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.

---

You should probably do a little research if you thought Clinton's offense was getting a blow job. Pretty significant distinction between repeatedly lying under oath - a well known felony offense called perjury - and this misdemeanor offense, which the DA is trying to spin into a felony. Clinton's offense was considered bad enough that his license to practice law in his home state was suspended for 5 years. So apples to oranges comparison here.

I'm curious - do you plan on voting in the Republican primaries? If so who will you vote for?

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, hurts him in the general.

DA mission accomplished.

---

Yup. And they'll cross the Rubicon for political purposes.

Really dangerous precedent.

xxx yyy said:

---

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.

---

I'm not (and never was) licensed in the State of New York, so I'll pass on making claims as to whether this indictment will ever lead to any kind of conviction. I'll also wait until some actual evidence is presented to make any claim that this is nothing but the work of a political hack. It could well be.

I think you're on to something about Allen Weisselberg. We'll see in due course.

Trump cheated on his first wife with his second wife. His second wife with his third wife. His third wife with a porn star while she was pregnant.

He paid the porn star to cover up the affair and falsified business records to cover up the payoff.

Long gone are the days where evangelicals care about the morality of the non drag queens.

This indictment is based on this man's actions. He could have just as easily said "I cheat" and been fine.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Trump cheated on his first wife with his second wife. His second wife with his third wife. His third wife with a porn star while she was pregnant.

He paid the porn star to cover up the affair and falsified business records to cover up the payoff.

Long gone are the days where evangelicals care about the morality of the non drag queens.

This indictment is based on this man's actions. He could have just as easily said "I cheat" and been fine.

---

A few things...

1) As between a guy who committed adultery and a guy who believes in abortion on demand, normalizing sexual debauchery, and pushing other issues that are the antithesis of Christ's teachings, the choice is somewhat easy. If your position is, well, Evangelicals should just sit it out then, and not vote, as a Democrat I am sure you would love that scenario. And I know many Evangelicals who did exactly that. I held my nose and voted for Trump because of where the Democrat party currently stands on issues, such as those referenced above. To me, voting for a Trump would be a lot less damaging to our country than voting for Joe (and if the last 2 years have proven anything, they've proven me right - Biden has been a total disaster).

The fact is, we are all sinners, and none of our politicians appear to have a squeaky clean record. Your boy, Joe, and Jill had an affair that apparently split up Jill's first marriage. Joe was the "other man." And of course, there are numerous shady business dealings with foreign countries, showering with kids, out of control children, alleged sexual assaults, etc. So let's not pretend that Joe is some saint when he is guilty of much of the same as what Trump has been accused of.

2) As of yet, we don't know what the indictment is based on, but if what is reported is accurate, then it doesn't appear to be a crime. Covering up an affair with a porn star is disgusting, but illegal? Doubtful, based on what is being reported.

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

The fact that some of you are so upset that this guy is being indicted shows what a stranglehold he has on conservatives. You guys are so in love with him you can't stomach him standing trial. You trash America in response. Really taking one out of the lib playbook.

xxx yyy said:

---

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.

---

My understanding is not the affair, nor the money, but if it came from his election coffers. That should be pretty easy to track through a forensic accounting. It will open the books on the Trump election funds. Many have claimed he is making a fortune as a candidate, we are going to find out in discovery.

He may not be convicted, but what comes from the forensic accounting could very well damn him as a candidate.

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.

---

I don't think they went after Clinton for that, did they? Weren't they investigating financial issues, and the Lewinsky mess (no pun intended) came up during that investigation? And then he lied under oath, which, uh, is a no-no.

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

---

Then the question is, why didn't the feds indict him for it? Most likely because they usually look the other way on most campaign finance violations, especially one such as this, where money was not misused but instead not properly reported.

It was the feds duty to bring the claim, and because they did not, the DA is reportedly trying to shoehorn a misdemeanor allegation into a felony based on a purported campaign finance violation that Trump has never been charged with or convicted of. That screams political prosecution.

To me, the better route to go after Trump, and one that has real legs, is his attempts to intimidate GA officials into throwing the election. Yet in their zeal to get Trump, the DA has purportedly brought some flimsy claims.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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!

---

From the polling I see, Democrats and DAs don't need to do anything: if they want to face Trump in November, they should just get out of the way and let the GOP bring him. Admitting that Biden personally and politically may need a vitamin b-12 injection to get a pulse, Trump does that for him. For every 10 voters DJT brings to the polls for him, he galvanizes 12 to vote against him. These are votes Biden may not get any other way.

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

---

Then the question is, why didn't the feds indict him for it? Most likely because they usually look the other way on most campaign finance violations, especially one such as this, where money was not misused but instead not properly reported.

It was the feds duty to bring the claim, and because they did not, the DA is reportedly trying to shoehorn a misdemeanor allegation into a felony based on a purported campaign finance violation that Trump has never been charged with or convicted of. That screams political prosecution.

To me, the better route to go after Trump, and one that has real legs, is his attempts to intimidate GA officials into throwing the election. Yet in their zeal to get Trump, the DA has purportedly brought some flimsy claims.

---

Disagree on GA, saying "Find me the votes..." can be interpreted as just a vernacular phrase, not to be taken literally. GA would be a lot of circumstantial general comments that a reasonable person would not take as literal Especially with someone like Trump that doesn't exactly use precise language for anything.

I do think this will end in a acquittal, but turn up some questionable financial practices that will out DOJ in a tough spot and give the media a lot of ammo.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

---

Then the question is, why didn't the feds indict him for it? Most likely because they usually look the other way on most campaign finance violations, especially one such as this, where money was not misused but instead not properly reported.

It was the feds duty to bring the claim, and because they did not, the DA is reportedly trying to shoehorn a misdemeanor allegation into a felony based on a purported campaign finance violation that Trump has never been charged with or convicted of. That screams political prosecution.

To me, the better route to go after Trump, and one that has real legs, is his attempts to intimidate GA officials into throwing the election. Yet in their zeal to get Trump, the DA has purportedly brought some flimsy claims.

---

Disagree on GA, saying "Find me the votes..." can be interpreted as just a vernacular phrase, not to be taken literally. GA would be a lot of circumstantial general comments that a reasonable person would not take as literal Especially with someone like Trump that doesn't exactly use precise language for anything.

I do think this will end in a acquittal, but turn up some questionable financial practices that will out DOJ in a tough spot and give the media a lot of ammo.

---

We can agree to disagree. I think we know exactly what Trump was doing.

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

The fact that some of you are so upset that this guy is being indicted shows what a stranglehold he has on conservatives. You guys are so in love with him you can't stomach him standing trial. You trash America in response. Really taking one out of the lib playbook.

---

First of all, legal and political analysts of all stripes have spoken out against this indictment, and that includes vehement never-Trumpers. So, it is far from just conservatives and Trumpers.

Second, the legal issue, as far as we know, is not about whether one can pay hush $ during a campaign. It is about how one reports it and records it in books.

Third, much of the anti-indictment uproar surrounds the John Edwards (and other cases) where there were no indictment. In addition, the Federal Election Commission and the Feds investigated Trump and declined to prosecute. So, whether there is merit or not, there is little doubt these charges are political in significant part. Politics should play no part in criminal proceeding. I understand this uproar.

But, all that said, I'm guessing Bragg has more evidence than has been speculated. I think it is not just Stormy Daniels, but also the Playboy Playmate, and possibly even unrelated tax issues.

In addition, I do believe Trump violated the law. His attorney has already acknowledged he knew about the hush $ payments. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I am not shedding any tears for Trump. His disgusting and reckless behavior was bound to catch up with him. I suspect in the next few months he'll be indicted for multiple crimes.

I just truly hope this doesn't open the floodgates to political prosecutions. The GOP has equal or greater power in the states, and it could get real ugly.

There it is.

If you hate Trump, statute of limitations does not matter.

If you hate Trump, it's OK to try a misdemeanor offense as a felony.

If you hate Trump, it's OK to try a federal offense in state court, even after the feds say there was no crime.

Hate above all.

sombear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

The fact that some of you are so upset that this guy is being indicted shows what a stranglehold he has on conservatives. You guys are so in love with him you can't stomach him standing trial. You trash America in response. Really taking one out of the lib playbook.

---

I just truly hope this doesn't open the floodgates to political prosecutions. The GOP has equal or greater power in the states, and it could get real ugly.

---

Floodgates are now open. It needs to ugly and it needs to happen quickly. The only way the left will learn is to use its game against it.

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

GrowlTowel said:

---

sombear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

The fact that some of you are so upset that this guy is being indicted shows what a stranglehold he has on conservatives. You guys are so in love with him you can't stomach him standing trial. You trash America in response. Really taking one out of the lib playbook.

---

I just truly hope this doesn't open the floodgates to political prosecutions. The GOP has equal or greater power in the states, and it could get real ugly.

---

Floodgates are now open. It needs to ugly and it needs to happen quickly. The only way the left will learn is to use its game against it.

---

Well, when Biden bragged on video about his quid pro quo deal, the Congress impeached Trump. By the Democrats' logic, if someone proves even worse crimes by Biden, that will seal Trump's conviction somehow.

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

It's always amusing to see fake lawyers at play.

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 appears you haven't noticed by Democrats are very very big into theatrics. It is like manna from heaven for the throngs of gullible masses. A Trump mug shot (justified or not) is worth destroying any legal precedent or societal norm. The mug shot will be played endlessly by their media teammates and be plastered on countless magazine covers and books. A complete exoneration in a few years won't matter or get much coverage. A disbarment of Bragg won't matter. The damage will have been done.

We are now a banana republic. Congratulations.

BearFan33 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 appears you haven't noticed by Democrats are very very big into theatrics. It is like manna from heaven for the throngs of gullible masses. A Trump mug shot (justified or not) is worth destroying any legal precedent or societal norm. The mug shot will be played endlessly by their media teammates and be plastered on countless magazine covers and books. A complete exoneration in a few years won't matter or get much coverage. A disbarment of Bragg won't matter. The damage will have been done.

We are now a banana republic. Congratulations.

---

Just seems like it has a really strong chance of backfiring in this case.

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

And discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the subject of the indictment. A wholesale forensic accounting will most likely be far outside the bounds of permissible discovery.

The real danger here, IMO, is if Trump takes the stand and perjures himself regarding the affair with Daniels. He has repeatedly denied it happened. If he says that under oath, it will be akin to what Clinton did if the evidence suggests he lied.

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

And discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the subject of the indictment. A wholesale forensic accounting will most likely be far outside the bounds of permissible discovery.

The real danger here, IMO, is if Trump takes the stand and perjures himself regarding the affair with Daniels. He has repeatedly denied it happened. If he says that under oath, it will be akin to what Clinton did if the evidence suggests he lied.

---

Nope, you're reaching. For one thing, the prosecution cannot compel Trump to testify, and the case is really flimsy, so there is no need for Trump to testify.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

And discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the subject of the indictment. A wholesale forensic accounting will most likely be far outside the bounds of permissible discovery.

The real danger here, IMO, is if Trump takes the stand and perjures himself regarding the affair with Daniels. He has repeatedly denied it happened. If he says that under oath, it will be akin to what Clinton did if the evidence suggests he lied.

---

Nope, you're reaching. For one thing, the prosecution cannot compel Trump to testify, and the case is really flimsy, so there is no need for Trump to testify.

---

Think you need to read my comments again, particularly, my use of the word "if."

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

And discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the subject of the indictment. A wholesale forensic accounting will most likely be far outside the bounds of permissible discovery.

The real danger here, IMO, is if Trump takes the stand and perjures himself regarding the affair with Daniels. He has repeatedly denied it happened. If he says that under oath, it will be akin to what Clinton did if the evidence suggests he lied.

---

Nope, you're reaching. For one thing, the prosecution cannot compel Trump to testify, and the case is really flimsy, so there is no need for Trump to testify.

---

Think you need to read my comments again, particularly, my use of the word "if."

---

Think you need to read my post again. Zero chance Trump does that, the dude even took the 5th when he was compelled to testify in the Georgia case.

He's a bloviator, but he's not stupid.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

And discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the subject of the indictment. A wholesale forensic accounting will most likely be far outside the bounds of permissible discovery.

The real danger here, IMO, is if Trump takes the stand and perjures himself regarding the affair with Daniels. He has repeatedly denied it happened. If he says that under oath, it will be akin to what Clinton did if the evidence suggests he lied.

---

Nope, you're reaching. For one thing, the prosecution cannot compel Trump to testify, and the case is really flimsy, so there is no need for Trump to testify.

---

Think you need to read my comments again, particularly, my use of the word "if."

---

Think you need to read my post again. Zero chance Trump does that, the dude even took the 5th when he was compelled to testify in the Georgia case.

He's a bloviator, but he's not stupid.

---

I read your post again, and it doesn't change my comment. I wasn't reaching, and understood that Trump isn't compelled to testify, which is why I used the term "if.'

We will see about whether Trump chooses to testify. I agree it would be a terrible idea, but with this guy, you never know. If I had to make a bet, I would bet he won't be able to keep his mouth shut. We will see.

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

sombear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

The fact that some of you are so upset that this guy is being indicted shows what a stranglehold he has on conservatives. You guys are so in love with him you can't stomach him standing trial. You trash America in response. Really taking one out of the lib playbook.

---

I just truly hope this doesn't open the floodgates to political prosecutions. The GOP has equal or greater power in the states, and it could get real ugly.

---

Floodgates are now open. It needs to ugly and it needs to happen quickly. The only way the left will learn is to use its game against it.

---

Well, when Biden bragged on video about his quid pro quo deal, the Congress impeached Trump. By the Democrats' logic, if someone proves even worse crimes by Biden, that will seal Trump's conviction somehow.

---

As the saying goes, if you really want to know what illegalities the dimcrats are committing, just look at what they're accusing Republicans of doing.

BearFan33 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 appears you haven't noticed by Democrats are very very big into theatrics. It is like manna from heaven for the throngs of gullible masses. A Trump mug shot (justified or not) is worth destroying any legal precedent or societal norm. The mug shot will be played endlessly by their media teammates and be plastered on countless magazine covers and books. A complete exoneration in a few years won't matter or get much coverage. A disbarment of Bragg won't matter. The damage will have been done.

We are now a banana republic. Congratulations.

---

I just realized that not only do I have to hear about the trial but also years of being speculating exoneration. I wish we could just move on

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.

---

One hopes that it isn't and that Donald Trump was indicted for the same reason that Bill Clinton was impeached: because the did something that, unfortunately, rather demanded prosecution.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

It's always amusing to see fake lawyers at play.

---

Is that not exactly what is about to happen?

Lol I'm going to call myself a fake lawyer from now on.

FAKE LAWYER POST WARNING

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Trump cheated on his first wife with his second wife. His second wife with his third wife. His third wife with a porn star while she was pregnant.

He paid the porn star to cover up the affair and falsified business records to cover up the payoff.

Long gone are the days where evangelicals care about the morality of the non drag queens.

This indictment is based on this man's actions. He could have just as easily said "I cheat" and been fine.

---

A few things...

1) As between a guy who committed adultery and a guy who believes in abortion on demand, normalizing sexual debauchery, and pushing other issues that are the antithesis of Christ's teachings, the choice is somewhat easy. If your position is, well, Evangelicals should just sit it out then, and not vote, as a Democrat I am sure you would love that scenario. And I know many Evangelicals who did exactly that. I held my nose and voted for Trump because of where the Democrat party currently stands on issues, such as those referenced above. To me, voting for a Trump would be a lot less damaging to our country than voting for Joe (and if the last 2 years have proven anything, they've proven me right - Biden has been a total disaster).

The fact is, we are all sinners, and none of our politicians appear to have a squeaky clean record. Your boy, Joe, and Jill had an affair that apparently split up Jill's first marriage. Joe was the "other man." And of course, there are numerous shady business dealings with foreign countries, showering with kids, out of control children, alleged sexual assaults, etc. So let's not pretend that Joe is some saint when he is guilty of much of the same as what Trump has been accused of.

2) As of yet, we don't know what the indictment is based on, but if what is reported is accurate, then it doesn't appear to be a crime. Covering up an affair with a porn star is disgusting, but illegal? Doubtful, based on what is being reported.

---

I'll answer 2 first. Cheating isn't illegal. Covering it up isn't illegal. Paying her to keep quiet isn't illegal. (All of those violate moral code)

Falsifying campaign finance business records to cover it up is illegal.

In my fantasy of being a bad ass, I'd have said "yeah, I cheat" because that wouldn't surprise anyone. (Of course, I don't have those problems)

My issue is this. Although we can disagree on abortion (or maybe not because I can assure you Trump has paid for more abortions than I have), I'm disturbed by the yeah but in the body politic.

Trump has destroyed

Our church
Our faith in government
Our trust in elections
Our belief in the courts
Our respectful disagreement
Our sense of truth
What we know about fairness
Our trust in the process

Soon to be a needed Political Party

And it's not because he's against abortion. It's because he's in it for himself.

**** that dude. In the end, there's a reason Bragg isn't prosecuting you. You didn't cheat with a porn actress.

(Between me and you, have you seen Stormy's work? I haven't)

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

One hopes that it isn't and that Donald Trump was indicted for the same reason that Bill Clinton was impeached: because the did something that, unfortunately, rather demanded prosecution.

---

Folks can argue whatever moral tack they want to take, but legally this dog won't hunt.

Legal experts have said that the indictment basically claims that Trump used Cohen to pay off Daniels in order to avoid losing support immediately before the election, and that Trump deliberately categorized the payoff as 'legal fees' to hide what happened.

But there are a world of problems with that argument, including:

* Statute of Limitations - the statute involved has, I believe, a 3 year limit. This alleged offense happened in 2016, meaning it became inactionable after 2019.The Manhattan DA has claimed an exception which stops the clock if the accused 'deliberately evades' law enforcement or made no appearance in the state of New York until after the expiration of the limit. But Trump was in New York several times as President, and his whereabouts have not been such that a reasonable person could claim he was 'evading' law enforcement, specially considering his legal counsel has received and responded to a great many legal notices over the years.

* Trump was running for federal office, not state office - the Manhattan DA has claimed that he could pursue a case against Trump because Trump's actions affected Manhattan voters. But his jurisdiction is limited to County and State law, not federal, and as Trump was running for President (as opposed to State office or even Senator), jurisdiction here would be handled by the FEC, which has already stated they found no crime.

*The statute is a misdemeanor offense - The DA got the grand jury to issue a felony indictment, but the burden of proof for that level is not only much higher but specific to essential facts which must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is proving intent.

* The key witness against Trump is Michael Cohen - Cohen has already been convicted of lying to officials, and his own lawyer produced a 2018 letter wherein Cohen admitted Trump played no role in his actions, that he acted independently in dealing with Ms. Daniels. While some will believe Cohen's new claim that he was lying when he wrote that letter, it certainly stands as exculpatory evidence, because one way or another, Cohen is forced to admit he lied under oath.

* There is precedent that supports Trump's defense - In 2008, John Edwards paid two women hush money while he was running for President. Charged with violating campaign laws, Edwards' lawyers contended at trial as Trump's legal team now argues that the payments did not violate federal election law because they were aimed at shielding his family from pain and embarrassment rather than trying to conceal an extramarital affair from voters to further his political ambitions.

There is more of course, but just these basic points demonstrate the mountain the prosecution must climb.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

One hopes that it isn't and that Donald Trump was indicted for the same reason that Bill Clinton was impeached: because the did something that, unfortunately, rather demanded prosecution.

---

Folks can argue whatever moral tack they want to take, but legally this dog won't hunt.

Legal experts have said that the indictment basically claims that Trump used Cohen to pay off Daniels in order to avoid losing support immediately before the election, and that Trump deliberately categorized the payoff as 'legal fees' to hide what happened.

But there are a world of problems with that argument, including:

* Statute of Limitations - the statute involved has, I believe, a 3 year limit. This alleged offense happened in 2016, meaning it became inactionable after 2019.The Manhattan DA has claimed an exception which stops the clock if the accused 'deliberately evades' law enforcement or made no appearance in the state of New York until after the expiration of the limit. But Trump was in New York several times as President, and his whereabouts have not been such that a reasonable person could claim he was 'evading' law enforcement, specially considering his legal counsel has received and responded to a great many legal notices over the years.

* Trump was running for federal office, not state office - the Manhattan DA has claimed that he could pursue a case against Trump because Trump's actions affected Manhattan voters. But his jurisdiction is limited to County and State law, not federal, and as Trump was running for President (as opposed to State office or even Senator), jurisdiction here would be handled by the FEC, which has already stated they found no crime.

*The statute is a misdemeanor offense - The DA got the grand jury to issue a felony indictment, but the burden of proof for that level is not only much higher but specific to essential facts which must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is proving intent.

* The key witness against Trump is Michael Cohen - Cohen has already been convicted of lying to officials, and his own lawyer produced a 2018 letter wherein Cohen admitted Trump played no role in his actions, that he acted independently in dealing with Ms. Daniels. While some will believe Cohen's new claim that he was lying when he wrote that letter, it certainly stands as exculpatory evidence, because one way or another, Cohen is forced to admit he lied under oath.

* There is precedent that supports Trump's defense - In 2008, John Edwards paid two women hush money while he was running for President. Charged with violating campaign laws, Edwards' lawyers contended at trial as Trump's legal team now argues that the payments did not violate federal election law because they were aimed at shielding his family from pain and embarrassment rather than trying to conceal an extramarital affair from voters to further his political ambitions.

There is more of course, but just these basic points demonstrate the mountain the prosecution must climb.

---

Are you saying Trumps lawyers, the DAs and the entire court system is allowing a charge beyond the statute of limitations to go forward?

If Trump is not guilty (See Edwards), he will be proven so.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Either it's illegal to pay off people to hush up during political campaigns or it isn't. Real simple. The fact that it was a porn star is just some butter on the popcorn, doesn't change the nature of the thing.

I'm of the mind that they should not being these charges at this time. However I'm also not sure when the proper time is. At the end of the day, if he broke the law during his first campaign, what do you wait for to charge him. The 7th campaign? Waiting till he has lost seems fair.

---

Then the question is, why didn't the feds indict him for it? Most likely because they usually look the other way on most campaign finance violations, especially one such as this, where money was not misused but instead not properly reported.

It was the feds duty to bring the claim, and because they did not, the DA is reportedly trying to shoehorn a misdemeanor allegation into a felony based on a purported campaign finance violation that Trump has never been charged with or convicted of. That screams political prosecution.

To me, the better route to go after Trump, and one that has real legs, is his attempts to intimidate GA officials into throwing the election. Yet in their zeal to get Trump, the DA has purportedly brought some flimsy claims.

---

Disagree on GA, saying "Find me the votes..." can be interpreted as just a vernacular phrase, not to be taken literally. GA would be a lot of circumstantial general comments that a reasonable person would not take as literal Especially with someone like Trump that doesn't exactly use precise language for anything.

I do think this will end in a acquittal, but turn up some questionable financial practices that will out DOJ in a tough spot and give the media a lot of ammo.

---

We can agree to disagree. I think we know exactly what Trump was doing.

---

You really think he meant to manufacture votes? Sorry, I read it more as a figurative comment, he wanted more votes and higher turnout but not to physically go a create votes. Trump consistently has spoken in figurative language, he consistently exaggerated to get a point across. Same as saying "I can eat a horse" or "I am going to kill you in a contest".

RMF5630 said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

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.

---

My understanding is not the affair, nor the money, but if it came from his election coffers. That should be pretty easy to track through a forensic accounting. It will open the books on the Trump election funds. Many have claimed he is making a fortune as a candidate, we are going to find out in discovery.

He may not be convicted, but what comes from the forensic accounting could very well damn him as a candidate.

---

Therein lies the problem - the DA is trying to elevate a misdemeanor State charge by linking it to an alleged federal crime.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/alvin-bragg-should-suspend-his-trump-pursuit/?bypass_key=Yys4ZHRVbi9OMmthYmxoNTB4MjB2QT09OjpZamgwVEhSM1NtOHdRMGt5ZUVweGNtNXFPVVIwUVQwOQ%3D%3D&lctg=547fa9453b35d0210c8c20ef&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202023-03-25&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The real prize will be forensic accounting of his election funds during discovery. If this moves forward we will all see how he spent the money you guys so generously gave him. Might be a real eye opener.

---

It's always amusing to see fake lawyers at play.

---

It is amusing to watch people (that really know. wink, wink) be surprised with speculation on a message board, as well.

Why do you come to a political message board? This is all speculation by people with limited information and expertise. That is the whole point of this set up. To act like only "real" lawyers with "real" information can speculate is a silly and unrealistic expectation.