Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[DaveXA]

This seems like it should be illegal. Aren’t there laws or rules governing how congress can spend its money? Can congress hold a hearing on anything, no matter whether or not it is within their jurisdiction? For this field hearing, they’ll have to fly to DC and get extra security, and probably pay for setting up their stage. Do they need a permit from NY to hold a public spectacle?

Problem is there won't be any accountability because the Rs control the House.

And Jordan is a freaking clown.

 

[efil4]

The king of bad takes:

Waiting for SFL to tell us that they were taken out of context.

Because he will...with tweets to support. Just gotta cobble them together.

 

[Optimus Prime]

here's hoping
============
Florida supporters of former President Donald Trump tell the Orlando Sentinel that they're sticking by their man even after he was indicted on multiple felony charges last week.

In fact, one supporter of the former president is so dedicated that she literally can't imagine voting for anyone else.

“If he doesn’t win in 2024, I’ll never vote again," 49-year-old Trump supporter Michelle Lilly explained to the newspaper...............

MSN

 

[coldseat]

here's hoping
============
Florida supporters of former President Donald Trump tell the Orlando Sentinel that they're sticking by their man even after he was indicted on multiple felony charges last week.

In fact, one supporter of the former president is so dedicated that she literally can't imagine voting for anyone else.

“If he doesn’t win in 2024, I’ll never vote again," 49-year-old Trump supporter Michelle Lilly explained to the newspaper...............

MSN

Yeah, if you're voting for an insurrectionist, you don't really deserve that vote anyway.

 

[brandon]

here's hoping
============
Florida supporters of former President Donald Trump tell the Orlando Sentinel that they're sticking by their man even after he was indicted on multiple felony charges last week.

In fact, one supporter of the former president is so dedicated that she literally can't imagine voting for anyone else.

“If he doesn’t win in 2024, I’ll never vote again," 49-year-old Trump supporter Michelle Lilly explained to the newspaper...............

MSN

Plot twist: if he wins in 2024, you'll never vote again either.

 

[DaveXA]

here's hoping
============
Florida supporters of former President Donald Trump tell the Orlando Sentinel that they're sticking by their man even after he was indicted on multiple felony charges last week.

In fact, one supporter of the former president is so dedicated that she literally can't imagine voting for anyone else.

“If he doesn’t win in 2024, I’ll never vote again," 49-year-old Trump supporter Michelle Lilly explained to the newspaper...............

MSN

Until Jr runs...and he will. His thinking is probably along the lines of, if my dad can do it, I certainly can.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Until Jr runs...and he will. His thinking is probably along the lines of, if my dad can do it, I certainly can.

Don Jr doesn't have the same special sauce/charisma that Trump has

He's more like DeSantis in the charisma/likability category

 

[superchuck500]

Don Jr doesn't have the same special sauce/charisma that Trump has

He's more like DeSantis in the charisma/likability category

He's also of average intelligence at best.

I think Trump, before he got old, was rather intelligent, and DeSantis is obviously very intelligent despite his other shortcomings.

Don Jr. just doesn't have anything about him that projects intelligence (quite the opposite). Yeah, he went to Penn but before all the admissions scandals and his dad donated $1.5 million. He admits he was a drunk in college. He doesn't appear ever to have done anything serious with his education.

 

[Optimus Prime]

We’ve now had the day of spectacle and legal experts have had a chance to provide their first analyses of the case brought against former President Trump. On the substance the case isn’t difficult to understand: In the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, Trump orchestrated a hush money scheme to keep a series of affairs and assignations out of the press and in so doing broke a series of laws.

The legal arguments behind the case are more complicated, involving both federal and state laws, and a specific argument about how different violations of the law interact with each other to create a broader pattern of criminal conduct.

On this point fair-minded people (by which I mean people who are knowledgable and by no means carrying water for Trump) appear divided. Those saying the legal foundations of the case are shaky include Rick Hasen (see here) and Ian Millhiser (see here). On the contrary, Ryan Goodman et al. at JustSecurity (see here) say these skeptics are wrong and, broadly, that they’re not focusing squarely enough on the New York case law which controls the prosecution. I’m not in a position to tell you which narrowly legal arguments are better. But I am in a position to argue against the underlying political argument of those who fear that the legal merits of the case aren’t unassailable.

Many who worry that the legal arguments of this case aren’t strong enough argue that if the case gets watered down or thrown out on a legal technicality that that will just confirm the beliefs and add power to the arguments of those who say the legal system is already a sham, biased against conservatives and worse. So in this sense, it’s not just that the case may fail. It’s that its possible failure will empower those already trying to tear down civic democracy, the concept of impartial justice and the rule of law.

That’s flawed reasoning. Prosecutors shouldn’t bring marginal cases or those they don’t believe in in any case — not for ex-presidents and not for street criminals. I hope the legal theory of this prosecution is robust because the underlying offenses are serious and deserve accountability. It’s fundamentally about a conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election. (Let’s remember that one of Trump’s accomplices already did jail time for just part of this criminal conduct.)

But if they don’t survive judicial scrutiny, that’s the rule of law too. That’s okay. The rule of law is a set of agreed upon processes, not agreed upon outcomes. I don’t buy the argument that the rule of law cannot survive the rule of law working in Trump’s case. That doesn’t make sense..........

The universal argument from Republicans yesterday was that now everything changes. Going forward every former president will be hounded by politicized indictments after leaving office. It was even argued that such indictments only provide more incentive for presidents to refuse to relinquish power to avoid prosecution. Our national line in the sand is that we won’t tolerate any president attempting to remain in office in defiance of the law rather than trying to provide them incentives to leave office voluntarily.

It’s worth remembering that Donald Trump is the first and only president in American history to attempt a coup d’etat to remain in office illegally and that was before any history of presidential prosecutions. The problem isn’t incentives. It’s Donald Trump.

But let’s address the argument head on. Will all future presidents now face a gauntlet of post-presidential judicial scrutiny? It’s worth confronting what this claim means in its raw form. Republicans are saying that even though they know full well, even if they won’t say it, that former President Trump has engaged in extensive criminal conduct, they will find or manufacture (it doesn’t matter which) indictments against future Democratic presidents as a matter of payback.

This is a credible threat, if not a likely outcome, because it is an established Republican pattern. It amounts to the same specious argument as the one about limiting incentives for presidential coups: don’t follow the law because we’ll break the law..........

The Law Isn’t Brittle for Following It

We've now had the day of spectacle and legal experts have had a chance to provide their first analyses of the case brought against former President Trump. On the substance the case isn'

talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[MT15]

He's also of average intelligence at best.

I think Trump, before he got old, was rather intelligent, and DeSantis is obviously very intelligent despite his other shortcomings.

Don Jr. just doesn't have anything about him that projects intelligence (quite the opposite). Yeah, he went to Penn but before all the admissions scandals and his dad donated $1.5 million. He admits he was a drunk in college. He doesn't appear ever to have done anything serious with his education.

I’m not really sure Trump has anything like intelligence. He paid someone to take his SAT, also got into college as a favor to his dad, didn’t seem to do anything with his education.

What he does have is a crude charisma and some animal cunning. That’s about it, other than his raging narcissism.

 

[superchuck500]

I’m not really sure Trump has anything like intelligence. He paid someone to take his SAT, also got into college as a favor to his dad, didn’t seem to do anything with his education.

What he does have is a crude charisma and some animal cunning. That’s about it, other than his raging narcissism.

Certainly now all that is true. And I don't think he was ever anything close to an intellectual. But if you watch some of his interviews in the 80s and early 90s, he's much more polished and speaks in lengthy coherent discourse. Decades of yes-men, fast food, and an unchallenging mental environment clearly eroded whatever capacity he once had.

 

[MT15]

Certainly now all that is true. And I don't think he was ever anything close to an intellectual. But if you watch some of his interviews in the 80s and early 90s, he's much more polished and speaks in lengthy coherent discourse. Decades of yes-men, fast food, and an unchallenging mental environment clearly eroded whatever capacity he once had.

Not to mention the drug use. He doesn’t drink but from all reports abused cocaine heavily earlier on and does the same with Adderall to this day.

 

[DaveXA]

Don Jr doesn't have the same special sauce/charisma that Trump has

He's more like DeSantis in the charisma/likability category

I agree, but he'll get the same votes as daddy...in droves. He's no Sr. But he could get a chunk of votes out there.

 

[DaveXA]

Certainly now all that is true. And I don't think he was ever anything close to an intellectual. But if you watch some of his interviews in the 80s and early 90s, he's much more polished and speaks in lengthy coherent discourse. Decades of yes-men, fast food, and an unchallenging mental environment clearly eroded whatever capacity he once had.

Definitely, he's a shell of his younger self except his NPD is as bad now as it ever was.

 

[J-DONK]

Certainly now all that is true. And I don't think he was ever anything close to an intellectual. But if you watch some of his interviews in the 80s and early 90s, he's much more polished and speaks in lengthy coherent discourse. Decades of yes-men, fast food, and an unchallenging mental environment clearly eroded whatever capacity he once had.

Sugar in general is horrible for your brain function. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump had pre-dementia based on his diet.

FYI:

If anyone wonders, you can google "diabetes Alzheimer's Dementia link" and get a whole bunch of stuff. There is a known strong correlation between poor glucose control and brain function in the elderly.

On a side tangent if you want to lower your risk, I went on a deep dive with this after a family member got dementia. A low carb diet or keep your blood glucose levels under control(no sweets, walking within an hour of eating)/intermittent fasting, improve brain plasticity via learning something new(language, skill, etc), Lion's Mane supplements(google it, actual studies on this one that it works)

 

[Optimus Prime]

While Donald Trump launches verbal attacks against the prosecutor and judge overseeing his criminal charges in connection with hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, an attorney for the former US president has said his main focus is on legal maneuvers aiming to get the case dismissed long before a trial jury is ever seated.

Jim Trusty appeared on Sunday on ABC’s This Week and argued that “there’s a lot to play with” when examining whether New York state prosecutors waited too long to secure an indictment against Trump and if the ex-president intended to commit any crimes with the payments at the center of the case.

The payments were made at the height of the 2016 White House race which Trump won, and Trusty also reiterated questions that his side has previously asked about whether the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, should be able to apply “federal election law into a New York case”.

“The motions to dismiss have to be a priority because they amputate this miscarriage of justice early on,” Trusty said to show host Jonathan Karl. “And I think you’ll see some very robust motions.”

In his remarks to Karl, Trusty also doubled down on questions already floated by his side about whether Trump could get a fair trial in Manhattan. The New York City borough voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrat who defeated Trusty’s client in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden, after all.

However, though Trusty said Manhattan is “a real stronghold of liberalism, of activism, and that infects the whole process”, he suggested pre-trial dismissal motions citing statutes of limitation and an alleged lack of criminal intent are almost certain to come before one that might seek a change of trial venue……

Trump lawyer says he aims to get hush money case dismissed before trial

Jim Trusty, on ABC’s This Week, said the ex-president’s team will file ‘robust motions’ before the case even reaches its trial stage

www.theguardian.com

 

[superchuck500]

Bragg sues in federal court in NY to try to stop House GOP’s interference into the Trump prosecution.

 

[Huntn]

Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jordan over Trump indictment inquiry​

The GOP, what a Piece of Work…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/11/trump-bragg-jordan-lawsuit-investigation/f60d582e-d899-11ed-aebd-3fd2ac4c460a_story.html

NEW YORK — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a federal lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan on Tuesday, accusing the Republican of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” him over his indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Bragg, a Democrat, is asking a judge to invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has or plans to issue as part of an investigation of Bragg’s handling of the case, the first criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president.

The House Judiciary Committee recently issued a subpoena seeking testimony from a former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, who previously oversaw the Trump investigation and sparred with Bragg over the direction of the probe before leaving the office last year. The committee has also sought documents and testimony from Bragg and his office. Bragg has rejected those requests.