We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong

[Rumpole]

You need “evidence” of no evidence?

Bragg would need it in writing that Trump has, on the books, his payments to Stormy Daniels as a campaign expense. From all reports he doesn’t have that, he’s just connecting those dots so he can achieve his political end game.

Interesting, my reading of the reportage and listening to Bragg, given the tremendous, nay, epic stakes involved, one would imagine Bragg has all the evidence, all the proverbial ducks, thousands of them, neatly tucked all in a perfect row.

Can you show any reports that Trump has his payments as a campaign expense? If not, there’s no genuine case here per the law.

Records are kept, one need only review books kept, where under the 'item' column or the 'legal expense' column (depending on how the books are configured), the disbursements will be listed, for such evidence. It's a no brainer. I find it odd that you would even come to such a conclusion.

However, we’re seeing that laws can’t guard against real time abuses of power.

Statement posits an assumed premise. Please offer evidence or a solid path of reasoning for your claim.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Interesting, my reading of the reportage and listening to Bragg, given the tremendous, nay, epic stakes involved, one would imagine Bragg has all the evidence, all the proverbial ducks, thousands of them, neatly tucked all in a perfect row.

Im not sure why you would you assume that. Given the history of this supposed crime as a misdemeanor, and his radical ideology he has espoused and anti-trump desires he ran on.. it’s odd to assume he’s some calm, fair, objective person innocently performing his “duty”.

and if there were an expense line that identified the payments to campaign expenses, it would have been leaked immediately. We’ve seen how leftists in government leak info to the media to smear and put pressure on people. If there were something there, we’d know it already.

 

[Chillicothe]

Bragg would need it in writing that Trump has, on the books, his payments to Stormy Daniels as a campaign expense. From all reports he doesn’t have that

----------------------------------------------------

And can poster Friscus inform the forum that the DA does NOT have written documents supporting his indictments? And if he can, then how does he know?

Color me skeptical. First, Cohen says he has provided documents. That's one witness. There may be others that poster Friscus and the rest of us do not know about.

In short, my avatar would suggest caution when asserting 'there is no evidence'. The case just hit the books. The cake is baking. We'll see in due time what Bragg has or doesn't have.

Can you show any reports that Trump has his payments as a campaign expense? If not, there’s no genuine case here per the law.

Me?
Me, show the forum this evidence?
No, hell no.
Why would I have access to Bragg's evidence?
How could I know what he has or doesn't have?

My point is.....even poster Friscus does not know all that the prosecutor has. At this point, prior to 'discovery' I'm not sure the defense team knows all that they are up against.

 

[Rumpole]

Im not sure why you would you assume that. Given the history of this supposed crime as a misdemeanor, and his radical ideology he has espoused and anti-trump desires he ran on.. it’s odd to assume he’s some calm, fair, objective person innocently performing his “duty”.

Is it uncommon for a candidate for DA to run on a promise to nab a famous person of ill-repute? I shouldn't think it isn't. Make no mistake, when Bragg ran for DA, Trump had already had been named as unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment which incarcerated Cohen, one crime of which (among others) Bragg is using to enhance the 34 counts to 'in the first degree' (felonies). Not to mention Trump had already settled out of court for $25,000,000 for defrauding thousands out of millions in fake university scam, his charity shut down for 'illegal activity' and had to pay a $2,000,000 fine for embezzling funds for private expenses, (and I'm just getting started). So, your premise doesn't jive with convention, as I see it. Yes, we're out to get Trump, we're out to get any bad politician. We got Blagojevich (a dem) right? Your premise doesn't wash. Bad dudes are bad dudes and all of them should be indicted, regardless of political affiliation.

and if there were an expense line that identified the payments to campaign expenses, it would have been leaked immediately.

Why? There was no indictment of Trump at that juncture, even on the horizon. Not particular a news item, unless it can be relevant to something.

We’ve seen how leftists in government leak info to the media to smear and put pressure on people. If there were something there, we’d know it already.

Vacuous charge, rant words/weasel words (empty generalities) are not a merit worthy argument. Besides, no executive branch, right or left, has a monopoly on leaks. You see, those in the know, who have no recourse against some bad shit happening, leaks are their only clarion call, their only hope for rectifying the wrong. If they exposed themselves, they'd be fired, and then could no longer do good against the ills they are witness to. Be happy there are leakers, generally speaking, they are our friends. Unless, of course, it would damage the lives of operatives and assets abroad, those kinds of leaks are worthy or prosecution.

 

[Rumpole]

You need “evidence” of no evidence?

Bragg would need it in writing that Trump has, on the books, his payments to Stormy Daniels as a campaign expense. From all reports he doesn’t have that, he’s just connecting those dots so he can achieve his political end game.

Can you show any reports that Trump has his payments as a campaign expense? If not, there’s no genuine case here per the law.

This idea that Bragg is going to indict on 34 counts without evidence, in front of a nation on TV, when the stakes, one of prosecuting the former most powerful person in the world, are to the sky in their depth, it defies logic. Sorry, rest assured, Bragg is no dummy or fool. FYI, the 34 checks to Cohen are the evidence, and his claim they were reimbursements are corroborated by additional testimony and the logic on two points: 1. Cohen provided no services to the value of the checks. 2. They added up to the payments he made to Daniels plus extra for taxes on the income. and one bonus point: What lawyer, especially a crooked lawyer, would pay $130k out of pocket to a porn star he didn't know, for the benefit of his client, if he did not know in advance he was going to be reimbursed?

Explain that one. You can't. The jury will see right through the defense's arguments.

However, we’re seeing that laws can’t guard against real time abuses of power.

Vacuous charge, not a valid argument sans substantiation.

 

[Flopper]

Why is paying off a bimbo a violation? Of any law?

Because candidates with the funds would be buying off anyone who might damage their campaign. It is not only unfair but hides information about candidates from the voters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because candidates with the funds would be buying off anyone who might damage their campaign. It is not only unfair but hides information about candidates from the voters.

Rich people have been buying off people for centuries. Still not illegal.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This idea that Bragg is going to indict on 34 counts without evidence, in front of a nation on TV, when the stakes, one of prosecuting the former most powerful person in the world, are to the sky in their depth, it defies logic.

Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think it does.

Sorry, rest assured, Bragg is no dummy or fool.

Indeed, my opinion is he’s an ideologue who seeks MSM fame, importance (a la Fauci) and to make jumps in logic for the good of the leftist cause.

Answer these:
1. This case is like 6 years old now, why prosecute now? (IMO we know why)
2. If it wasn’t prosecuted when it happened, what has changed that makes it suddenly so important? (IMO we know why)
3. Why is it suddenly going to happen right in the meat of election season? (IMO we know why)

I think you’re naive to say the least. If this is the new standard, are you fine with GOP linked DA’s hauling The Bidens, Schumer, Pelosi, etc into court under pre-emptive arrests?? They certainly all have tons of dirt, should we? I’m asking you.. is that what the Justice system looks like in your eyes? Because those GOP DA’s would have every reason to based on this Bragg-Trump standard.. and seemingly have support from you, if they did.

 

[Rumpole]

Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think it does.

Not based on what I've seen. It appears you are living in a different universe than the one I live in.

Indeed, my opinion is he’s an ideologue who seeks MSM fame,

I see nothing about Bragg that gives me the indication he's acting out of vanity.

importance (a la Fauci) and to make jumps in logic for the good of the leftist cause.

Ditto, above.

Answer these:
1. This case is like 6 years old now, why prosecute now? (IMO we know why)

Imagine you are a prosecutor, state or federal, and you have facts which would conceivably allow you to indict the former President Of the United States, and not just any former president, a very rich former president whose base historically has threatened persons acting in ways not favorable to Trump.

You will be engaging in what is known as a 'maiden voyage prosecution', which is one that has never been done, i.e., the indictment of a former President.

And you know your case, though it might be good, almost always have a few slight defects. Few cases are slam dunk, even obvious ones. Those little defects in your presentation will be exploited, scrutinized, cross-examined, not to mention severely blown out of proportion by Trump in the public sphere, all without regard to costs of defense, all designed to mobilize his base against you. .

And you'd better not lose the case. The old proverb, 'if you shoot an arrow at the king, you'd better not miss' comes to mind.

You will be thrown onto the world stage, you will be making history in the grandest of terms, and your every move, comment, anything and everything will be subject to world scrutiny, reporters will follow you everywhere, as Trump loving protesters will never cease harassing you, threatening your life and that of your loved ones, during the entire proceeding. Trump will make sly comments which will be tacit approval of such acts, such as 'bad things will happen if I am indicted' (while never condoning or being specific as to what those things are). If you believe Bragg would bring such a case to fore based on vanity, you really have misjudged the man.

When Bragg won the office, right away he was pilloried by the left for not prosecuting Trump, after all, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne resigned because of Bragg's refusal to prosecute when they both sincerely believed they had a solid case. Cyrus Vance Jr, who was DA NY prior to Bragg, had been working on the case for a few years, but they were working on a different case and, as we have heard Vance declare in an interview, that they stopped the investigation because of the DOJ (under Barr) asked them to, Vance then believed they were going to carry that ball. In fact, they didn't. In fact, Barr was intentionally acting for the benefit of the President, against the evidence, which is a corruption of justice.

Anyway, Bragg didn't feel the case was ready, and that is his right insofar as his right to prosecutorial discretion. Pomerantz and Dunne were eager to prosecute, but the guy who takes all the heat if there is not a conviction on the ex President is Bragg. When you just get into an office of that caliber, you're not going to make major decisions with alacrity, you're going to move in, get a feel for the position, and move cautiously, and that is precisely what he did. Moreover, when you are going to do the 'maiden voyage' prosecution, the first prosecution of a former president, one that will make history, you are going to go the extra mile, and not only that, if you have to chose between more than one crime, you are going go for the one you know will be the easiest to win, which is why he picked the falsifying business records, because he had 34 counts of it, and solid proof of the allegation on the enhancement theory, given that Cohen had already been indicted for the same crime 'at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of individual-1' who, it has been established, was Donald Trump. Picking up that crime was worthy of more investigation, hence we are at were we are at, today.

Bragg, by those who know him, is a methodical prosecutor. Cohen's lawyer, in an interview, told us that Bragg was the most methodical prosecutor he has ever known.

2. If it wasn’t prosecuted when it happened, what has changed that makes it suddenly so important? (IMO we know why)

See above.

3. Why is it suddenly going to happen right in the meat of election season? (IMO we know why)

Chips fall where they fall. Why did Trump announce his candidacy far earlier than the vast majority of candidate (IMO we know why, he wanted to throw a monkey wrench into Garland's investigation, because of the OLC memo, but that backfired because it led to a Special Counsel investigation, by a prosecutor who appears to be more aggressive than Garland is, one that probably wouldn't have been assigned but for Trump's candidacy declaration).

I think you’re naive to say the least.

You may think what you may.

If this is the new standard, are you fine with GOP linked DA’s hauling The Bidens, Schumer, Pelosi, etc into court under pre-emptive arrests??

I don't mind them being brought to the various committees in congress, But, when it comes to actual charges, and making arrests, there had better be solid evidence, but on the issue of making arrests, you'll have to show me the evidence to convince me that that is a prudent course of action.

They certainly all have tons of dirt,

Show me. I haven't seen it.

should we? I’m asking you.. is that what the Justice system looks like in your eyes? Because those GOP DA’s would have every reason to based on this Bragg-Trump standard.. and seemingly have support from you, if they did.

You know the old saying, 'Put up or........"

I'll be waiting.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't know this. You wouldn't be able to tell me about the evidence that they have. The indictment is just a generalized document.

None of us can say, one way or the other.

This is what ideology does to people. It robs people of any honest intellectual curiosity, any critical thinking skills, they may have had.

But the very specific and detailed accusations in the indictment do show us that they have ALL the receipts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rich people have been buying off people for centuries. Still not illegal.

Yet Trump and his unscrupulous cronies managed to make it illegal. Bwahaha. Damn they are dumb.

 

[Mac1958]

But the very specific and detailed accusations in the indictment do show us that they have ALL the receipts.

It looks like the books were cooked, and there's no getting around that. The part that I don't understand -- and I'm seeing the same question from many -- is how the original payoffs specifically broke campaign finance law, making them felonies. Admittedly, I definitely don't know the law.

So I'm guessing that Bragg either has a plan to make that connection, or it will look like he's stretching to make it. So I'll just have to wait, I guess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The part that I don't understand -- and I'm seeing the same question from many -- is how the original payoffs specifically broke campaign finance law, making them felonies.

That's because they don't break campaign finance law.

 

[Flopper]

Hey Bunghole, blow it out your ass. Bottom line, the case is a JOKE. But then, it was meant to be.

View attachment 773622

I have never read a post that has so many incorrect statements. In fact, there are so many I'm only going to respond to a few at the beginning of the post. Most of the post is a mixture of misinformation, opinion, and few out right lies.

1. No, the statue being violated has been used many times against high profile defendants. If you had read the OPS opening post you would have learned that Trump is the 30th defendant to be indicted for falsifying business records by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago. It has been used for years in New York in connection with high profile cases involving election law violations, money laundering , drug crimes, Ponzi schemess, tax evasion, and security fraud etc..
2. If you bothered to read the incitement you would see that Trump is charge with a state crime, not a federal crime. The crime that makes the state crime a felony is not mentioned. It may be a violation of federal election law or maybe it is state election laws are something else but the indictment charges are all a violation of state law. Yes, there were leaks as there are in all high profile grand jury cases but there is no creditable evidence that Bragg leaked anything of consequence. There are many people involved in a grand jury investigation that can and do leak information, court reporters, juries, DA staff, investigators, witnesses, and of course opposing council who may be allowed in court room.
3. The NDA is not mentioned in the charging document because it is not pertinent to the charges. It could be used as evidence of the a prior crime but may or may not be needed.
4. The only crimes being charged in the document occurred occurred in 2017. The prior crime(s) that would make these crimes a felony are assumed to be in 2015, but there is no charge for these at least not in this document.

The remaining items are totally irrelevant to the Trump indictment or opinions and a bit of nonsense that does not deserve a comment.

It seems like the most insulting foul language posts seem to have nothing relevant to offer.

 

[Flopper]

Interesting, my reading of the reportage and listening to Bragg, given the tremendous, nay, epic stakes involved, one would imagine Bragg has all the evidence, all the proverbial ducks, thousands of them, neatly tucked all in a perfect row.

Records are kept, one need only review books kept, where under the 'item' column or the 'legal expense' column (depending on how the books are configured), the disbursements will be listed, for such evidence. It's a no brainer. I find it odd that you would even come to such a conclusion.


Statement posits an assumed premise. Please offer evidence or a solid path of reasoning for your claim.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Also, I think it needs to be mentioned there are a couple of federal and maybe state election law violations that could be the underlying crime that makes the falsifying of records a felony.

Federal election and possibly state election law makes it illegal to payoff people who have information that could be damaging to the candidate. It seems like this is going to be the underlying crime but not necessarily

Election law also makes it illegal for a candidate to claim a personal expense as an campaign expense. So if the payoff is as Trump claimed, to spare his family from embarrassment and shame for his dastardly deed and the expense was claimed as a campaign expense, that also is a violation of election law.

There is also other ways Bragg could be heading with this underlying crime.

I think people are making way too many assumptions about the indictment. Also people seem to assume that Brag is presenting his case in the indictment. Nothing could be further from the truth. A DA only presents to the grand jury enough information to get an indictment. And the indictment contains only what is absolute necessary to bring the case to trial. Bragg does not want to give counsel any information that is not required.

Bragg can add charges, modify charges, or delete charges at anytime. We will know more at discovery but we will have to wait for trial before we really know how the case is going to be tried. Social Media will have the case tried a hundred ways with a dozen different conclusions months before the trial.

 

[toobfreak]

Federal election and possibly state election law makes it illegal to payoff people who have information that could be damaging to the candidate.

Who says that Danial's claims were ever damaging to Trump? I heard about it while he was running and he still won.

Election law also makes it illegal for a candidate to claim a personal expense as an campaign expense.

Then blame Cohen. He was the attorney running things and advising people. The CEO of a big corporation doesn't do his own books, his accountants and legal department handle that. Besides, we all know that if this were anyone other than Trump, there would be no indictment here. This is petty BS. NYC just spent 200 million dollars trying to prosecute a crime about $130,000 dollars.

 

[Flopper]

Not based on what I've seen. It appears you are living in a different universe than the one I live in.

I see nothing about Bragg that gives me the indication he's acting out of vanity.

Ditto, above.

Imagine you are a prosecutor, state or federal, and you have facts which would conceivably allow you to indict the former President Of the United States, and not just any former president, a very rich former president whose base historically has threatened persons acting in ways not favorable to Trump.

You will be engaging in what is known as a 'maiden voyage prosecution', which is one that has never been done, i.e., the indictment of a former President.

And you know your case, though it might be good, almost always have a few slight defects. Few cases are slam dunk, even obvious ones. Those little defects in your presentation will be exploited, scrutinized, cross-examined, not to mention severely blown out of proportion by Trump in the public sphere, all without regard to costs of defense, all designed to mobilize his base against you. .

And you'd better not lose the case. The old proverb, 'if you shoot an arrow at the king, you'd better not miss' comes to mind.

You will be thrown onto the world stage, you will be making history in the grandest of terms, and your every move, comment, anything and everything will be subject to world scrutiny, reporters will follow you everywhere, as Trump loving protesters will never cease harassing you, threatening your life and that of your loved ones, during the entire proceeding. Trump will make sly comments which will be tacit approval of such acts, such as 'bad things will happen if I am indicted' (while never condoning or being specific as to what those things are). If you believe Bragg would bring such a case to fore based on vanity, you really have misjudged the man.

When Bragg won the office, right away he was pilloried by the left for not prosecuting Trump, after all, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne resigned because of Bragg's refusal to prosecute when they both sincerely believed they had a solid case. Cyrus Vance Jr, who was DA NY prior to Bragg, had been working on the case for a few years, but they were working on a different case and, as we have heard Vance declare in an interview, that they stopped the investigation because of the DOJ (under Barr) asked them to, Vance then believed they were going to carry that ball. In fact, they didn't. In fact, Barr was intentionally acting for the benefit of the President, against the evidence, which is a corruption of justice.

Anyway, Bragg didn't feel the case was ready, and that is his right insofar as his right to prosecutorial discretion. Pomerantz and Dunne were eager to prosecute, but the guy who takes all the heat if there is not a conviction on the ex President is Bragg. When you just get into an office of that caliber, you're not going to make major decisions with alacrity, you're going to move in, get a feel for the position, and move cautiously, and that is precisely what he did. Moreover, when you are going to do the 'maiden voyage' prosecution, the first prosecution of a former president, one that will make history, you are going to go the extra mile, and not only that, if you have to chose between more than one crime, you are going go for the one you know will be the easiest to win, which is why he picked the falsifying business records, because he had 34 counts of it, and solid proof of the allegation on the enhancement theory, given that Cohen had already been indicted for the same crime 'at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of individual-1' who, it has been established, was Donald Trump. Picking up that crime was worthy of more investigation, hence we are at were we are at, today.

Bragg, by those who know him, is a methodical prosecutor. Cohen's lawyer, in an interview, told us that Bragg was the most methodical prosecutor he has ever known.

See above.

Chips fall where they fall. Why did Trump announce his candidacy far earlier than the vast majority of candidate (IMO we know why, he wanted to throw a monkey wrench into Garland's investigation, because of the OLC memo, but that backfired because it led to a Special Counsel investigation, by a prosecutor who appears to be more aggressive than Garland is, one that probably wouldn't have been assigned but for Trump's candidacy declaration).

You may think what you may.

I don't mind them being brought to the various committees in congress, But, when it comes to actual charges, and making arrests, there had better be solid evidence, but on the issue of making arrests, you'll have to show me the evidence to convince me that that is a prudent course of action.


Show me. I haven't seen it.


You know the old saying, 'Put up or........"

I'll be waiting.

Cheers,
Rumpole

If Bragg loses this case, particularly if he loses badly, his name is going to mud in legal circles and his chances of re-election would not be good. What would happen to Trump if he loses. Would he go jail, Nope. Would he be barred from running for president, Nope. Would it keep him from being nominated? Probably not. In fact it might even help his nomination. Trump supporters are convince that there is no substance to the charges and it is spurred on by a democratic conspiracy and being prosecute by the devil himself.

I think Trump is far more concerned about getting nominated and winning the election. If he does not get elected he will not be able to stop the Jan6 or Classed Documents investigation and probably the trials which would likely follow. These crimes could well send him to jail for rest his life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is how the original payoffs specifically broke campaign finance law, making them felonies.

Cohen went to federal prison for those felonies.

Cohen's felonies -- and Trump Co's felonies -- are facts in the record; they are not a matter of debate.

So Bragg only has to convince the jury that the false business filings were performed the further to commital and/or concealment of another crime.

And if any of the above-mentioned felonies are the "secondary crimes", Bragg does not have to spend one single second arguing that they occured. They are facts that can be entered into the record.

Remember, the secondary crime does not have to be a crime committed by Trump himself.

 

[easyt65]

Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.

It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.

Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

7 year Democrat crusade / addiction / fetish

2024 Election Interference

 

[toobfreak]

These crimes could well send him to jail for rest his life.

For asking someone to try to find more votes, for telling a crowd to march peacably in support of Pence, and for following and working with NARA to the letter on a bunch of papers they cleared for removal and taken in broad daylight with their blessings!

Who taught you law, Flop, Comedy College?