An Indictment So Bad, Even the WaPo Knows It Stinks

[BULLDOG]

In case you're missing it, EVEN THE WAPO BOARD thinks it shouldn't be pursued.

And?

 

[SweetSue92]

And?

And now Politico too. Oops

 

[okfine]

In case you're missing it, EVEN THE WAPO BOARD thinks it shouldn't be pursued.

Didn't they fire a bunch of staff recently and now they are understaffed to report on the fatman again?

 

[okfine]

And?

Trying to regain lost revenue by getting Trump clan members to read?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here you go liberals. Read it and weep.

*** *** ***

Anyone who cares about fairness in our criminal justice system should be queasy that Donald Trump will be prosecuted in one of the country’s most liberal jurisdictions. By all accounts, this should be a federal case.

On Thursday, a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict the former president for his hush-money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and dismissed the investigation as politically motivated.

Regardless of what people think about Trump or the facts of the case, it’s not hard to see the problem. New York state’s entire judicial process is controlled by Democrats who could lose their positions in party primaries. Alvin Bragg, the district attorney overseeing the case, boasted during his campaign that he had sued Trump or his administration more than 100 times during his tenure in the state attorney general’s office, something he probably did to curry favor with primary voters who loathe Trump. Every New York state judge who would either try the case or hear an appeal is elected on a partisan basis, too. It would take a lot of courage for a judge to apply the law fairly and potentially ignore their voters’ desire for vengeance.

Imagine if Joe Biden were prosecuted after his presidency in an overwhelmingly Republican jurisdiction. Democrats would rightly howl if an ambitious GOP district attorney did to Biden what Bragg is doing to Trump.

Had the case been filed in federal court, the trial and any appeals would be conducted or heard by federal judges who are appointed by presidents from both parties and have life tenure. That means they are far more insulated from partisan pressures and can rule on any issue according to the law, not their own personal futures. And those who might contend that Republican-appointed judges or justices will simply rule politically to let their party’s leader go, note that not one did so during Trump’s contesting of the 2020 election.

While the indictment remains under seal, the case will likely have as much to do with federal statutes as it does New York law. Legal pundits expect charges that Trump falsified business records when he reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for payments Cohen made to Daniels to keep quiet about her allegation that she had an affair with Trump (which Trump has denied). Normally, such falsification would be a misdemeanor under state law; it rises to felony level if the mischaracterization is made to conceal the activity to commit another crime. Bragg intends to meet that criterion by arguing that Trump intended to violate federal campaign finance law by directing the payments in this manner, presumably to avoid having to disclose them on campaign finance reports.

One might hope that Trump could get a fair trial by removing the case to federal court. But this doesn’t necessarily apply to Trump’s case. The relevant provision allows removals in situations in which federal officers or agents are charged with criminal acts they performed in the course of their official duties. But Trump isn’t a current federal officer, and his actions took place when he was campaigning for federal office, not when he was in office.

Republicans could try to amend the law to allow removals in Trump’s case, but Democrats in the Senate would almost certainly refuse to take it up.

That might be shortsighted. There are plenty of counties and states that are as thoroughly dominated by Republicans as New York is by Democrats. Texas also elects its judges on a partisan basis, and there are plenty of rural counties where Trump won with 90 percent or more. It’s not hard to see how ambitious Republican prosecutors could imitate Bragg if Trump’s criminal trial proceeds in state court as expected.

Trump was rightly criticized for agreeing with his crowds’ cheers of “lock her up” directed against Hillary Clinton. The fact that Democrats are now the ones shouting “lock him up” should not mute that criticism. Democracy is harmed when the law is used for political purposes. Trying Trump in federal court would mean the law, not partisan passions, would decide his fate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-new-york-federal-case/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

I don't think you Trumpers understand what is being said, here.

He is saying that Trump should definitely be indicted.

Thread title fail.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine if Joe Biden were prosecuted after his presidency in an overwhelmingly Republican jurisdiction. Democrats would rightly howl if an ambitious GOP district attorney did to Biden what Bragg is doing to Trump.

well, first there would be a jurisdictional issue. They would have to prove that Biden actually committed a crime in their jurisdiction.

There's no doubt that in New York, Trump and Cohen conspired to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels and then lied about it on business records.

Should also point out that your side engaged in a $70 Million dollar investigation into Clinton's sex life that only resulted in a $10,000 fine.

 

[Leviticus]

You think it's ethical for a state DA to pick up a garbage case that even the feds knew was going nowhere.

So there's that.

The case if actually pretty good. If Trump ordered someone to spend money to help his campaign, then those payments are legally considered campaign donations, and if they exceed what that person is legally allowed to donate, then both they and Trump are guilty of campaign finance crimes. That is normally a misdemeanor, but if Trump did in fact, try to use his business or his political campaign to launder the money, and pass the payments busiess or campaign expenses (both of which have been speculated) then he committed a felony.

It depends on what evidence they have. And if they did try to use his business to launder the money, then that would explain why New York would have jurisdiction, since his company is registered in New York, and in that case, even his state of limitations claims fal apart, since New York has laws on the book to extend the statute of limitations whenever someone can not be reasonable investigated or tried, such as if they are the sitting president of the united states.

 

[AZrailwhale]

well, first there would be a jurisdictional issue. They would have to prove that Biden actually committed a crime in their jurisdiction.

There's no doubt that in New York, Trump and Cohen conspired to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels and then lied about it on business records.

Should also point out that your side engaged in a $70 Million dollar investigation into Clinton's sex life that only resulted in a $10,000 fine.

Plus disbarment and an $850,000.00 settlement for sexual harassment.

 

[JoeB131]

Plus disbarment and an $850,000.00 settlement for sexual harassment.

So why was that a Federal concern? Should be pointed out that Clinton spent far more money fighting the lawsuit than he paid Jones, and he could have paid her a lot less if he agreed to admit her lies were true.

Jones, for her part, ended up posing for Penthouse because she was left broke... She's still whoring herself out to the anti-Clinton Right.

 

[saveliberty]

The case if actually pretty good. If Trump ordered someone to spend money to help his campaign, then those payments are legally considered campaign donations, and if they exceed what that person is legally allowed to donate, then both they and Trump are guilty of campaign finance crimes. That is normally a misdemeanor, but if Trump did in fact, try to use his business or his political campaign to launder the money, and pass the payments busiess or campaign expenses (both of which have been speculated) then he committed a felony.

It depends on what evidence they have. And if they did try to use his business to launder the money, then that would explain why New York would have jurisdiction, since his company is registered in New York, and in that case, even his state of limitations claims fal apart, since New York has laws on the book to extend the statute of limitations whenever someone can not be reasonable investigated or tried, such as if they are the sitting president of the united states.

It wasn't for the campaign, it was to protect his family from a false claim. The statue ran out. Met its limit. There is no magic law that allows it to be pursued later. To your claim, he certainly could be investigated. There were two separate cases which declined to file. Keep grasping at straws like Bragg.

 

[BackAgain]

She's a conservative. She is incapable of being honest.

You’re an asshole. You’re the one who has proved yourself to be incapable of honesty.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't for the campaign, it was to protect his family from a false claim. The statue ran out. Met its limit. There is no magic law that allows it to be pursued later. To your claim, he certainly could be investigated. There were two separate cases which declined to file. Keep grasping at straws like Bragg.

Oh, Bullshit.... do you think that Malaria is really so stupid that she didn't know this guy was cheating on her? I mean, the Slovenian Cow isn't the brightest bulb in the pack, but even she could figure out what was what.

And his other kids know he's a dog. He cheated on their mothers, too! (Kudos to Tiffany for keeping away from him, unlike the other three.)

He paid the bribe at about the same time as the Access Hollywood tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the pussy came out. If these stories came out then, his campaign was done and he knew it.

 

[easyt65]

Here you go liberals. Read it and weep.

*** *** ***

Anyone who cares about fairness in our criminal justice system should be queasy that Donald Trump will be prosecuted in one of the country’s most liberal jurisdictions. By all accounts, this should be a federal case.

On Thursday, a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict the former president for his hush-money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and dismissed the investigation as politically motivated.

Regardless of what people think about Trump or the facts of the case, it’s not hard to see the problem. New York state’s entire judicial process is controlled by Democrats who could lose their positions in party primaries. Alvin Bragg, the district attorney overseeing the case, boasted during his campaign that he had sued Trump or his administration more than 100 times during his tenure in the state attorney general’s office, something he probably did to curry favor with primary voters who loathe Trump. Every New York state judge who would either try the case or hear an appeal is elected on a partisan basis, too. It would take a lot of courage for a judge to apply the law fairly and potentially ignore their voters’ desire for vengeance.

Imagine if Joe Biden were prosecuted after his presidency in an overwhelmingly Republican jurisdiction. Democrats would rightly howl if an ambitious GOP district attorney did to Biden what Bragg is doing to Trump.

Had the case been filed in federal court, the trial and any appeals would be conducted or heard by federal judges who are appointed by presidents from both parties and have life tenure. That means they are far more insulated from partisan pressures and can rule on any issue according to the law, not their own personal futures. And those who might contend that Republican-appointed judges or justices will simply rule politically to let their party’s leader go, note that not one did so during Trump’s contesting of the 2020 election.

While the indictment remains under seal, the case will likely have as much to do with federal statutes as it does New York law. Legal pundits expect charges that Trump falsified business records when he reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for payments Cohen made to Daniels to keep quiet about her allegation that she had an affair with Trump (which Trump has denied). Normally, such falsification would be a misdemeanor under state law; it rises to felony level if the mischaracterization is made to conceal the activity to commit another crime. Bragg intends to meet that criterion by arguing that Trump intended to violate federal campaign finance law by directing the payments in this manner, presumably to avoid having to disclose them on campaign finance reports.

One might hope that Trump could get a fair trial by removing the case to federal court. But this doesn’t necessarily apply to Trump’s case. The relevant provision allows removals in situations in which federal officers or agents are charged with criminal acts they performed in the course of their official duties. But Trump isn’t a current federal officer, and his actions took place when he was campaigning for federal office, not when he was in office.

Republicans could try to amend the law to allow removals in Trump’s case, but Democrats in the Senate would almost certainly refuse to take it up.

That might be shortsighted. There are plenty of counties and states that are as thoroughly dominated by Republicans as New York is by Democrats. Texas also elects its judges on a partisan basis, and there are plenty of rural counties where Trump won with 90 percent or more. It’s not hard to see how ambitious Republican prosecutors could imitate Bragg if Trump’s criminal trial proceeds in state court as expected.

Trump was rightly criticized for agreeing with his crowds’ cheers of “lock her up” directed against Hillary Clinton. The fact that Democrats are now the ones shouting “lock him up” should not mute that criticism. Democracy is harmed when the law is used for political purposes. Trying Trump in federal court would mean the law, not partisan passions, would decide his fate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-new-york-federal-case/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

The criminal charge does not matter to hate-driven TDS-suffering snowflakes.

After 7 years of criminal attempts to take down Trump, every attempt failing, then weeping and running out into the street to scream at the sky, finally getting Trump is all they all they care about.

For 7 years they have lived for each next 'We have him this time' moment, hoping 'THIS' time will be 'the one'.

So much time, so many millions of dollars, and so much effort wasted, only succeeding in destroying this nation and solidifying this country's status as a corrupt 3rd world banana republic.

 

[SweetSue92]

The criminal charge does not matter to hate-driven TDS-suffering snowflakes.

After 7 years of criminal attempts to take down Trump, every attempt failing, then weeping and running out into the street to scream at the sky, finally getting Trump is all they all they care about.

For 7 years they have lived for each next 'We have him this time' moment, hoping 'THIS' time will be 'the one'.

So much time, so many millions of dollars, and so much effort wasted, only succeeding in destroying this nation and solidifying this country's status as a corrupt 3rd world banana republic.

I just heard James Comey say two county prosecutors in KY and TN want to prosecute Biden. Why not? What's stopping them?

DC Republicans might be too pasty to try something like this, but Red State Republicans are NOT

Go for it

 

[jc456]

She's a conservative. She is incapable of being honest.

the irony. Even when CNN says there's nothing there. you are still dishonest.

 

[bodecea]

Here you go liberals. Read it and weep.

*** *** ***

Anyone who cares about fairness in our criminal justice system should be queasy that Donald Trump will be prosecuted in one of the country’s most liberal jurisdictions. By all accounts, this should be a federal case.

On Thursday, a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict the former president for his hush-money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and dismissed the investigation as politically motivated.

Regardless of what people think about Trump or the facts of the case, it’s not hard to see the problem. New York state’s entire judicial process is controlled by Democrats who could lose their positions in party primaries. Alvin Bragg, the district attorney overseeing the case, boasted during his campaign that he had sued Trump or his administration more than 100 times during his tenure in the state attorney general’s office, something he probably did to curry favor with primary voters who loathe Trump. Every New York state judge who would either try the case or hear an appeal is elected on a partisan basis, too. It would take a lot of courage for a judge to apply the law fairly and potentially ignore their voters’ desire for vengeance.

Imagine if Joe Biden were prosecuted after his presidency in an overwhelmingly Republican jurisdiction. Democrats would rightly howl if an ambitious GOP district attorney did to Biden what Bragg is doing to Trump.

Had the case been filed in federal court, the trial and any appeals would be conducted or heard by federal judges who are appointed by presidents from both parties and have life tenure. That means they are far more insulated from partisan pressures and can rule on any issue according to the law, not their own personal futures. And those who might contend that Republican-appointed judges or justices will simply rule politically to let their party’s leader go, note that not one did so during Trump’s contesting of the 2020 election.

While the indictment remains under seal, the case will likely have as much to do with federal statutes as it does New York law. Legal pundits expect charges that Trump falsified business records when he reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for payments Cohen made to Daniels to keep quiet about her allegation that she had an affair with Trump (which Trump has denied). Normally, such falsification would be a misdemeanor under state law; it rises to felony level if the mischaracterization is made to conceal the activity to commit another crime. Bragg intends to meet that criterion by arguing that Trump intended to violate federal campaign finance law by directing the payments in this manner, presumably to avoid having to disclose them on campaign finance reports.

One might hope that Trump could get a fair trial by removing the case to federal court. But this doesn’t necessarily apply to Trump’s case. The relevant provision allows removals in situations in which federal officers or agents are charged with criminal acts they performed in the course of their official duties. But Trump isn’t a current federal officer, and his actions took place when he was campaigning for federal office, not when he was in office.

Republicans could try to amend the law to allow removals in Trump’s case, but Democrats in the Senate would almost certainly refuse to take it up.

That might be shortsighted. There are plenty of counties and states that are as thoroughly dominated by Republicans as New York is by Democrats. Texas also elects its judges on a partisan basis, and there are plenty of rural counties where Trump won with 90 percent or more. It’s not hard to see how ambitious Republican prosecutors could imitate Bragg if Trump’s criminal trial proceeds in state court as expected.

Trump was rightly criticized for agreeing with his crowds’ cheers of “lock her up” directed against Hillary Clinton. The fact that Democrats are now the ones shouting “lock him up” should not mute that criticism. Democracy is harmed when the law is used for political purposes. Trying Trump in federal court would mean the law, not partisan passions, would decide his fate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-new-york-federal-case/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Make sure you tell trump's lawyers that.

 

[bodecea]

the irony. Even when CNN says there's nothing there. you are still dishonest.

I'm sure CNN will get right with trump's lawyers on that.

 

[jc456]

I'm sure CNN will get right with trump's lawyers on that.

well just post a lawyer that thinks differently.

 

[bodecea]

And now Politico too. Oops

Gee...what's with the orange lard's lawyers? Why aren't they on top of this like all those news sources?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Trump's hand chosen people didn't persue the case. Imagine my surprise.

Thanks for admitting this entire thing against Trump is politically motivated.

Now move on. Your usefulness has ended.