The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[Septic]

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...

I don't know the details of the question you're presenting so I can't offer a competent opinion.

 

[luthervol]

That’s freaking hilarious. The man makes racist comments constantly, things that you would cry about if Trump said the exact same thing. We know your morals only apply to Reps. All bets are off with Dems.

You've been brain screwed. They are not even comparable.
But I know you've been "convinced" otherwise.

 

[VolStrom]

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.

The jerkwads in NY are as arrogant as the jerkwads in CA. They think they represent the rest of the country, but they only represent a bunch of liars and corrupt politicians going back 100's of years.

 

[luthervol]

So that’s where you got your white guilt.

That's where I was once again reminded that some people are simply stupid and/or incredibly shallow.

 

[Gandalf]

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

No. There is no law against entering a binding agreement with someone not to speak about an issue and paying them. I mean, separation agreements happen every day with companies. They are not alleging that he paid her to sleep with him, just to be quiet about it years after it took place.

Frankly, it is a good question that he slept with her in the first place. The amount of money she got was surprisingly small if she had the goods (aka could prove she slept with him while Melania was pregnant). Its more like a nuisance payoff you make because it costs almost as much to litigate it and just the charge is embarrassing - often called greenmail. If she had gotten $500k or something then I would bet on it being true but $130k? Nahhhh. That low amount means either it never really happened or Trump really didnt care much either way since legal fees probably would have been $75k+.

 

[luthervol]

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.

lol.....Then why hire a lawyer? Why does the defense even show up?

 

[evillawyer]

The jerkwads in NY are as arrogant as the jerkwads in CA. They think they represent the rest of the country, but they only represent a bunch of liars and corrupt politicians going back 100's of years.

You mad, bro?

 

[SuzyVol]

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

There are New York City laws prohibiting NDAs?????????

 

[LouderVol]

No men's size xs handcuffs I guess.

very very smart.

 

[LouderVol]

lol.....Then why hire a lawyer? Why does the defense even show up?

1. You don't trust the government
2. You don't trust lawyers
3. You know both rules 1 & 2

They aren't here to be your friends. But I figured you would know that since you have championed justice system changes. But I guess all those worries about the system goes away when you get to play politics with it.

 

[VolinMichigan]

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?

That’s what they have to determine at trial…..

 

[LouderVol]

That’s what they have to determine at trial…..

all going to come down to what was put on paper. if it turns into a "he said" "she said" thing, good freaking luck.

 

[VolinMichigan]

There are New York City laws prohibiting NDAs?????????

I’m not a lawyer in NYC nor have I seen the full indictment so I guess we’ll just have to see what it says. NDAs have a long history of being prohibited when theyre given to cover for a criminal act. Hell they get thrown out all the time for merely being unreasonable.

 

[VolinMichigan]

all going to come down to what was put on paper. if it turns into a "he said" "she said" thing, good freaking luck.

I don’t even think a GJ would have been convened if it came down to a he said/she said question. We’ll see what the full indictment says when it’s released.

 

[volinbham]

lol.....Then why hire a lawyer? Why does the defense even show up?

to defend your rights against the state

 

[volinbham]

I’m not a lawyer in NYC nor have I seen the full indictment so I guess we’ll just have to see what it says. NDAs have a long history of being prohibited when theyre given to cover for a criminal act. Hell they get thrown out all the time for merely being unreasonable.

I believe it's been well established that the NDA itself is not the issue - as in it is illegal.

 

[AM64]

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

Maybe congress shouldn't have a slush fund to pay off accusers? Who knows, we might learn a lot more about who people elect to congress without that particular pot of hush money that we fund. Maybe Trump's mistake was that he wasn't in congress with access to legal hush funds while running for president?

 

[luthervol]

to defend your rights against the state

And maybe put forth witnesses or cross examine hostile witnesses....you know..................
Defend your innocence.

Why do we even debate such nonsense????????

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

And maybe put forth witnesses or cross examine hostile witnesses....you know..................
Defend your innocence.

Why do we even debate such nonsense????????

You're the one that keeps the fire going on this.

 

[VolinMichigan]

Maybe congress shouldn't have a slush fund to pay off accusers? Who knows, we might learn a lot more about who people elect to congress without that particular pot of hush money that we fund. Maybe Trump's mistake was that he wasn't in congress with access to legal hush funds while running for president?

Ok? I agree that politicians aren’t above the law. I’ve never insisted otherwise. Why is it so hard to admit that if Trump did something illegal, he should be held accountable? I’m not even assigning guilt. He’ll get his day in court. Being an ex-president shouldn’t be a “get out of jail free” card. If the alleged crimes of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Fauci et al are so apparent and obvious, why has nobody moved to indict them? There have been several investigations of Hillary, all led by republicans that would love nothing more than to indict her, but they didn’t? Why?

 

[AM64]

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

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.

Ever been on a jury where the prosecution comes in all ready to go, gives a nice opening speech about how they have the defendant dead to rights, then the defense comes in and rips it to shreds? It's like the football team ready to annihilate the better team and gets decimated. The GJ heard the pep talk and never got a peek at what both sides were really bringing to the game. Pep talks don't need to be honest - just give the upside and neglect any hint of reality.

 

[luthervol]

Ever been on a jury where the prosecution comes in all ready to go, gives a nice opening speech about how they have the defendant dead to rights, then the defense comes in and rips it to shreds? It's like the football team ready to annihilate the better team and gets decimated. The GJ heard the pep talk and never got a peek at what both sides were really bringing to the game. Pep talks don't need to be honest - just give the upside and neglect any hint of reality.

You mean the defense defends the accused and proves their innocence?

Wow!!!! So that's how it works.
That will be news to some posters in this thread.

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t even think a GJ would have been convened if it came down to a he said/she said question. We’ll see what the full indictment says when it’s released.

anyone but Trump, and almost anywhere but NYC and I would agree.

even some expert on NPR was coming out and saying Trump has a really good case to get any case tried somewhere outside of the city. as he is pretty universally hated there.

 

[LouderVol]

You mean the defense defends the accused and proves their innocence?

Wow!!!! So that's how it works.
That will be news to some posters in this thread.

again, you don't have to prove innocence. You just have to find reasonable doubt (because the default position is innocence) in the prosecutions charge/case, which doesn't not inherently mean you have to be innocent to "win" a defense case.

 

[AM64]

You mean the defense defends the accused and proves their innocence?

Wow!!!! So that's how it works.
That will be news to some posters in this thread.

The defense proves the prosecution is wrong or not credible. Not necessarily the same thing. If it came down to showing the defendant was somewhere else when a crime occurred, then the defense proved the prosecution had the facts wrong, and I suppose you could claim that also proved the person was innocent because he/she wasn't there. On the other hand the defense might simply show the prosecution failed to factually prove the defendant was there - that the prosecution simply couldn't correlate the necessary facts - that doesn't really prove innocence - simply shows the DA didn't have proof of guilt.