Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 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

 

[Lapaz]

yep...a minor case like

In all fairness, I don't see how Bragg's action "sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents" when he indicted a man who:
--Stated in his campaign that he would jail his political opponent
--Directed his attorney general to investigate that same political opponent
--Directed his attorney general to investigate the federal agents who opened an investigation into him
--Directed the IRS to audit two individuals in the FBI because they were involved in that investigation of him

Trump has crossed many lines, including the ones you listed above, but I don't think those are necessarily precedents that other presidents will follow, particularly if Trump ultimately gets punished for some of his actions. The precedent that I'm concerned about is the one being set by Bragg's indictment of a former president. There is no doubt that a crime was committed by Trump, and that was widely known, and it is also widely known that his co-conspirator has been serving jail time, so that almost required charging the case. Those facts make it different than many other obscure tax fraud cases, which prosecutors may sometimes not charge. That may also mitigate the precedent, but Bragg had discretion on what to charge.

We can make the above argument about his co-conspirator, Cohen, serving time being widely known to justify the charge, but maybe Bragg should've just charged the misdemeanors. It would've still been a first, but not as dramatic, and would've largely resolved the above argument. With this felony charge, which may be hard to win, it could embolden attorneys general to indict former presidents, and that would be bad for the country. If he had just charged the misdemeanors, he would've still been criticized, but he would've been on more sound ground.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

To be fair, I’m not sure how anyone can be against the charges he’s facing, beyond thinking that it’s a stretch to try and upgrade them to a felony.

It seems like there is very clear evidence that Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing in the indictment.

As for the felony upgrade, I can see people saying it’s a stretch….but, this exact same approach has been used before in New York. In the previous case, the defendant was a large bank, and they ended up pleading guilty, so it hasn’t actually been tested in court.

I have no problem with the charges. I have no problem with the upgrade to a felony. That's up to them, not me, and they should know what they have or don't have. Again, I was just pointing out that there are some Republicans, Romney in this case, who are both anti-Trump and against the charges being brought because they're against a former president.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

He openly admits to taking documents.
openly admits he has no idea what the Presidential act means
openly admits that he doesnt understand the declassification process
openly admits that he is hung up on 2020.
openly attacks the presiding Judge in the NYC case AND his daughter after being TOLD at arraignment ( with his attorneys present ) "no gag order, but tone down the rhetoric"

He is a defense attorneys absolute worst nightmare. He thinks he is untouchable and speaks without forethought.

His vanity will be his undoing and im going to watch from the sidelines as the circus around him grows to a crescendo, then the main tent pole breaks.

His post-arraignment speech last night was absolutely pathetic. I had forgotten just how sad of a case he is.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

El Salvador president blasts Trump indictment: 'Just imagine if this happened in any other country'

The president of El Salvador slammed the indictment of Donald Trump, suggesting it would now be hypocritical for the U.S. to promote democracy with its foreign policy.

www.foxnews.com

Imagine?

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN was interviewing someone (not sure who) who said any disappointment over these indictments are coming from the media and Trump critics who were hoping for sexy, gotcha bombshells, he went on the say that these are very serious charges, and it's a strong case and expects these charges to turn into tax fraud charges as well down the line

 

[efil4]

His post-arraignment speech last night was absolutely pathetic. I had forgotten just how sad of a case he is.

His "reserved, soft" tone was transparent. And that wont last much longer. Wait til GA files and Special Counsel get testimony from MEadows/Secret Service etc etc.

He will do his best, but it wont be enough.

 

[efil4]

CNN was interviewing someone (not sure who) who said any disappointment over these indictments are coming from the media and Trump critics who were hoping for sexy, gotcha bombshells, he went on the say that these are very serious charges, and it's a strong case and expects these charges to turn into tax fraud charges as well down the line

Kinda what i was saying yesterday - Trump has way more to lose than win here.

This is all starting to peel back the layers of his organization and once you reach a certain layer, there is no ability to hide anything.

 

[bdb13]

I have no problem with the charges. I have no problem with the upgrade to a felony. That's up to them, not me, and they should know what they have or don't have. Again, I was just pointing out that there are some Republicans, Romney in this case, who are both anti-Trump and against the charges being brought because they're against a former president.

I think Romney made the point specific to the upgraded felony charges, not that it was all together wrong to charge him.

 

[coldseat]

Trump has crossed many lines, including the ones you listed above, but I don't think those are necessarily precedents that other presidents will follow, particularly if Trump ultimately gets punished for some of his actions. The precedent that I'm concerned about is the one being set by Bragg's indictment of a former president. There is no doubt that a crime was committed by Trump, and that was widely known, and it is also widely known that his co-conspirator has been serving jail time, so that almost required charging the case. Those facts make it different than many other obscure tax fraud cases, which prosecutors may sometimes not charge. That may also mitigate the precedent, but Bragg had discretion on what to charge.

We can make the above argument about his co-conspirator, Cohen, serving time being widely known to justify the charge, but maybe Bragg should've just charged the misdemeanors. It would've still been a first, but not as dramatic, and would've largely resolved the above argument. With this felony charge, which may be hard to win, it could embolden attorneys general to indict former presidents, and that would be bad for the country. If he had just charged the misdemeanors, he would've still been criticized, but he would've been on more sound ground.

I've seen the reasoning I bolded above as the main gripe or concern with the indictment from Bragg. I have to be honest, I don't really see a problem here. As you noted in this very post, Trump has crossed many lines that other presidents will not follow. So why then are we going to see an increase in other attorney generals indicting future presidents? Do you really believe the rabid Republican attorney generals round the country wouldn't be indicting Obama and Biden right now if they thought they had any potential cases against them?
If anything, all this does is dissuade other future presidents or presidential candidates from carrying out crimes. A lot of people seem to be very worried about the wrong precedent being set. Had Bragg not brought the indictment, the precedent had been the norm in this country and would have continued is that presidents (and even presidential candidates) were above the law. That has clearly been a much more damaging precedent for this country, and I for one am glad that it's no longer the case.

I don't know how this case will play out and if Bragg will be able to secure a conviction, but it's good that we all will at least get to see it play out instead of it being another crime that Trump got away with.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[coldseat]

I don't dislike Van Jones, but his commentary at times gets a little silly in regards to Trump, like after Trump's first SOTU.

 

[Lapaz]

I've seen the reasoning I bolded above as the main gripe or concern with the indictment from Bragg. I have to be honest, I don't really see a problem here. As you noted in this very post, Trump has crossed many lines that other presidents will not follow. So why then are we going to see an increase in other attorney generals indicting future presidents? Do you really believe the rabid Republican attorney generals round the country wouldn't be indicting Obama and Biden right now if they thought they had any potential cases against them?
If anything, all this does is dissuade other future presidents or presidential candidates from carrying out crimes. A lot of people seem to be very worried about the wrong precedent being set. Had Bragg not brought the indictment, the precedent had been the norm in this country and would have continued is that presidents (and even presidential candidates) were above the law. That has clearly been a much more damaging precedent for this country, and I for one am glad that it's no longer the case.

I don't know how this case will play out and if Bragg will be able to secure a conviction, but it's good that we all will at least get to see it play out instead of it being another crime that Trump got away with.

I didn't suggest that Bragg shouldn't charge the case. I just agreed with many analysts that he could've and probably should've just charged the misdemeanor. Even if he had just stopped at a misdemeanor, Trump would still be punished. It would still be a first ever indictment. There are some signs that this could be a stronger case than initially believed, but the appearance is bad, and since this is likely to take nearly a year to go to trial, we will be inundated with appearance discussions. Also, all of those other lines that Trump crossed have to be dealt with on their own merits. That shouldn't influence whether or how to charge this case. Lastly, I think we probably will see a rabid attorney general going after one of the other ex presidents, now that Bragg has broken the lid open. I don't think that would've happened after an indictment for any of the other 3 cases (January 6th, the classified documents, and Georgia interference). Those are more clear felonies, so they can't be painted as political nearly as easily, and so they wouldn't have been as likely to embolden other attorney generals.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't dislike Van Jones, but his commentary at times gets a little silly in regards to Trump, like after Trump's first SOTU.

His comments seemed fine. I do think Trump was sobered a little by the events. However, I think Trump drank heavily later, so he didn't stay sober very long.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don't dislike Van Jones, but his commentary at times gets a little silly in regards to Trump, like after Trump's first SOTU.

My girlfriend can't stand Van Jones

Like you I don't really like or dislike him

 

[coldseat]

I didn't suggest that Bragg shouldn't charge the case. I just agreed with many analysts that he could've and probably should've just charged the misdemeanor. Even if he had just stopped at a misdemeanor, Trump would still be punished. It would still be a first ever indictment. There are some signs that this could be a stronger case than initially believed, but the appearance is bad, and since this is likely to take nearly a year to go to trial, we will be inundated with appearance discussions. Also, all of those other lines that Trump crossed have to be dealt with on their own merits. That shouldn't influence whether or how to charge this case.

Lastly, I think we probably will see a rabid attorney general going after one of the other ex presidents, now that Bragg has broken the lid open. I don't think that would've happened after an indictment for any of the other 3 cases (January 6th, the classified documents, and Georgia interference). Those are more clear felonies, so they can't be painted as political nearly as easily, and so they wouldn't have been as likely to embolden other attorney generals.

I'm confused by the two different points you're making in this same post. Are you saying Bragg should have brought and indictment or that he shouldn't have brought and indictment? I understand that point that perhaps Bragg pushing it to a felony is reaching a bit, to be honest I don't know either way. But whether it's a misdemeanor or felony, it's still and indictment that he would have brought that would have "broken the lid open".

Any of the other 3 cases would have also "broken the lid open", so whatever Republican attorney generals decide to do in the future against Democratic presidents, they will claim the same thing ( i.e Democrats did it first). I just find all the fear and handwringing about what lines have been crossed and what might happen in the future to be superfluous and unconvincing. We've literally heard the same reasoning for any actions taken to restrain Trump's illegals actions throughout his 4 years in office.

 

[coldseat]

His comments seemed fine. I do think Trump was sobered a little by the events. However, I think Trump drank heavily later, so he didn't stay sober very long.

My comments (and I think the the twitter post) were more commenting on Jones characterization of Trump as a "grandad having a very bad day". That part is silly.

 

[CoolBrees]

His comments seemed fine. I do think Trump was sobered a little by the events. However, I think Trump drank heavily later, so he didn't stay sober very long.

Trump doesn’t drink and never has….