The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[lawgator1]

Not a Trumpster but:

if the motivation for the charges is political then charges should not be brought. simple as that.

I would argue that the state abusing it's judicial power for political means is a worse scenario than a bookkeeping misdemeanor. Likewise, not bringing charges when they should be brought due to political motivation is bad scenario. The most important issue is blind justice. When it is not blind we have a much bigger problem than one individual's wrongdoing.

absent political motivation, if one (anyone including Trump) breaks the law they should be held accountable.

Honestly, this is the response I expected, in some for or another.

 

[volinbham]

But who decides what the motivation is? Did a crime or crimes happen? An independent grand jury thought so. Why should those crimes go unpunished? Because Trump says it’s political? What if the DA were a Republican? Would it still be political?

LG presented a hypothetical where the prosecution was politically motivated. I responded to the hypothetical with a statement of my principal.

Speaking about what's actually going on it certainly has all the appearances of being politically motivated which is why there are plenty of legal opinions that this one looks awfully fishy.

 

[volinbham]

Honestly, this is the response I expected, in some for or another.

do you disagree with it?

 

[hog88]

I did not ask you if you agree he did, or did not break the law. I am asking whether both can be true: the prosecution is motivated by politics AND Trump committed the crimes.

In this case no, I don't think both can be true. In general, yeah both could be true. Isn't the main motivation behind all prosecutors political?

 

[Septic]

Are you really that naive that you don't understand how the GJ process works? It's a one sided spin against the person the prosecutor wants to indict and in a place like NYC where 9/10 people vote democratic, you think was somehow impartial?

Did I state something that suggested something different?

Or are you intentionally redirecting away from the fact that trump not only wants this, he needs it to further his political career? Also, do you not want politicians held accountable - or just not ones you support?

Unlike you, I hate them all. I'd revel in seeing Biden and his crack head crotch spawn getting perp walked.

 

[VolinMichigan]

Are you really that naive that you don't understand how the GJ process works? It's a one sided spin against the person the prosecutor wants to indict and in a place like NYC where 9/10 people vote democratic, you think was somehow impartial?

Maybe trump shouldn’t have paid off the porn star in the city that had laws against paying people off?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Maybe trump shouldn’t have paid off the porn star in the city that had laws against paying people off?

Maybe.

 

[volinbham]

This is so dumb. Bail reform doesn't mean you don't get prosecuted. Like many of these small time crooks, Trump will be charged and remain free until his trial date.

perhaps he's referring to Bragg's tendency to downgrade felony charges to misdemeanors

 

[AM64]

He brought it upon himself. He'll end up slinking away in disgrace like the Muell.

No. No. No. No. They got him this time ... for sure. This is like the Roadrunner cartoons. The idiot DA has his Acme special prosecuting kit at last.

 

[volinbham]

Again, a grand jury indited him not Bragg. Bragg simply laid out the evidence of violation(s) of the law.

Don't we want politicians to be held accountable when the evidence presents itself and a jury sees merit?

Now trump will get what he wants - a platform to complain about how unfair life is while begging for donations.

I don't get it, you folks bitch about the politicians getting away with crimes (see hillary clinton and the "lock her up" screeches") and then fall all over yourselves clutching your pearls when your flavor actually gets held accountable.

Bragg asked for the indictment - it wasn't just here's some evidence. Maybe it's semantics but your first sentence makes it sound as if Bragg was just an objective provider of evidence rather than someone trying to persuade the GJ to agree with him and hand down the indictment.

 

[volinbham]

Maybe trump shouldn’t have paid off the porn star in the city that had laws against paying people off?

does it have those laws? doesn't seem that's what he's being charged with.

 

[hog88]

Odds on this getting tossed before it ever gets to trial?

 

[WoodsmanVol]

I may not like the guy, but I do think it's a black eye on the USA to have an indicted ex-President, deserving as he may be. Still, I make fun of everything, including myself. Of course, I couldn't resist when I saw the below:

 

[volinbham]

Odds on this getting tossed before it ever gets to trial?

depends on how successfully Bragg can choose the judge(s) who review it

 

[VolStrom]

Maybe trump shouldn’t have paid off the porn star in the city that had laws against paying people off?

I thought the disbarred lawyer paid her off and then was reimbursed by Trump? Who's to say that the lying lawyer didn't lie to Trump about the charge?

 

[Septic]

Bragg asked for the indictment - it wasn't just here's some evidence. Maybe it's semantics but your first sentence makes it sound as if Bragg was just an objective provider of evidence rather than someone trying to persuade the GJ to agree with him and hand down the indictment.

I stated that Bragg laid out the evidence, but without convincing evidence of a crime being committed, a GJ doesn't indict.

 

[Delmar]

This doesn’t look complicated to me. Either they have enough evidence to convict or they don’t. It will come out in court and somebody is going to look bad. Either it’s Trump and his band of idiots or it will be Bragg and the State of NY. Rather than speculate, I think I’ll wait and see what comes out at trial before making a judgment. But I will say that I’m surprised at 30 counts.

 

[volinbham]

This doesn't make Trump anymore attractive as a candidate to me. I wish he would just go away. I'd never vote for him for anything.

It does however make me even more cynical about our justice system and more wary of those who cheer on what appears to be a political prosecution because it goes after someone they dislike.

 

[C-south]

In this case no, I don't think both can be true. In general, yeah both could be true. Isn't the main motivation behind all prosecutors political?

Usually not if they think they can win. Never heard of them turning alleged misdemeanors in felonies after they’ve let countless felonious thugs loose with lesser charges.

 

[LouderVol]

Well, technically a trial is about convincing a jury you are possibly not guilty.

no....the default is you are innocent. The prosecution has to prove you are guilty.

at least its not just the 2A you struggle with.

 

[NCFisher]

Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS

The Post’s editorial board published an op-ed titled “The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president,” in which the authors cast doubt on the chances that Bragg will be able to carry out a successful prosecution of the former president based on the Stormy Daniels matter. They wrote:

​

Donald Trump deserves the legal scrutiny he’s getting — which has come from many corners on many counts. Yet of the long list of alleged violations, the likely charges on which a grand jury in New York state voted to indict him are perhaps the least compelling. There’s cause for concern, and caution, ahead.​

​

Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS

WaPo, Turlley, Dershowitz, Reason, voices across the political spectrum...all rabid, MAGA Trumpers.

 

[volinbham]

Well, technically a trial is about convincing a jury you are possibly not guilty.

ummmm

 

[hog88]

depends on how successfully Bragg can choose the judge(s) who review it

True

 

[Grand Vol]

Again, a grand jury indited him not Bragg. Bragg simply laid out the evidence of violation(s) of the law.

Don't we want politicians to be held accountable when the evidence presents itself and a jury sees merit?

Now trump will get what he wants - a platform to complain about how unfair life is while begging for donations.

I don't get it, you folks bitch about the politicians getting away with crimes (see hillary clinton and the "lock her up" screeches") and then fall all over yourselves clutching your pearls when your flavor actually gets held accountable.

Let me ask you this...

Should the Manhatten DA go after a case after two federal level courts declined to move forward with it? Are the prosecutors that much better at that level than they are?

If all three cases had been going on at the same time and two of the three deferred to Manhatten, that argument might have merit. But even the DA dropped out at one point then mysteriously brought it back up?

C'mon...

 

[hog88]

Let me ask you this...

Should the Manhatten DA go after a case after two federal level courts declined to move forward with it? Are the prosecutors that much better at that level than they are?

If all three cases had been going on at the same time and two of the three deferred to Manhatten, that argument might have merit. But even the DA dropped out at one point then mysteriously brought it back up?

C'mon...

It's my understanding that Bragg is prosecuting minor bookeeping errors that are misdemeanors but some quirk in NY law lets him elevate them to felonies if they are associated with another crime. In this case that crime he's claiming is some violation of the federal campaign finance law. I don't think he's prosecuting the campaign finance violation the feds walked away from just using that to elevate the misdemeanors.