Donald Trump Indicted by NYS Grand Jury

And there you have it. An honest to goodness Indictment has been returned by a New York State grand jury investigating Donald Trump's finances and the reimbursement of the hush money payment Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels on his behalf.

Donald Trump is presumed innocent. No one knows the exact charges. I've heard reports of two charges and of 34 charges, but these are just leaks.

He is expected to surrender to the DA's office on Tuesday, where he will have his mugshot and fingerprints taken, and then appear before a judge and be released on a personal recognizance bond.

One Indictment down, two to go? Grand jury investigations of Trump have been ongoing in the state of Georgia and at the federal level over the Jan. 6 uprising at the Capitol. [More....]

My view: One indictment over hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal will give him a boost with his marginalized and underinformed base. Three indictments would be toxic. There would be no grand marches by supporters. Republicans would move on to their next choice. He and his brand would never recover. Any thoughts his inexperienced children may have of running for national office would never materialize. While that's all good, Democrats can't afford to take their eye off the ball. A Republican win in 2024 will be detrimental to all of us.

Already Republicans want to make drug dealers terrorists, as if that will make the abysmal war on drugs succeed and restrict social security and Medicare so that more of us will decide to move overseas, unable to afford to live in our own country once we retire. They will promise all sorts of other dastardly deeds in their bid to get a desk in the Oval Office.

Once Trump is out of the picture, the Republican theme will be Biden is too old (which he is). Indeed, Democrats need to think real hard on who should run in 2024. The idea that Trump is closer to going down the political drain is indeed cause to celebrate, but it's not the end-all. We have to ensure that the Republican who reaps his spoils goes nowhere but into a tailspin.

< Trump Says He Will Be Arrested Tuesday | A Well-Earned Jury Win in Utah for Gwyneth Paltrow >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Actually, no we don't. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 30, 2023 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "Indeed, Democrats need to think real hard on who should run in 2024."

    The decision as to whether or not Joe Biden runs for re-election belongs to one man - Joe Biden. If he chooses to do so, he's earned that right by virtue of his strong performance in office during some incredibly trying times and circumstances.

    If you want to put White House / West Wing occupancy in jeopardy for Democrats and by extension, Americans in general, then I'd suggest that forcing Biden to stand down would be a great start. That's because the moment you do that, we will no longer enjoy the advantage of incumbency.

    (As much as I like Kamala Harris, I'm mindful of the fact that only one incumbent vice president has succeeded the predecessor to the Oval Office via election in his own right over the last 160 years, and that was George H.W. Bush back in 1988. The other seven VPs who became president did so by virtue of that predecessor's death by natural causes, assassination or resignation.)

    It is imperative that we as Democrats hang on to the White House in 2024. Even at age 82, Joe Biden is our best chance to do so. Our democracy has taken a real battering from Republican far right, and we are not out of those woods yet. We do not have the luxury of returning to politics as usual and as we knew it prior to 2016.

    Okay, nuf ced. Aloha.

    We don't owe Joe Biden (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 30, 2023 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    anything beyond respect during this presidential term. To the contrary, he owes it to the nation to impartially assess whether he is the person to be President in 2024. That he doesn't think he's accomplished all he hoped to do in his first term, is not reason enough to give him a second term. (He also has been leaning more to the center as his term has progressed. Some of us still yearn for a more progressive leader).

    I think he does not generate excitement. If he runs against a conservative under the age of 60, especially if it's a woman, he could well be defeated.  I don't think Kamala Harris even wants the job. She has not seemed comfortable since she took the job. Her husband probably wants to return to his law practice. They both seem more like accessories than principals to me.

    No one I know is as mentally sharp or physically agile in their 80's as they were in their 60's. It's a fact of life.  When  people are in pain, they don't think clearly. If you watched Survivor last night, it was heartbreaking to see the contestant in his 40's who dislocated a shoulder on the second day of the show have to leave after 11 days due to the increasing and debilitating pain.  (Hard to believe they wouldn't get him some pain meds in Fiji, but maybe that's against the show's rules). Watching him suffer and sit out the last two challenges was hard.  He spent decades wanting to be on the show. He practiced challenges at home. But he finally realized he was not being an asset to any of his tribe members in so much pain. His journey was over. The final decision was his, he was not voted off.


    I don't think we disagree ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    ... that it's Joe Biden's call. Yes, I agree that he needs to honestly self-assess whether or not he's up to the task of another four-year term as president. But the decision of whether or not to seek re-election is entirely his. It's not for us to usurp that choice for him.

    I'll say it again: it's a huge mistake on our part to fall back into familiar political thought patterns and revert to pre-2016 political behaviors, believing that all of this recent Trump nonsense and MAGA-related unpleasantness is now behind us.

    It most certainly isn't. Trump may not be the 2024 GOP nominee himself, given his legal troubles. But mark my words, whoever follows will likely have to be Trump 2.0 to appeal to that same crackpot base. These people pose an existential threat to our democracy and its institutions. They need to not just be beaten but eventually, crushed at the polls.

    Speaking for myself only as a longtime local political operative myself of some 35 years' experience, it's probably going to take Democrats the better part of a decade of determined political effort to force the far right back under their rocks.

    Further, it's pretty clear from past performance that we really can't count on assistance from any moderate Republicans unless they're first willing to break from their party. but for that to happen, we need to retain the White House in 2024. An incumbent President Biden is likely our best opportunity to do so.

    And finally in closing, I wouldn't worry too much about a conservative woman becoming the 2024 GOP presidential nominee. There are no Margaret Thatchers in today's Republican Party. There are only Nikki Haley, Kari Lake and the like, who are loud and obnoxious to be sure but otherwise, incredibly weak sisters. MAGA World is looking for a Big Daddy, not an Enabling Mommy or a Crazy Auntie.



    There's Liz (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    I still believe it's possible that, as charges mount and multiply and Trump is in court again in 3 weeks being accused of rape, the bottom will drop out for Trump.

    That the worm of the Republican party turns and b!tch slaps itself out of the cult trance and decides it wants to win in 24.

    I read Liz's numbers went up when it was announced this was coming.

    If any rationality should return to the party Liz would be a serious threat as a candidate.

    I'm just saying about the don't worry about the republican women thing.

    It's unbelievable to me the party will waddle along and let Trump be the nominee.  But so much is unbelievable to me these days


    I agree, in part (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    I don't think Liz Cheney will be the 2024 GOP nominee because you answered your own question. MAGA World not being a rational universe, the minions want vengeance and retribution, not a lecture from someone who's assumed the role of Cassandra in the GOP's Iliad. Nobody in Troy appreciated Cassandra, either.

    But other than that, yeah, these last six years have had a very surreal quality to them, with most all once-perceived political norms being rendered moot and inoperative by Trump's presence on the stage.

    As I said before, it's like we've been trapped in a Fellini film. I daresay then-78-year-old Joe Biden would have likely never run for and been elected president, were it not for Donald Trump. Speaking as someone who was never a fan of Biden, he met the moment and rose to the occasion. We're lucky as a country to have had him.



    And Trump would not have been elected (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:27:20 PM EST
    without Obama.   The circle of life.

    Yes, but.

    There is a real hard core of 15 -20%. I think

    They will want what they want.  The support right now I believe is a Rally Round the Pud effect.  I think it's possible POSSIBLE the other 80-85% could turn on Trump.  

    In spite of all indications I do not truly believe he will be the nominee.  That does not mean Liz will rise if they really turn on him as many already have Liz could look good.  

    Liz might need to skip a cycle. People usually don't like being reminded they were wrong.   By the person who was right.  


    Nick Ackerman was talking yesterday (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    about some things like filing deadlines and other stuff I don't really remember but he was saying he thought the Fulton Co  charges would come by the end of April.  It's April.

    Jack Smith is also running out of time before election season.

    Things seem ready to start happening.

    Also there is E Jean Carrol. In 3 weeks.

    Are they really going to say it's all political?  Some will  we will see how many.


    Do (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    you think your boy Asa has any traction?

    It's hard to envision a "nice guy" lane in the GOP. but if there is he should own it.


    I said before (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    underestimate at your own risk.   He is very good at politics.

    I was thinking about him and remembering how back in '92 when it was assumed GHWB was unbeatable and that other AR governor got in the race because no one else bothered.

    Asa in no Bill Clinton.  But he's not nothing.

    I think he better, politically and morally, than anyone else talking about it.


    I just (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    don't see Liz being able to pull it off. I see even if she did get the nomination Republicans sit home.

    Chris Christie has been lying in wait not commenting on all the crimes of Trump nor spending any time defending him. He apparently is preparing for what you think may come to pass.

    I still think Trump will get the nomination because it seems no matter what happens, no matter what crimes or how many losses Trump produces for the GOP they are unwilling to let him go.


    Post (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    New York Post says (none / 0) (#26)
    by leap2 on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:13:12 PM EST

    The court drawings (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    These sketches (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by leap2 on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 07:04:27 PM EST
    The artist is very talented (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 06, 2023 at 08:06:46 AM EST
    Thanks for sharing those.

    It's funny (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    because these people get paid to draw recognizable faces.  But it's impossible to do a sketch of Trump that doesn't look like a caricature because he is a living breathing caricature.

    The Guardian says that (none / 0) (#60)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 06, 2023 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    the very drawing that you posted will be on the cover of the New Yorker.

    The next cover of the New Yorker will feature a drawing of Donald Trump at his arraignment on felony charges this week - the first time a courtroom sketch has graced the cover of the famous magazine.

    Jane Rosenberg was one of three permitted sketch artists during the hearing involving the former president at the Manhattan criminal courthouse on Tuesday.

    Now that's worthy of Michelangelo. (none / 0) (#55)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    I think that was from CBS (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    but if you Google there are a bunch of different artists.  They are all hilarious.

    Also, I don't understand all the focus on (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 30, 2023 at 11:03:37 PM EST
    Trump being the first former or sitting president to be indicted. I don't find it that historic.

    Spiro Agnew was a sitting Vice President when he was charged with tax fraud occurring when he was governor of Maryland. He  pleaded no contest to a felony and resigned the same day, saying it was for the good of the nation.  Nixon replaced him with Gerald Ford.

    Agnew's downfall began in the summer of 1973, when he was investigated in connection with accusations of extortion, bribery, and income-tax violations relating chiefly to his tenure as governor of Maryland. Faced with federal indictments, Agnew fought the charges, arguing that the allegations were false, that a sitting vice president could not be indicted, and that the only way he could be removed from office was by impeachment. After the solicitor general released a brief asserting that sitting vice presidents could be indicted, Agnew launched an attack on the administration and vowed not to resign. With Nixon in danger of impeachment for his role in the Watergate scandal, the administration sought to remove Agnew from the presidential line of succession, and secret plea bargaining took place between Agnew's lawyers and a federal judge.

    Agnew resigned the vice presidency on October 10, 1973, and appeared in United States District Court in Baltimore on the same day to plead nolo contendere to a single federal count of failing to report on his income-tax return $29,500 in income that he had received in 1967, while governor of Maryland. Acknowledging that the plea amounted to a felony conviction, Agnew declared that he had resigned in the national interest. He was fined $10,000 and sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation.

    That seems more historic to me than the indictment of a former President. What's astonishing is that Trump has the gall not to drop out of contention for the Republican nomination.

    Spiro Agnew's (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 31, 2023 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    plea bargain (nolo contendere) was bargained in secret and his resignation was effected quickly and quietly.

     With the Republican president enmeshed in a criminal scandal and the Republican vice president being investigated for crimes starting during his tenure as governor of Maryland and continuing into his vice presidency, there no doubt was a concern that the Executive would, by succession, fall into the hands of the Democrats--the Democratic Speaker of the House, Carl Albert.

    Quickly disposing of Agnew permitted the appointment of Gerald Ford (the then House Republican minority leader) as vice president.  President Ford was historic in that he was not elected to the office of either vice president or president.

     And, with the possible impeachment of President Nixon swirling about for his Watergate crimes, the Agnew crimes and resignation got short-shrift and has, in large measure, been erased and forgotten from the public consciousness. Erased by design and forgotten by time.

     The Republican Party should have, at that point, been eliminated as a trustworthy and legitimate American political party. Tragically, it lived on to foist yet another criminal enterprise on the American people. We can only hope that the country will, once again, recover from this Republican assault on democracy and the rule of law.  


    Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#5)
    by BGinCA on Fri Mar 31, 2023 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    has an excellent podcast on Agnew:
    There is an accompanying book

    Site violation (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 31, 2023 at 09:18:13 PM EST

    Damn the torpedoes (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 05:37:36 PM EST

    Trump's Lead Grows After Indictment

    April 3, 2023 at 5:05 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 191 Comments

    A new Morning Consult poll finds Donald Trump is backed by 55% of potential Republican primary voters, up 3 percentage points from last Wednesday, the day before news broke that a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict him.

    It gives him a 29-percentage-point lead over his closest polling potential rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis -- marking his second-best advantage since tracking began in December.

    When do we decide what to call people who support a traitor?

    These people were not "misled ".  They were not conned.  They know and have always known perfectly well what he is.

    We need to stop thinking of them as a political party.  

    Potential Republican primary voters (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    That's a weird category. Apparently only 31 states allow people to register as members of a political party (closed primaries). Or maybe 32. Does "potential R primary voters" include 100% of all registered voters in the other 19 (or 18) states? Or is that figure discounted by preference in some way? I find this confusing. Since about 30% of registered voters are registered as Republicans, does this mean that Tr*mp has the support of 55% of 30% of the voters? If so, that's kind of reassuring.

    Think of it this way (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    more than enough republicans, an INCREASING number, are willing to make Trump the nominee of one of our two political parties.

    Which means (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 06:25:38 PM EST
    he has at least a chance of being of being president.  Again.

    Think of it that way.  


    Most (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    probably the questionaire screens for "likely republican primary voter". Most likely they used registered voters as a sample base and had the respondents self ID.

    However that group was identified (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    55% of it is a very small percentage of the ultimate pool of Presidential general election voters. Which is not to say, as Howdy point out, that if Tr*mp becomes the official Republican candidate in 2024 he would not get upwards of 45% of the total vote. No doubt he would, sadly.

    I (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    often joke that upwards of 90% of Republicans would vote for Satan over any Democrat and sometimes I wonder about the joke part.

    We are living history (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 07:29:23 PM EST
    Mug shots on t-shirts (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 08:35:54 PM EST
    It's been done (Sinatra, Elvis, Bowie, Jimi, etc.). And this one is pretty great (Meek Mill mug shot after being beaten by Phila police on arrest). Or Jane Fonda (1970).

    There's the whole (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    Former and possibly future president thing.

    34 felonies (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 08:14:04 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 03, 2023 at 08:17:37 PM EST

    "Wow! District Attorney Bragg just illegally LEAKED the various points, and complete information, on the pathetic Indictment against me," Trump wrote. "I know the reporter and so, unfortunately, does he. This means that he MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED. Now, if he wants to really clean up his reputation, he will do the honorable thing and, as District Attorney, INDICT HIMSELF. He will go down in Judicial history, and his Trump Hating wife will be, I am sure, very proud of him!"

    This (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    whole thing is kind of underwhelming, I was hoping for more.

    So much old news,                                just about all the republicans and  many netural and even Democrats dimissing it as water under the bridge.

    Not many people dispute the facts, just that it's going hard to make it stick.


    The (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    weirdest thing is nobody is actually disputing the facts, which are quite clear.

    He paid off a pron star to help his campaign and falsified the payments.

    Many people think this will catapult him to the nomination and even the presidency, and they have a point.


    What's (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    been bothering me is the false narrative about the investigation that the Republicans have been pushing.

    Bragg did not run explicity on getting tRump, it was an ongoing investigation that he wasn't especially bullish on if I remember correctly. He actually put it on the back burner. I am not sure why it got ressurected but I don't think it was political pressure, for the most part just everybody had moved on from that.

    They keep saying that the DOJ(under Barr!) and Cyrus Vance looked at the case and declined to prosecute.

    Vance was just on CNN trying to explain that he backed off it because the  frigging DOJ under frigging Barr ASKED him too. Friggin Burnett did not get it.

    One thing he did not do today (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    is name explicitly the "other laws" related to the increased charge.

    I was watching FOX for a bit and they were saying

    "sure, maybe he didn't have tell us but he really should have"

    They seemed very disturbed by this. The issue of the mysterious unknown related charge. Made me want to ask here what other laws might they be worried about.  And is it, as FOX says, unusual for him to not spell it out in the indictment?


    I (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    thought it was pretty clear from the statement of fact and his remarks that it was the campaign violation.

    The media, probably even Fox wanted more, so did I.


    Right (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    But he didn't say which laws.

    I have read the indictment and accompanying (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 06:54:00 PM EST
    "statement of facts." If this were a federal indictment, it would be subject to a motion to dismiss for lack of specific allegations of fact.  (To quote the governing legal rule, it does not "descend to particulars.") Each count says "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime," without saying what other crime. Likewise, it describes statement after statement in the business records of the company as willfully false, identifying the entry in question without saying what statement in the entry was false and what the truth would have been. I don't know what the standards are in NY state for specificity, but as I say, in federal court I'd be looking for a dismissal (which would not prevent a superseding indictment) to cure the defect.

    Slate (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:50:24 PM EST

    The New York state case, however, presents additional legal hurdles. New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying business records through reimbursement payments to Cohen over a nondisclosure payment to Daniels. Such falsifications are misdemeanors. In order to turn them into felonies under New York law, Trump has to have been found to have committed this offense in order to conceal or in furtherance of "other crime." So in addition to proving the intent to commit false business records, the DA also will have to prove intent to commit--or concealment of--another crime. The indictment itself does not mention what the other crimes are, and the accompanying statement of facts refers vaguely to campaign finance charges



    Vaguely (none / 0) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    ??? have you read the document
    The second paragraph 2.
    From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with
    others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative
    information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant's electoral prospects.
    In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and
    caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants
    also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in
    furtherance of the scheme.
    There is plenty more... you are right though he never explicity links the crimes.

    It's just the FOX guys (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 06:10:48 PM EST
    seemed genuinely disturbed. Not fake disturbed.

    So if I wildly speculate (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    let's assume Bragg is no fool.  He surely knows the hell his and everyone he knows life will be.

    So if the stuff in that Slate piece is true about how it's such a weak case why did he do this?

    Is it possible these unnamed crimes are of a nature that's it would explain why Bragg has done this?  Which does honestly seem like weak tea.

    So far.


    It's (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    not so much weak as difficult. The  misdemeanor falsification of records is a slam dunk, ask Michael Cohen about the campaign finance stuff or David Pecker for that matter.

    My understanding is the link btween the two that is dicey mostly because one crime is state and one is federal. Nobody really knows if that is even possible so thus the perceived weakness.

    I don't know how the NY laws are written but Bragg seems to think he has a good chance of pulling it off.

    that's what I mean about the media, they buy into the right wing narrative, witch hunt, weak tea, whatever, just repeat don't analyse.


    Maybe it's just in relation to (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    ALL he has done, but it actually seems a little like weak tea to me.

    Which I think is odd.

    Maybe the one good thing is it has broken the spell.  No longer Teflon.  It might actually help ease us into bigger things.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    out of all his criming all we get is a reprise of the Stormy Saga, can't say I wasn't disappointed, but then again i am used to it so I am strangely less pessimistic than normal.

    Armando (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    was discussing this on twitter. He said does the strength of the case really matter when it's likely that there are going to be much stronger cases with indictments and those indictments will happen way before this case even makes it to court. Trump could end up plea bargaining this one down to misdeameanor charges.

    The coverage of this has been (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    hard to take.   The worst ever.  Not just CNN.

    The OJ Ariel pursuit is perfect.


    It's (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    not the wall to wall "queens funeral" coverage, that's expected, it's just that the media has let the Republicans set the narrative with nary a fact check.

    Some clown is on repeating the same BS word for word and Wolf sits there clueless, even though some of it was shot down 20 minutes earlier on his own program.


    The (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    GOP has quit saying Vance declined to prosecute now after he showed up on the Sunday shows.

    My understanding is there were 2 cases Bragg was working on. the other one was tax fraud and it's the case that people like Pomerantz quit because Bragg woudln't indict. Frankly did anybody know that he was even working on this case? It seemed pretty much below teh radar until Trump announced he was going to be arrested.


    They (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:18:05 PM EST
    were still saying it today, as was Wolf Blitzer.

    Republicans NEVER stop lying and the Media NEVER stops buying it.


    Trump is babbling (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    CNN is carrying it.  MSNBC is not.  

    But he just said the DOJ in the records case are not looking at him for for Presidential Records Act but for the Espionage Act.

    Is this news?

    A Few Questions (none / 0) (#49)
    by RickyJim on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 07:52:54 PM EST
    1. Did the indictment mention any Trump misdeeds that had not been previously before the public?

    2. Is it alleged that Trump payed off Cohen and Pecker with campaign finance contributions?

    3. If Trump had payed them off with money out of his own pocket and didn't try to get a tax deduction, would there still be a criminal case?


    As I understand it, to answer you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 09:03:32 PM EST
    1. No, but so what?
    2. No, but you misunderstand the campaign finance violation. It is not an illegal expenditure theory, it is an illegal contribution. Money spent by individuals (Cohen) or entities (DJT Trust) to advance the campaign but not reported as such, or accounted for under the contribution limits (applicable to call but Tr*mp himself, I think).
    3. Yes, if it was not reported as a contribution to the campaign by the candidate. (Reportable but not subject to the individual contribution limit.)

    Thanks, But I Still Don't Get It (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    I don't see how hush money out of Trump's own pocket, not claimed as a business expense, must necessarily be a campaign contribution.  The Edwards' defense that it was to avoid embarrassment might be applicable.  My impression is that this case arose from Trump's desire to avoid taxes.  Remember, "It shows I'm smart."  

    You are correct: you still don't get it (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 05, 2023 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    These are are merely accusations; they are formal charges. The prosecutor is offering to prove them by both direct and circumstantial evidence (both participant witnesses and documents) beyond a reasonable doubt. If the purpose of the payments was to advance the campaign, they must be reported as campaign contributions. No one said they "must necessarily be" campaign contributions. The DA says that they were and that he believes the circumstances will persuade a jury of this beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, then he will have proven the felony. If not, but the payments were reported on the books of the company with a false description, and Tr*mp knew they would be and were being falsely reported, then the DA will only have proven the misdemeanor but not the felony. If the corporate books were not falsified, or if they were falsified without Tr*mp's knowledge -- indeed, if there is even so much as a reasonable doubt about this -- then he should be found not guilty. All that is pretty far down the road.