Trump is asked why he didn't jail Hillary Clinton:

"I thought it would be a terrible thing. There were opportunists but I didn't want to. They have to be careful because it comes back to bite. That would've been a horrible thing to do." pic.twitter.com/lDTadW8WtR

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 26, 2024

Trump lawyer argues for presidential immunity.

He brings up these three examples.

1. Bush lied to congress to induce war with Iraq.

2. Obama ordered drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad.

3. Biden induced foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally.pic.twitter.com/aPN1uowOcX

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 25, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

Mothra: "polls have shown him fading as of late."

Looks a lot like where we were in October 2023, if RCP is accurate.

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump lawyer argues for presidential immunity.

He brings up these three examples.

1. Bush lied to congress to induce war with Iraq.

2. Obama ordered drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad.

3. Biden induced foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally.pic.twitter.com/aPN1uowOcX

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 25, 2024

---

Man lol...you just know those comparisons had some DC folks in the audience internally squirming

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

---

The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.

It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

may be a little bit in some of the national poll, but still solid in the swings

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

---

The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.

It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.

---

Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

---

The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.

It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.

---

Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.

---

We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.

We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.

The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.

"They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election."

Sure, on actions taken after he won the election and took office.

"So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed."

With less credibility that a MacGyver DIY airplane made out of twine and glue. To get this thing into court the DA had to get the statute of limitations waived, make up a story to conflate a misdemeanor into a felony, repeat the same accusation 34 times to make it seem like a series of actions, find a judge willing to ignore all previous testimony from the involved parties, including a defendant still trying to avoid her own judgment and a lawyer who admitted perjury for his "star" witness.

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

---

The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.

It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.

---

Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.

---

We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.

We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.

The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.

---

It will depend on whether it can be appealed to a Federal Court. On the law of New York, there will be no procedural reason to overturn. Not liking that the DA brought charges and prosecuted will not get it overturned. The Prosecutor needs to make sure they do not make a procedural mistake. Many of these NY laws were intended to get Organized Crime much more slippery than Donald and Sons.

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED

— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024

---

yep. as I was saying a year ago......

If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?

---

Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.

Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.

It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.

---

On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.

---

The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.

It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.

---

Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.

---

We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.

We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.

The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.

---

The unadjudicated bookkeeping issue was a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had expired. It was resurrected as a felony when tied to an underlying felony, which doesn't exist. Not telling a secret is not election interference, neither is asking someone else not to tell a secret, nor is compensating them for such. Also, paying someone to disclose a secret is not election interference either. Election interference is not about convincing people how to vote, it's about the voting process itself. It's about preventing eligible voters from voting, altering the vote or allowing ineligible persons to vote, among other things.

What Bragg is attempting to do is to tie the accounting entries to campaign finance law, but since campaign funds were not used for the transactions, he is done as far as the law is concerned. Now can you get a guilty jury verdict against a divisive, unlikeable defendant with no laws broken? Happens plenty. Bragg is simply trying to make something look sleazy, and then convince jurors that sleazy means illegal. It might work for those 12, but it will eventually be corrected.

Was nonsense in the beginning, its still nonsense.

Abuse of power and political prosecution