Trump Indicted

17,936 Views | 423 Replies | Last: 11 mo ago by whiterock
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Finally happened. Legally flimsy, to say the least.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/politics/donald-trump-indictment/index.html

A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict Donald Trump, according to three sources familiar with the matter the first time in American history that a current or former president will face criminal charges.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating the former president in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment scheme and cover-up involving adult film star Stormy Daniels that dates to the 2016 presidential election.

The decision is sure to send shockwaves across the country, pushing the American political system which has never seen one of its ex-leaders confronted with criminal charges, let alone while running again for president into uncharted waters.

The legal action against Trump jolts the 2024 presidential campaign into a new phase where the former president has vowed to keep running in the face of criminal charges.

Trump has frequently called the various investigations surrounding him a "witch hunt," attempting to sway public opinion on them by casting himself as a victim of what he's claimed are political probes led by Democratic prosecutors. As the indictment reportedly neared, Trump urged his supporters to protest his arrest, echoing his calls to action following the 2020 election as he tried to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden.

Trump has long avoided legal consequences in his personal, professional and political lives. He has settled a number of private civil lawsuits through the years and paid his way out of disputes concerning the Trump Organization, his namesake company. As president, he was twice impeached by the Democratic-led House, but avoided conviction by the Senate.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And it is official - clown world.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm dubious that they can elevate a State misdemeanor charge by linking it to an alleged federal crime.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

I'm dubious that they can elevate a State misdemeanor charge by linking it to an alleged federal crime.
I've read that NY has never before linked the state charge to a federal crime, so any attempt to do so is on very shaky legal ground. So, what the NY DA is doing here is completely unprecedented, and highly unlikely to succeed.

If they wanted this to look like something other than a political prosecution, they failed miserably. I am now convinced this will backfire, and will help Trump immensely. The NY DA has accomplished something I thought wasn't possible - turning Trump into a sympathetic figure. Incredible.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Note that they released it as a sealed indictment just before 6pm New York time. Just enough time for the networks to rework their national news broadcasts, but no details so they can run rampant with the speculation.
BellCountyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Finally happened. Legally flimsy, to say the least.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/politics/donald-trump-indictment/index.html

A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict Donald Trump, according to three sources familiar with the matter the first time in American history that a current or former president will face criminal charges.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating the former president in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment scheme and cover-up involving adult film star Stormy Daniels that dates to the 2016 presidential election.

The decision is sure to send shockwaves across the country, pushing the American political system which has never seen one of its ex-leaders confronted with criminal charges, let alone while running again for president into uncharted waters.

The legal action against Trump jolts the 2024 presidential campaign into a new phase where the former president has vowed to keep running in the face of criminal charges.

Trump has frequently called the various investigations surrounding him a "witch hunt," attempting to sway public opinion on them by casting himself as a victim of what he's claimed are political probes led by Democratic prosecutors. As the indictment reportedly neared, Trump urged his supporters to protest his arrest, echoing his calls to action following the 2020 election as he tried to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden.

Trump has long avoided legal consequences in his personal, professional and political lives. He has settled a number of private civil lawsuits through the years and paid his way out of disputes concerning the Trump Organization, his namesake company. As president, he was twice impeached by the Democratic-led House, but avoided conviction by the Senate.

This is bad business
Bad for our country
chriscbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They don't have a case. Its politicialy motivated, the sky is blue, the grass is green and its total BS. It just makes Trump stronger and this will hurt the Dems cause etc etc etc.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is now officially a ham sandwich.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unbelievable. It's seriously getting harder and harder to distinguish the USA from any run of the mill banana republic dictatorship. Do any of the clowns that support this or think this is funny have any idea what the long term ramifications of this are on our country - including them and the radicals they support??
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That Is sure to take the attention off of Hunter....
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
He is an effing crook! Cant wait to see that pompous eff doing the perp walk.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
He is an effing crook! Cant wait to see that pompous eff doing the perp walk.
The more potentially damaging item in the News for the Donald is the report that Allen Weisselberg has fired his Trump lawyer. Often a sign of a flip.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.
So thats what this indictment is about?

Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election.

But you are a cultist, and can't.

So in your mind, that's what this indictment is about?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.
You do know I'm not a Trump supporter right?

Think about what you're supporting here: Going after a candidate on bs grounds to keep them out of an election. That's quite literally overthrowing an election.
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.
You do know I'm not a Trump supporter right?

Think about what you're supporting here: Going after a candidate on bs grounds to keep them out of an election. That's quite literally overthrowing an election.


I'm sorry if I assumed that, thought it was obvious that you are.

That's a petty serious stretch too by the way.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.



TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Finally happened. Legally flimsy, to say the least.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/politics/donald-trump-indictment/index.html

A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict Donald Trump, according to three sources familiar with the matter the first time in American history that a current or former president will face criminal charges.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating the former president in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment scheme and cover-up involving adult film star Stormy Daniels that dates to the 2016 presidential election.

The decision is sure to send shockwaves across the country, pushing the American political system which has never seen one of its ex-leaders confronted with criminal charges, let alone while running again for president into uncharted waters.

The legal action against Trump jolts the 2024 presidential campaign into a new phase where the former president has vowed to keep running in the face of criminal charges.

Trump has frequently called the various investigations surrounding him a "witch hunt," attempting to sway public opinion on them by casting himself as a victim of what he's claimed are political probes led by Democratic prosecutors. As the indictment reportedly neared, Trump urged his supporters to protest his arrest, echoing his calls to action following the 2020 election as he tried to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden.

Trump has long avoided legal consequences in his personal, professional and political lives. He has settled a number of private civil lawsuits through the years and paid his way out of disputes concerning the Trump Organization, his namesake company. As president, he was twice impeached by the Democratic-led House, but avoided conviction by the Senate.
This case has been termed a zombie case, as it was dead and Bragg brought it back. I have no idea if this is a winnable case or not, and suspect no one else here knows either. Not at issue is
1.whether Trump had an affair (he very likely did otherwise 2. makes no sense), or
2. $130,000 was paid to porn star. What seems to be the issue is...
3. Trump reimbursed Lawyer for payments.
3 checks were written. One a personal check from DJT, and 2 from the trust signed by Weisselberg. If Weisselberg has truly flipped, this case could get interesting. Otherwise, or unless there is something Bragg has that we don't know about, case is indeed flimsy.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.
You do know I'm not a Trump supporter right?

Think about what you're supporting here: Going after a candidate on bs grounds to keep them out of an election. That's quite literally overthrowing an election.


I'm sorry if I assumed that, thought it was obvious that you are.

That's a petty serious stretch too by the way.

What's a "serious stretch"……no check that……what's a bald faced lie is equating standing With supporters exercising their constitutional rights to protest what they feel was a stolen election to "a standing President trying to overthrow an election".

Talk about a real "cultist". (a TDS cultist, that is).
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
I'd love to hear why you think they have a strong case against Trump with sound legalese.

Since you can't actually accomplish that, I'd love to know why think it's ok to charge a former president and now candidate for political reasons and why it's a good thing.


I'd like to see how you think it's ok that a sitting president tried to over throw a GD election and explain that.

But you are a cultist, and can't.
Democrats tried to make that case but couldn't…are they also cultists?


I'm sorry man, you're too far gone.
You do know I'm not a Trump supporter right?

Think about what you're supporting here: Going after a candidate on bs grounds to keep them out of an election. That's quite literally overthrowing an election.


I'm sorry if I assumed that, thought it was obvious that you are.

That's a petty serious stretch too by the way.

What's a "serious stretch"……no check that……what's a bald faced lie is equating standing With supporters exercising their constitutional rights to protest what they feel was a stolen election to "a standing President trying to overthrow an election".

Talk about a real "cultist". (a TDS cultist, that is).


Whoa, you are WAY off. Go grab some more kool aid.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How is the dems going after Trump that far different from Repubs going after Clinton for a blowie in his office.?

This will solidify the "vote for Trump no matter what he does" and probably give him the nomination. I dont think the dems could win against even a mediocre csandidate. The outcome of this will pave the way for another incompetent Dem president. As long as men vote for PoS's America is in trouble.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey guys you gotta prove your innocence now with granted rights apparently.

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't see the DA's angle on this. How does it benefit anyone, except maybe Trump?

Any ideas here?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I don't see the DA's angle on this. How does it benefit anyone, except maybe Trump?

Any ideas here?
It helps Trump in the primary, hurts him in the general.

DA mission accomplished.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateSteak69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

How is the dems going after Trump that far different from Repubs going after Clinton for a blowie in his office.?

This will solidify the "vote for Trump no matter what he does" and probably give him the nomination. I dont think the dems could win against even a mediocre csandidate. The outcome of this will pave the way for another incompetent Dem president. As long as men vote for PoS's America is in trouble.


It's not totally different. The only difference is that Clinton's beej counted as 10MM votes. Which is why he tried to get another term and overthrow the election .
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

I don't see the DA's angle on this. How does it benefit anyone, except maybe Trump?

Any ideas here?
It helps Trump in the primary
And they want to run against him...duh. I've been saying that long enough, so not sure how I missed it!
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

LateSteak69 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Weaponizing the law to exact retribution on a President is not something you come back from.

Rubicon crossed.


Trying to overthrow an election as a sitting president is not something you come back from ( unless you are part of the cult).

Rubicon pissed on, then crossed.
He is an effing crook! Cant wait to see that pompous eff doing the perp walk.


Agreed - Biden definitely is.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.