Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't have to be, plenty of qualified people have second guessed Merrick Garland slow walking Trump's prosecution after he was appointed. That should have been priority #1 given the implications for our country and government.

Trump's prosecution was purposely slow walked so the trial would be during the election.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump's prosecution was purposely slow walked so the trial would be during the election.

If the trial is during the election, it will be because the SCOTUS is delaying it.

 

[coldseat]

Yea, there were plenty of qualified people saying that horse dewormer cured covid too.

Where there?

Now I'm wondering how I was I easily able to surmise that all of those making that claim were full of horse shirt from the very beginning?

 

[SaintForLife]

If the trial is during the election, it will be because the SCOTUS is delaying it.

Not quite. They purposely waited so it would be during the election(election interference) and then Smith got mad that the courts wouldn't expedite the trial and bypass normal procedures and time lines. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

 

[coldseat]

Trump's prosecution was purposely slow walked so the trial would be during the election.

At the time Garland was slow walking the prosecution, there was not indication that Trump even had a political future. It was assumed he was done until Republican's insisted on resurrecting their insurrectionist crypt keeper. And plenty of people were complaining almost from the beginning that it was taking to long to prosecute.

it wasn't until after the search of Mar a Lago that it became apparent that Trump planned to run to avoid prosecution.

So NO!

 

[samiam5211]

Not quite. They purposely waited so it would be during the election(election interference) and then Smith got mad that the courts wouldn't expedite the trial and bypass normal procedures and time lines. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Yes, if it is delayed until the election, it will be because Trump's team and SCOTUS delayed it.

 

[SaintForLife]

At the time Garland was slow walking the prosecution, there was not indication that Trump even had a political future. It was assumed he was done until Republican's insisted on resurrecting their insurrectionist crypt keeper. And plenty of people were complaining almost from the beginning that it was taking to long to prosecute.

it wasn't until after the search of Mar a Lago that it became apparent that Trump planned to run to avoid prosecution.

So NO!

Everyone knew Trump would run again.

 

[coldseat]

Everyone knew Trump would run again.

Nope

 

[samiam5211]

Everyone knew Trump would run again.

It would make sense to want to prosecute someone before they might have the authority to cancel the prosecution.

 

[DaveXA]

Nope

Anyone thinking Trump wasn't going to run again doesn't know him very well. The moment he left office, he was probably starting his campaign to get back to the WH. I don't agree with SFL much, but it was always obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump would try to run again.

I don't know how much that played into decisions about cases, but that should have been part of the decision making process.

 

[coldseat]

Anyone thinking Trump wasn't going to run again doesn't know him very well. The moment he left office, he was probably starting his campaign to get back to the WH. I don't agree with SFL much, but it was always obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump would try to run again.

I don't know how much that played into decisions about cases, but that should have been part of the decision making process.

There's a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" going on in your post. Can you produce any news articles talking about Trump running for reelection in the year after the insurrection?

In the aftermath of the insurrection and for at least two years after, that wasn't as clear as you're making it out to be. Regardless, it doesn't mean Garland should have slow walked the prosecution the way he did. A special prosecutor should have been appointed from the very beginning.

This isn't necessarily directed only at you, but it's amazing to me how much news coverage effects peoples memory of events.

======================
The story of how Trump became his party’s likely nominee for a third straight presidential election is a reminder that there was an opening — however brief — when the GOP could have moved beyond him but didn’t. It shows how little was learned from 2016, as his critics once again failed to coalesce around a single alternative. And it demonstrates — with long-standing implications for American democracy — how Trump and his campaign seized on his unprecedented legal challenges, turning what should have been an insurmountable obstacle into a winning strategy.

“I think everybody got in the race thinking the Trump fever would break,” said longtime Republican strategist Chip Saltsman, who chaired the campaign of one of Trump’s rivals. “And it didn’t break. It got hotter.”

A DERAILMENT​

Trump campaign aides say their first sign of momentum was not a legal victory or a gaffe by a rival, but a trip to East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023.

Following a lackluster 2024 campaign announcement a few months earlier and slow start, the former president received a rousing welcome from residents demanding answers after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed, leading to evacuations and fears of air and water contamination. Trump was briefed by local officials, blasted the federal response as a “betrayal” and stopped by a local McDonald’s.

“It kind of reminded people what it was they liked about Trump to begin with,” said senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita. Trump, whose surprise 2016 victory had been fueled by angry white working-class voters who felt the government had failed them, was again casting himself as the outsider fighting big business and Washington.

Biden didn’t visit at the time, helping Trump draw a contrast. He has accepted an invitation from East Palestine’s mayor to finally visit this month.
=======================

How Donald Trump went from a diminished ex-president to the GOP's dominant front-runner

When Donald Trump left the White House three years ago, he was a one-term president whose refusal to accept his reelection defeat culminated in an insurrection at the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[Booker]

Everything I've seen suggests that while bad optics there isn't enough to remove her from this case, but may result in a separate ethics down the line

Article I read said that according to the letter the law there aren't grounds for removal

This is probably true most of the time, but we'll see what happens here. This is a high profile case, with a defendant with deep pockets, and the judge has to consider if there's any chance this would lead to a successful appeal.

My thoughts:

• Who Fani was forking has nothing to do with Trump's actions and the charges against him.
• The idea that this prosecution was initiated simply so that she could hire her boyfriend in order to enrich him so he could take her on nice vacations is absurd.
• She still should have been smarter, due to the profile of the case and potential for this type of distraction, than to have hired someone she was having a relationship with, or to have started a relationship with someone she hired.
• Either way probably shouldn't be enough for her removal, but if the judge found her testimony non-credible and believes she perjured herself on the stand then that might actually get her tossed.

And if she's removed, the case probably just goes away. They'd have to start over, and by that time either Trump will be President, and they won't be able do anything until he's out of office, or if Trump loses he'll have faced or be in line to face the Federal Jan. 6 charges, and the state of Georgia may figure that's good enough and it's not worth it to pursue any further.

 

[DaveXA]

There's a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" going on in your post. Can you produce any news articles talking about Trump running for reelection in the year after the insurrection?

In the aftermath of the insurrection and for at least two years after, that wasn't as clear as you're making it out to be. Regardless, it doesn't mean Garland should have slow walked the prosecution the way he did. A special prosecutor should have been appointed from the very beginning.

This isn't necessarily directed only at you, but it's amazing to me how much news coverage effects peoples memory of events.

======================
The story of how Trump became his party’s likely nominee for a third straight presidential election is a reminder that there was an opening — however brief — when the GOP could have moved beyond him but didn’t. It shows how little was learned from 2016, as his critics once again failed to coalesce around a single alternative. And it demonstrates — with long-standing implications for American democracy — how Trump and his campaign seized on his unprecedented legal challenges, turning what should have been an insurmountable obstacle into a winning strategy.

“I think everybody got in the race thinking the Trump fever would break,” said longtime Republican strategist Chip Saltsman, who chaired the campaign of one of Trump’s rivals. “And it didn’t break. It got hotter.”

A DERAILMENT​

Trump campaign aides say their first sign of momentum was not a legal victory or a gaffe by a rival, but a trip to East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023.

Following a lackluster 2024 campaign announcement a few months earlier and slow start, the former president received a rousing welcome from residents demanding answers after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed, leading to evacuations and fears of air and water contamination. Trump was briefed by local officials, blasted the federal response as a “betrayal” and stopped by a local McDonald’s.

“It kind of reminded people what it was they liked about Trump to begin with,” said senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita. Trump, whose surprise 2016 victory had been fueled by angry white working-class voters who felt the government had failed them, was again casting himself as the outsider fighting big business and Washington.

Biden didn’t visit at the time, helping Trump draw a contrast. He has accepted an invitation from East Palestine’s mayor to finally visit this month.
=======================

How Donald Trump went from a diminished ex-president to the GOP's dominant front-runner

When Donald Trump left the White House three years ago, he was a one-term president whose refusal to accept his reelection defeat culminated in an insurrection at the U.S.

apnews.com

I don't remember what the news reports were specifically, but I don't think they spent a lot of time debating whether Trump would run again right after or even a year after the 2020 election. I'm just saying it was obvious to me that Trump, being who he is, would run again. And if it was obvious to me, it's gonna be obvious to a lot of people.

I'm not making any judgement about Garland because what I think, and what he has to go on are two entirely different things. I'm not privy to the facts he had or has, so I tend to defer to his judgement.

 

[brandon]

Not quite. They purposely waited so it would be during the election(election interference) and then Smith got mad that the courts wouldn't expedite the trial and bypass normal procedures and time lines. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

So they slowed it down with the expectation that the courts would just speed it up?

So you’re saying they expected it to go normally?

 

[samiam5211]

He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Sounds like that is what you are trying to do.

 

[coldseat]

I don't remember what the news reports were specifically, but I don't think they spent a lot of time debating whether Trump would run again right after or even a year after the 2020 election. I'm just saying it was obvious to me that Trump, being who he is, would run again. And if it was obvious to me, it's gonna be obvious to a lot of people.

I'm not making any judgement about Garland because what I think, and what he has to go on are two entirely different things. I'm not privy to the facts he had or has, so I tend to defer to his judgement.

We have very different recollections of that time. I think after the insurrection most people were hoping Trump's political career was done. It wasn't obvious at all he would run again and he wasn't talking about running again. I think even most people inside his circle thought he was done too, at least that was the overall impression.

If Trump himself was certain he was going to run again, we would have filed elections papers with the FEC in 2021 right after the election like he did in 2017. He didn't even announce or file papers until November 16, 2022.

 

[MT15]

Georgia prosecutor could upend Fani Willis' relationship claims, new court filing suggests

If the judge finds the neighboring prosecutor a credible witness and allows her to take the stand, her testimony could spell big trouble for the prosecution.

lawandcrime.com

Another witness coming forward to show that Willis was lying about when the relationship started.

Fanni blew this.

None of us should ever forgive her.

If she lied on the stand about when the relationship started she could get in trouble with the bar. There isn’t anything about that relationship that is against any code of conduct for lawyers from what I have read. It’s more likely that the judge refers both of them to the bar for some disciplinary action and then orders the trial to continue as it had NOTHING to do with the defendants. And it’s the judge’s fault it was handled in this manner because it should have never been done this way.

 

[MT15]

None of us are qualified to be second guessing Merrick Garland.

But we can evidently pass judgement on Willis?