FoxNews Reporting Trump to be Indicted This Week in NY

If it was slam dunk, why has it taken this long? Why did even the federal government case into this end up with no charges?

 

Ha that’s the same as multi record violent criminals constantly on the streets of NY.

 

Oh man ...... I hope this gets "sorted" in some fashion in the very near future as it is a long time until Oct23!! This thread could be another record breaker.

 

Ive been at a lot of large companies. My experience is that the legal team doesnt settle cases without the CEO and CFO knowing. Even slip and fall cases. Especially a closely owned family business. But i'll grant you I havent worked for the mob.

 

Me neither, although one former employer came DARN close!

 

Maybe they should both be locked up without at trial?

 

That is a fair question, this crime could have been charged the day after he left office. Of course that level of expediency would never happen, but certainly within 3-6 months would have been rational.

Of course if they are doing these in order, Trump could potentially have several more indictments coming from several different jurisdictions relating to different crimes. This particular example was just what one would have seen as “low hanging fruit” considering his lawyer and co-conspirator had already served time for the same crime.

 

I think the hardest part for this case is trying to prove a second crime otherwise he is stuck with misdemeanors of which statute of limitations is a problem.

I think Trump should be more worried about the Georgia case.

Also, was it not proven Hilary illegally paid for the fake steel dossier? Don’t know the full in and outs of that but seems like that should have been a bigger deal.

 

If someone already has a violent criminal record, why are they not still locked up?
Are you going to try and say someone who commits violent crimes and a history of it should be treated differently than someone who doesn’t have a record and being charged with non violent felonies?

Can’t have a reasonable conversation if you don’t see the difference in my opinion.

 

Bragg didn't have to list the 2nd crime that c would make these charges a felony. He is under no legal obligation to do so. And b while it may, on the surface look weak, if Bragg has enough evidence to prove a cover-up, not listing the other crime(s) could be Bragg keeping things close to not reveal prosecutorial strategy.

Read the statement, and it looks like Bragg will claim election interference and tax evasion as the 2nd crime(s) that makes these charges a felony. It won't be easy, but again, depends on the evidence at this point.

 

Yeah no Trump still has the first $ he lost in Bankruptcy

 

Because Barr is Trump's lackey. Is that a real question?

 

Fox tests a new conspiracy theory: Donald Trump’s indictment is a trick by Democrats to get Republicans to nominate him


https://www.mediamatters.org/donald...-donald-trumps-indictment-trick-democrats-get

 

Trump's booking profile listed him at 6'1 270 lbs - he was lying (surprise surprise) about his height and weight the whole time he was in the White House, his doctor Ronny Jackson couldn't fudge the numbers for him this time.

 

He's 6-5 in the fake mugshot he's selling.

Trump taunted for mug shot mock-up that tells a tall tale about his height

 

Then offer zero bail. Right wingers think the answer is "if you have money you should be free to get out of jail". That isnt the same thing. If Donald Trump was a threat to kill witnesses why should it matter if he can post bail or not? Bail is so you show up at the hearing. Cant have a reasonable conversation if you dont see the difference.

 

Why am I not surprised

 

I have mixed feelings over the charges.

First, from an evidentiary standpoint, I don’t think the charges are “weak”; I think they’re uninspiring, particularly because of the volume of outlandish, if not outrageous, things that Trump does.

Second, I think the biggest legal issue is to overcome the statute of limitations. I get the argument that a trump is not to be in NY so the statute tolls. But I think that argument is especially weak because everyone knows where Trump is every second of the day. He tells us how great he is and where he is “greating” every hour every day. To be sure, he was not “found in NY” when the indictment was rendered, but he quickly agreed to cooperate to voluntarily return to NY. My question really is, what’s new that wasn’t around 2 years ago when his presidency ended? I think NY has a very tough argument on the SOL.

Third, while under the eyes of the law no man is above the law, it’s just not true. A former President has different footing that the everyday man. Given the sheer expense and burden of the logistics involved in moving a former President from location to location, there are cost considerations. Is our taxpayer money best spent tagging a former President with what is essentially glorified misdemeanors worth the burden and cost?

Fourth, given Trump’s bombastic claims of witch hunt and fake charges, etc., NY almost HAD to charge him. When he systematically calls public officials liars and witch hunters, when he knows lies about losing the election, it’s probably appropriate to take him to task.

 

But has his 40-yard time been electronically confirmed, or do we need to test that when he's on campus for an official visit?