democrats who have spoken up, like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), have basically limited themselves to pointing out that nobody is above the law. We can find no gloating or grandstanding or predictions of imminent doom from any Democratic officeholder. That does not surprise us, as there's really no upside in it. If Trump beats the rap(s), then gloating and/or predictions of doom will age badly. And if he doesn't beat the rap, then seeing him pay a price for his misdeeds will be far more satisfying to Democratic officeholders (and other non-fans of Trump) than anything they might say this week.

                  There is still a lot more to be said about this news, so let's break the rest up into sections.

                  A Couple of Mysteries
                  There are two sidebars to yesterday's news that could well prove to be important parts of the puzzle, but that are shrouded in enough mystery right now that all we've got is speculation.

                  First, what exactly is the story with the timeline here? At the start of this week, we supposed that Trump might get arrested next week, but that mid-April seemed more likely. Yesterday, we had an item about the grand jury taking a month off, and so we concluded, like everyone else, that an arrest was a month or more into the future. And then... BAM!

                  The scuttlebutt is that Bragg executed a deliberate misdirect—he slow-played his hand, to use a poker term—so as to catch the Trumpers by surprise and thus minimize the chances of violence. This would seem to be consistent with the DA's desire to get Trump arrested and arraigned ASAP, while there was still some amount of confusion and while the base was still in disarray. If this explanation is correct, then it was a pretty shrewd move by Bragg. The braggart may well have met his match, here.

                  The other mysterious sidebar involves former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who suddenly dropped his lawyer yesterday and switched to different counsel. It's tempting, if you don't like Trump, to speculate that Weisselberg has decided to turn full stool pigeon, and that his newfound willingness to spill his guts is what led Bragg to finally pull the trigger. This is doubtful, however. According to The New York Daily News, which is pretty dialed in to this particular subject, the change in counsel was demanded by the Trump Organization. It would seem that Team Trump felt that Weisselberg's now-former lawyer, Nicholas Gravante, was too interested in protecting Weisselberg and was not interested enough in protecting the Trumps. Weisselberg apparently went along with the change, albeit under much protest, because he wants the Trump Organization to keep paying both his legal bills and his severance package (the latter being spread out over a 2-year period).

                  So, the former CFO probably hasn't turned traitor. That said, he surely doesn't like being pushed around like this, and so he may have quite a tale to tell once he has all his severance money. Also, it's at least possible that, with all of this out-in-the-open maneuvering, the Trump family has committed obstruction of justice. Not that they are likely to be charged with that, since it's so hard to prove.

                  What Exactly Did Trump Do?
                  At the heart of the right-wing response, from Trump on down, is that the former president didn't really do anything bad. They all acknowledge the extramarital affairs, and the payments that were made, but assert that paying someone for their silence is no big deal, and that it happens all the time. That's why God invented legal settlements where the terms are not disclosed, right? If you are inclined to see the merit in this line of thinking, you should disabuse yourself of that notion right now. Trump committed serious acts of malfeasance here that were at very least extremely unethical, and may well have been illegal.

                  To start, let us consider an analogy. Imagine that, instead of FBI Director James Comey, the person who had "new" information about Hillary Clinton's e-mails in October 2016 was a private citizen. Or, even better, two private citizens. Let us further imagine that these two private citizens were about to go public with their tales, and that the Clinton campaign knew it. If so, well, Clinton & Co. knew full well that the e-mails were her Achilles' heel. So the candidate, or one of her people, might call up a friend in the media. Say, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. And an arrangement might be made for Maddow to purchase "exclusive" rights to the private citizens' stories, with reimbursement to come later. Once Maddow and her staff had made the deal, they would give no actual coverage to the story they'd just bought, and the crisis would be averted for Team Hillary. This is known as "catch and kill."

                  This is almost exactly what Donald Trump did. Of course, the unfriendly stories weren't about e-mails, they were about his sexual practices. And it wasn't Rachel Maddow, it was National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Just as Clinton knew that e-mails were her Achilles' heel, Trump knew that his sexual practices were his. Of all the controversial things that unfolded during that campaign, the one that very nearly derailed The Donald was "Grab 'em by the pussy." So, it was essential to make sure that Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal kept their mouths shut. Had they told their tales, then it might well have been the Trump campaign that was ruined by an October surprise. Recall that the results were very close, and a switch of less than 80,000 votes in the right places would have made Clinton president.

                  In short, Trump pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people, and in a way that probably saved the election for him. That said, while a little sleazy, this was probably not illegal in and of itself. It's acceptable for political candidates to go looking for skeletons in their opponents' closets. And it's also acceptable for political candidates to try to keep their own skeletons hidden. That's the way the game is played.

                  Where Trump veered into "illegal" territory, at least based on what is known publicly, is in the manner in which the Daniels/McDougal transactions were handled. To start, there is some evidence the two women were coerced, and possibly even physically threatened, which would itself be a crime. Beyond that, however, Trump wanted to keep his name out of the proceedings, and so the dealing was done by a middleman, namely Michael Cohen. And in those cases where Trump's name was required, he used a pseudonym (David Dennison).

                  What this means is that when Daniels and McDougal received six-figure payments, the money actually came out of Cohen's pocket. Assuming the purpose of the payments was to protect Trump's presidential bid, then that is a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law. If Cohen was acting as an individual, then at most he was allowed to spend $2,700, and not hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if Cohen was acting as a corporation (i.e., "Michael Cohen, Esq., A Professional Corporation"), then he was allowed to spend $0. Either way, he blew past the limits. And it does not matter if he was later reimbursed; the moment he handed over more than $2,700 (or, more than $0), he had broken the law. This, incidentally, is what John Edwards got in legal hot water for; he also tried to use intermediaries to make huge payments to his paramours in order to buy their silence (though it should be noted that Edwards avoided conviction when his jury deadlocked).

                  The apparent lawbreaking doesn't end there, either. At very least, Trump and Cohen tried to hide the payments on the Trump Organization ledger as "legal expenses." It also appears that, since "legal expenses" are a business expense, Trump wrote the money off on his taxes. Both of these things are illegal; the former is fraud and the latter is tax evasion and is a violation of both New York State and federal tax codes. Oh, and speaking of another politician who got himself into hot water, former speaker Dennis Hastert structured the blackmail payments he was making to his molestation victims so that they looked like something other than what they really were. In other words, the same basic thing that Trump and Cohen conspired to do. And Hastert, of course, got popped.

                  What Are Trump's Chances?
                  We must reiterate, as we commence this part of the discussion, that the indictment remains under seal. So, like the rest of the general public, we know very little about exactly what Trump has been charged with, or what the precise evidence against him is. That said, we can at least give a few useful thoughts, we hope.

                  To start, it might be useful to consider how effective the Manhattan DA's office is when it comes to securing convictions. Bragg is very much an advocate for transparency, so he is one of only four major-city DAs in the country that posts detailed data to the Internet for anyone to inspect. You can see the website for yourself here, if you wish.

                  According to numerous reports, the charges against Trump are criminal and are felonies. We will learn next week if that's correct, but assuming it is, then here is the record of the Manhattan DA's office in non-violent felony cases over the last decade:




                  As you can see, for many years, Manhattan DAs won about three-quarters of the non-violent felony cases they brought, either through plea or through winning at trial (that's the orange), and they lost about 20% (that's the purple). The magenta represents "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" (ACD), which is the New York term for cases in which the defendant's indictment is quashed if they avoid arrest for some specified future amount of time (often 6 months). It's not very common in white-collar cases. The red represents dispositions other than conviction, dismissal, or ACD. For example, if the defendant died in the middle of the process, they would be placed in that group.

                  As you can also see, the conviction rate has gone down a lot in the last 4 years. Enemies of Alvin Bragg, like, say, The New York Post, blame that on him, arguing that it's the result of his permissive attitudes toward crime. The problem here is that he took office on Jan. 1, 2022, or two years into the downturn in convictions. So, the Post's thesis does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Maybe it's the pandemic, maybe juries have gotten more lenient after the murder of George Floyd, maybe it's something else. We just don't know, and we are ill-informed enough about the New York justice system that we don't particularly want to guess. The one conclusion we do feel comfortable drawing from this exercise is that your average defendant in Manhattan is more likely to get convicted than not, but that a Manhattan criminal case is nowhere near the slam dunk that a federal criminal case is (on the federal level, the conviction rate is in the high 90s).

                  That said, Donald Trump is not your average defendant. Not only is he a celebrity, he's the first president or former president to be indicted. It is simply inconceivable to us that Bragg would move forward unless he felt he had a case that was airtight, or nearly so. It will be harder to help potential jurors to understand the potential crimes here than it will be for, say, Fulton County DA Fani Willis. But it's certainly not impossible. Keep in mind also that Bragg was previously unwilling to pull the trigger on an indictment, such that two of the attorneys leading the investigation resigned in protest just a little over a year ago (they quit on Mar. 6, 2022). That does not seem like the behavior of a DA who is willing to go off half-cocked.

                  Then there is the matter of the indictment itself. Again, not a lot is known yet, but one thing that has been made public is that there are at least 30 counts against Trump. That means that Bragg was able to identify more than two dozen violations of the law, and to get a grand jury to agree. It's true that DAs usually overcharge, and then drop some of the weaker complaints as a case progresses. But it's pretty hard to become the subject of 30 (or more) indictments without engaging in some pretty problematic, and wide-ranging behavior.

                  Of course, the lifeblood of a criminal trial is evidence. And while we don't know exactly what evidence Bragg has, we know it's a lot, and that at least some of it is very compelling. Cohen and Pecker have both turned against Trump, and are both able to speak in detail about the scheming to silence Daniels and McDougal. There's also an extensive paper trail, as tends to be the case with financial crimes. Oh, and there are also recordings of phone calls where Trump can be heard discussing the plan.

                  There is one other thing that works against Trump. Maybe it shouldn't but it does. And that is that he's likely to be under indictment in several other venues in the near future. As former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti explains, facing multiple trials in multiple venues makes each individual trial harder to win. One reason for this is that the defendant ends up spread thin. The second is that exactly the right thing to say in order to win trial #1 might be exactly the wrong thing to say in order to win trial #2. Especially if you lose trial #1 and become a convicted felon whose past misdeeds are admissible if you take the stand in trial #2 (or trial #3, or trial #4, etc.). So, some very difficult triangulation is required (and Trump is about the worst person in the world for that sort of thing). A third issue is that being under indictment in multiple venues creates an overall impression of a guilty person, particularly if you've already been convicted in at least one venue. Again, maybe that shouldn't be true, but it is.

                  Undoubtedly, in addition to preparing the slew of fundraising e-mails (see above), Trump's team has also been working on his potential defense. There are a few arguments he and his lawyers have already made in public, and that may well come up if he goes on trial:
                  • I Didn't Know: In the Mafia, when a criminal act is to be committed, the don gives orders to his caporegimes (captains), and then they actually give the order to the soldatos (soldiers). That insulates the don from a fair bit of criminal exposure, since they don't have direct contact with those who commit crimes on their behalf.

                    Like those dons, this Don is pretty good at finding people who will get their hands dirty on his behalf while keeping him in ignorance. Obviously, it helps that ignorance is kind of a specialty of his. In any event, Trump has already asserted that he had no idea about the payments to Daniels and McDougal. Of course, the phone recordings, along with the testimony of Cohen and Pecker, say otherwise. Trump's counsel might be able to undermine Cohen and Pecker as a couple of sleazy guys who can't be trusted to tell the truth. But the phone calls are going to be hard to explain away.
                  • It Was Personal: Similarly, Trump has argued that the payments to Daniels and McDougal were made for personal reasons, and had nothing to do with his political career. This being the case, the money spent was not a campaign expenditure and thus was not a violation of election law.

                    The first problem with this defense is that it doesn't align well with the information that is already publicly known. Cohen and Packer both insist the money was spent to protect the presidential bid. The timeline of the payments (they were made in October 2016) also supports that assertion. The second problem with this defense is that, even if it's 100% truthful, it only covers the alleged campaign finance violations. The alleged screwy bookkeeping would still be illegal.
                  • Bragg Lacks Jurisdiction: Depending on the charges, this may be the strongest argument. Cohen was already convicted of tax evasion and of violating campaign finance law, and he already did time in prison. However, the prosecution was the work of the federal government. Bragg may not have the legal authority to go after campaign finance violations.

                    On its surface, this may seem like Trump's salvation—he fights about jurisdiction for months or years, gets the case kicked, and then maybe the feds pick it up or maybe they don't. However, it does not actually appear to be any salvation at all. Reportedly, the 30+ counts that Bragg brought are all related to business fraud. That is something that Bragg most certainly does have the authority to prosecute, and it's something that may well bring together the Daniels/McDougal investigation and the lengthy investigation into the Trump Organization's finances that was primarily conducted by New York AG Tish James.

                  In short, we don't see a whole lot of promise in any of the defenses that Team Trump has raised thus far. We'll see if his counsel tries to run with these anyhow, concluding it's the best they've got, or if they come up with some new legal theory of the case.

                  On the whole—once again, with limited information—it sure looks like Trump is in a very bad position. Yes, these can be tough crimes to prove. And yes, he's very skilled at wiggling out of tight situations. But this investigation has been going on for a long time and has flipped numerous co-conspirators. In Bragg, we have a DA who appears to be rather cautious, and also to be rather shrewd when it comes to strategy. Plus, thirty counts. And with other prosecutions potentially going on at the same time, too? And with Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut, even if it hurts him? The former president's lawyers are definitely going to earn their money (which they better make sure to get in advance).

                  What Next?
                  This has been a twisty and turny ride, full of surprises. So, the crystal ball is very murky. That said, the next step is presumably Trump's arraignment next week. We'll see then exactly how he plans to play the PR angle, and if he really wants to make a show of being arrested. At that point, the indictment will also likely be unsealed, and we'll learn a whole lot more about exactly how hot the water is that Trump is in.

                  We'll also see how Trump's base responds to all of this. There wasn't any violence yesterday, and we would guess there won't be any next week. Most Trumpers are more about talking big than anything else (something they have in common with Trump himself). Further, they all know what happened on 1/6, and how Trump kept his own neck safe while others went to prison on his behalf. Finally, as we noted yesterday, this whole thing has been managed in a way to allow whatever steam has built up to release pretty slowly. So, while Gab and Truth Social and Parler may be very ugly places this weekend, we think that might well be the extent of it.

                  Beyond that, now that the first domino has fallen, maybe other dominoes will quickly fall. Special counsel Jack Smith does not seem like the type to give a damn about politics, and so yesterday's news probably doesn't matter much to him. That said, he's not the decider; AG Merrick Garland is. And Garland does seem to keep his ear to the ground, at least some. So, now that Bragg has made his move, it's possible the feds will feel more comfortable making their move. Or maybe not; we could be persuaded either way.

                  On the other hand, DA Fani Willis is in a tougher position. She's got a lot of Trumpers in her state and, unlike Smith and Garland, she doesn't have the protection of the U.S. Marshals when she goes home at night, nor does she have a chief executive who is fully on board with whatever she decides. So, having some cover may well be important to her, more important than it is to Garland and Smith. Further, her case appears to be further along than the federal case(s), and seems to be pretty airtight (although the classified documents thing is also pretty slam-dunky). Anyhow, we would not be terribly surprised to see Willis move forward in short order, maybe even within the week.

                  _____________
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Note the time was sent: 2:46 in the morning....

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	TruthSocial.JPG
Views:	63
Size:	25.0 KB
ID:	1598357

                    Where indeed.

                    Could you put your desperation on display in a little more obvious way?

                    Love the avatar...he's wrapped himself in the flag. Next he'll be carrying a cross. Or holding up a Bible...maybe talking about fighting "demonic forces"....
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • Where's Hunter? Where's the birth certificate? Where's the votes? Yawn

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by statquo View Post
                        Where's Hunter? Where's the birth certificate? Where's the votes? Yawn
                        Used to be Whatabout Whatabout Whatabout....maybe he's finally changing things up: Where Where Where...
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • Five Reasons for DeSantis’s Phony ‘I Won’t Extradite Trump’ Stunt
                          The Florida governor poses as a great admirer of the Constitution but is eager to betray it for political gain.



                          Irony knows no bounds with some politicians. On Thursday, when Donald Trump was indicted, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tweeted to say he would not cooperate in extraditing the former president to New York for arraignment:




                          Here we have DeSantis posing like he has his chief political rival’s back. And on the same day a Manhattan grand jury delivered the news that a former president is not above the law, DeSantis, for his own partisan purposes, says that he is.

                          It perfectly demonstrates DeSantis’s cynical opportunism. He poses as a great admirer of the Constitution but is ready in a heartbeat to betray his sworn duty to “support, protect, and defend” it in order to cater to MAGAworld for political gain.

                          Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution says, “A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.” The United States Code imposes the same duty, as does Florida law.

                          In 1987, the Supreme Court specifically found “no justification for distinguishing the duty to deliver fugitives from the many other species of constitutional duty enforceable in the federal courts.” The Court held that judges may enforce a governor’s duty to return fugitives to the state where they’ve been indicted.

                          Clear enough?

                          In case you’re looking to understand why DeSantis would brush off the law like dandruff on his blue suit jacket shoulder, here are five reasons:

                          1) Keeps DeSantis on the airwaves. DeSantis’s comms team knew that when Trump got indicted, the news would dominate the headlines for days, leaving their guy without the oxygen of attention. Announcing he’d break the law to resist New York’s authority is the tactic they landed on to redirect the spotlight.

                          2) Helps hold the base. Making the announcement was never going to buy DeSantis the loyalty of the Always Trumpers. But it might secure a red ribbon in their hearts in case Trump loses his groove, including to the trials and tribulations of his new indictment, and ones likely to come.

                          That could happen. In New York alone, the case Trump faces is dead serious.

                          Here’s how you know, even before the charges are unsealed. Anything other than a conviction makes Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg a one-term DA. He would only have sought this indictment if he was convinced that his evidence was overwhelming and his case as close to open-and-shut as any he’d ever seen.

                          And by the way, that’s exactly what a rival like DeSantis is secretly hoping. Whatever tweet he pumps out about having Trump’s back is theater music.

                          3) “I’m anti-establishment, too!” Opposing Washington and the establishment has been a winning GOP formula for years.

                          Trump gave it a “bad-boy” edge his base loved. In 2016, he said he didn’t like John McCain because he (Trump) preferred pilots who didn’t get captured. This January, Trump signaled admiration for “the late, great Al Capone.”

                          So now DeSantis, too, is leaning into the bandit brand. He surely figures it’s good for him in the primary—and he can worry about pivoting for the general election if he gets the chance.

                          4) No risk. DeSantis’s announcement was purely performative. He knew Trump would never resist flying to New York to be arraigned. Doing so voluntarily will allow Trump arrest with dignity, and he’ll exit his Tuesday arraignment attempting to appear unbowed and defiant.

                          If Trump were to refuse to go to New York, turning himself into a fugitive, he would create for himself the opposite image, conveying fear and shame. And if DeSantis didn’t relent and turn him over, New York would ask the federal courts for a writ of mandamus requiring that Trump be handed over. Chances are the perp walk then would not be pretty.

                          DeSantis knew Trump would surrender to New York authorities before Trump’s lawyers announced it on Thursday. For DeSantis, opposing an extradition that won’t happen was no risk, all reward.

                          5) Keeps DeSantis’s options open. It was all posturing for another reason. If by some infinitesimal chance, Trump were to resist arrest, DeSantis would still have an easy off-ramp: He could “reluctantly” cave.

                          House money says DeSantis would fold faster than a tentpole in 105-mile winds in hurricane alley. No question how he’d handle it: “It’s all the big, bad federal government’s fault, not mine.

                          All hat, no cattle. Or as they say in the Everglades, all rope, no crocodile.
                          _____________

                          "Soros-backed...."

                          Good thing he didn't forget to blow the usual anti-Semitic dog whistle for the base
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • Trump, DeSantis and other Republicans push anti-Semitic ‘Soros’ smear after Bragg indictment



                            In his statement condemning the Manhattan grand jury indictment of former President Donald Trump, Florida governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis mentioned neither the former president nor the district attorney who will prosecute the case, Alvin Bragg, by name. But he did name check George Soros, a favorite target of antisemitic conspiracy theories—twice.

                            For some, the implication was obvious.

                            “It’s hard to even call it a dog whistle of antisemitism,” said former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew Weissman of the Florida governor’s statement in a cable news appearance.

                            Soros indirectly helped fund Bragg’s run for office, but he is uninvolved in the case against the former president, which is focused on an allegedly improper 2016 payment to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

                            Soros and Bragg have never met.

                            Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and other Republicans similarly made mention of Soros in denouncing the decision to indict Trump.


                            Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2023.

                            Last week Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, a Republican who has been accused of trafficking in xenophobia and white supremacy, charged that Soros and Bragg “are trying to turn America into a third-world country.”

                            On Thursday night, a single hour of Fox News prime-time programming featured 10 mentions of Soros, including two descriptions of Bragg as a Soros “puppet.”

                            A Hungarian-American billionaire who funds progressive causes, Soros is frequently invoked as shorthand for a nexus of wealth, progressive politics and cultural clout.

                            “Soros offers a combination that is useful to his detractors: born abroad, Jewish, in finance, high profile,” Emily Tamkin, the author of a book about Soros, told Yahoo News. She added that because Soros is “genuinely influential in politics, finance, and philanthropy,” conspiracy theories about him are easily concocted.

                            As he was running to become the Manhattan district attorney in 2021, Color of Change, a group backed by Soros spent roughly $500,000 on efforts on Bragg’s behalf, such as mailers and voter turnout.


                            Former U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to depart after speaking during a rally at the Waco Regional Airport on March 25, 2023 in Waco, Texas.

                            Trump, who is running for president again, is avidly using the indictment to solicit campaign contributions, depicting himself as the target of the “Soros Money Machine.” He has long faced accusations of antisemitism, although his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are observant Jews.

                            Trump has routinely trafficked in antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty, wealth and parsimony.

                            Last year, in a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump attacked American Jews — who mostly vote Democratic — for not rewarding his staunch support of Israel’s right-wing government. “Our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of [Trump’s record on Israel] than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S,” he complained.

                            Trump warned that “U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel — Before it is too late!”

                            Thursday’s indictment allowed Trump and his loyal supporters of reviving a grievance-laden narrative that invariably turns the former president into a victim of nefarious forces.

                            “This was their mission,” Eric Trump, the president’s son, said on Fox News of Bragg and his prosecutors. “This is what they promised Soros. It’s why they received the big checks.”

                            Soros survived the Holocaust as a child. As an adult, he moved to New York, where he started a successful hedge fund. His philanthropy through the Open Society Foundations supports civic institutions in emerging democracies. Domestically, Open Society funds education, public health and independent media not-for-profit organizations.


                            Hungarian-born US investor and philanthropist George Soros answers to questions after delivering a speech on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on May 24, 2022.

                            According to experts in antisemitism, invoking the 92-year-old philanthropist serves to promote toxic ideas about Jews. “A person who promotes a Soros conspiracy theory may not intend to promulgate antisemitism,” according to the ADL, formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League. “But Soros’ Jewish identity is so well-known that in many cases it is hard not to infer that meaning.”

                            Trump allies including Tucker Carlson, the popular Fox News anchor, have promoted the “great replacement theory,” which holds that Democrats—purportedly funded by Soros and other elites—are trying to bring immigrants of color into the United States in order to create an electorally insurmountable non-white political bloc.

                            Fears of racial obsolescence powered the white supremacists who rampaged through Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 shouting that “Jews will not replace us” and, the following year, Robert Bowers, who killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

                            During the racial justice protests of 2020, some conservatives falsely accused Soros of encouraging violence.

                            The most recent attacks on Soros come as the nation faces an unprecedented uptick in anti-Semitic incidents, the frequency of which began to increase around the time that Trump first announced he was running for the presidency in mid-2015.

                            Florida Governor Ron DeSantis speaks during an event on his nationwide book tour at Adventure Outdoors, the largest gun store in the country, on March 30, 2023 in Smyrna, Georgia.

                            “When in doubt, blame the Jews,” intelligence analyst and scholar Aki J. Peritz wrote on Twitter in response to DeSantis.

                            DeSantis recently hired Nate Hochman, a National Review writer who had previously praised the virulent anti-Semite Nick Fuentes. Fuentes also dined with Trump last year in South Florida.

                            Soros is a well-known supporter of criminal justice reform and has been funding the political races of progressive prosecutors for years. Once elected, some of those prosecutors, such as Chesa Boudin of San Francisco, have proven unpopular with voters. Soros’s involvement in funding their campaigns has sometimes been invoked by local critics — though rarely with as much apparent zeal as DeSantis.

                            When first running for governor in 2018, DeSantis described his Democratic opponent Andrew Gillum as “Soros-backed.” He used identical language in his feud with state attorney Andrew Warren, whom he removed in what was widely seen as a bid to raise his profile with national conservatives.

                            Gillum is Black, as is Bragg. Warren is Jewish, like Soros.

                            Progressive activists have called the claim that Soros controls Bragg not only antisemitic but also racist. Last week, after Trump called Bragg a “Soros-backed animal” a group of Black and Jewish lawmakers from New York condemned Trump’s “incendiary racist and anti-Semitic” rhetoric.

                            Last year, neo-Nazis gathered outside a conservative conference in Tampa where DeSantis spoke, with banners displaying swastikas alongside one that read “DeSantis Country” and another touting “our glorious leader, Ron DeSantis.”

                            Although Florida has a large Jewish population and DeSantis has eagerly waded into other culture war battles, the governor said nothing.

                            _________
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • Manhattan DA's counsel says House GOP collaborating with Trump

                              The counsel for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Friday urged House Republicans to denounce former President Donald Trump's attacks on Bragg's office, saying they are collaborating with him to undermine his criminal probe.

                              "You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges," the attorney for Bragg said in letter to Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and James Comer, R-Ky. The three are chairmen of House committees probing the DA's investigation into Trump.

                              The emailed letter came mere hours after the Manhattan's DA office indicted Trump in a criminal proceeding involving his payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

                              Following the news, the former president and some Republican lawmakers quickly criticized the indictment Thursday night, branding it as politically motivated and a witch hunt ahead of the 2024 election in which Trump is a candidate.

                              Sources tell ABC News reports that Trump began calling congressional allies Thursday night, urging them to defend him following news of the indictment. Many of them did.

                              "The House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account," House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a tweet Thursday night.

                              McCarthy, who says he maintains regular communication with the former president, said Bragg has "weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump."

                              "You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury," Bragg's attorney told the GOP chairmen Friday.

                              The emailed letter also implored the lawmakers to back down from their investigation into Bragg's office.

                              "What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State," Leslie Dubeck wrote. "You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors," Dubeck added.

                              Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, first sent a letter to Bragg on March 20, just two days after Trump used his social media platform to brand Bragg's office as "corrupt" and politically motivated.

                              They allege that Bragg is using federal funds to conduct his investigation, which would give Congress the authority to probe the Manhattan's DA office. It is an allegation that Bragg denies.

                              The GOP chairmen demanded testimony and documents related to Bragg's investigation and what, at the time, was his office's potential indictment of Trump.

                              "Your actions will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Jordan and other House GOP chairmen wrote to Bragg earlier this month. "We expect that you will testify about what plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision," they said.

                              Jordan then expanded his probe into Bragg and his office two days later, requesting that two former special prosecutors from his office provide testimony to the House committee. The prosecutors had resigned from the Manhattan's DA office over what they said was Bragg's refusal to prosecute Trump.

                              What followed that communication was a back-and-forth between Jordan's committee and the Manhattan DA's office.

                              "Your letter dated March 20, 2023 … is an unprecedent (sic) inquiry into a pending local prosecution," the counsel for Bragg's office told House investigators in a letter. "The Letter seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law," the counsel wrote.

                              "We reiterate the requests in our March 20 letter and ask that you comply in full as soon as possible but no later than March 31, 2023," the chairmen wrote in response.

                              There is no indication that the DA's office will comply with Congress' requests by the end of the day, and there is no sign that House Republicans will tamp down on their effort to investigate Bragg.

                              A spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.
                              _________________

                              Remember guys: Trump is "out of power"
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment



                              • https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...867454977.html



                                A great thread on how the hue and cry about this event from sections on the right is disingenuous...



                                Judd Legum

                                Subscribe
                                @JuddLegum


                                1. Right-wing pundits have slammed Trump's indictment as "petty political vengeance," "a travesty," and "a sham."

                                But what did those same pundits says when a Democrat was charged for very similar conduct?

                                I did the research and found out.

                                Follow along if interested.


                                2. On June 3, 2011, former presidential candidate John Edwards was criminally indicted on charges similar to those Trump now faces.

                                Edwards was charged with violating campaign finance law for funneling large sums of money to hide an affair and falsifying records to cover it up

                                3. "The facts are that he broke campaign finance laws and that he lied to cover it up," Fox News' @seanhannity said on the day Edwards was indicted.

                                From the outset of the Edwards investigation and throughout the trial, Hannity expressed no objection to Edwards being prosecuted.
                                @mentions4. also regularly featured guests arguing that Edwards had committed a serious crime.

                                "Yes, he's going to go to jail and he should be indicted. He knew what he was doing was wrong. He was diverting campaign money."


                                FLASHBACK: When right-wing pundits thought political hush money payments were a crime"The facts are that he broke campaign finance laws and that he lied to cover it up," Fox News' Sean Hannity said. Hannity was not talking about former President Donald Trump, who was indicted last wee…https://popular.info/p/flashback-whe...t-wing-pundits
                                @mentions5. But when news broke that Trump was indicted for paying $130,000 in hush money in the closing days of a campaign and then falsifying business records to cover his tracks, had a much different response.

                                He called it "repulsive" and "a disgusting political hit job"
                                @mentions6. Former Fox News host tweeted that Bragg, should be "ashamed of himself" for indicting Trump

                                But in numerous appearances on the O'Reilly Factor during the Edwards' investigation and trial, Kelly did not suggest any impropriety by prosecutors.
                                @mentions7. In an April 26, 2012 appearance, while the Edwards trial was ongoing, Kelly said the case was "going pretty well for the prosecution" because "it doesn't seem like a lot of the facts are in dispute."


                                FLASHBACK: When right-wing pundits thought political hush money payments were a crime"The facts are that he broke campaign finance laws and that he lied to cover it up," Fox News' Sean Hannity said. Hannity was not talking about former President Donald Trump, who was indicted last wee…https://popular.info/p/flashback-whe...t-wing-pundits
                                @mentions8. , in reaction to the Trump indictment, called it "bad for the country" and a "political play." He also expressed confidence that Trump's lawyer "should be able to shred the case."
                                @mentions9. But at the conclusion of the Edwards trial, during the deliberations, declared the evidence against Edwards was "pretty damning."

                                Throughout the prosecution, O'Relly repeatedly declared that Edwards was "guilty."
                                @mentions10. On Twitter, former Fox News contributor described the charges against Trump as a "sham indictment" because there was "no crime committed."
                                @mentions11. But was an enthusiastic supporter of the prosecution of Edwards. "I think there is a strong case against him," she said in October 2011. "You have people who also going to testify against him. So, I think he is in trouble."
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X