HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
LOL, you tool. This Stormy Daniels related indictment is the LEAST of the fat guy’s worries.
At least you’re distracted!
Trump News
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
LOL, you tool. This Stormy Daniels related indictment is the LEAST of the fat guy’s worries.
At least you’re distracted!
Oh no question it's the least. It absolutely wouldn't surprise me at all if it disappears before the end of the week.
But I have no idea who you think is trying to distract us - because it's not Trump. The left wing press can't stop bringing it up HOURLY.
They're seriously obsessed with this story.
Manhattan DA Rebuffs Republican Criticism of Potential Trump Indictment
Donald Trump, Republican Party, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney, New York City, New York, US House, Jim Jordan, Politics, JusticeAllSides Summary
Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg pushed back against Republican criticism on Tuesday — the day former President Donald Trump said he would be arrested.Key Quotes: “We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process, nor will we let baseless accusations deter us from fairly applying the law,” a spokesperson for Bragg told multiple news outlets Tuesday, adding, “In every prosecution, we follow the law without fear or favor to uncover the truth. Our skilled, honest and dedicated lawyers remain hard at work.” The statement came after three Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee issued a letter on Monday demanding Bragg testify on the potential charges. Trump himself also criticized Bragg Sunday night, saying he was “BREAKING THE LAW” by using testimony from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.
For Context: Bragg, widely considered to be “liberal” or a “progressive,” became the first black Manhattan district attorney when he took office in 2022. Due to its location, Bragg’s office oversees many cases involving the wealthy and politically connected.
How the Media Covered It: News media across the spectrum turned their attention to Bragg on Monday and Tuesday. Generally, negative coverage of Bragg was primarily found in outlets on the right, and positive coverage was found in outlets on the left. Some coverage across the spectrum sensationally framed Bragg’s response statement as “defiant” or “scathing.” Perspectives in right-rated news sources frequently framed Bragg as politically motivated, echoing criticisms from top Republican politicians.
Which has to make an intelligent person ask: What are they trying to distract us from?
Obviously, the corruption.
What I'm NOT seeing, is a rebutall of the actual arguments.
And it can only be a felony, if he broke campaign FINANCE laws - which as I understand it, is federal jurisdiction, and he has no business being involved. And it would be a campaign finance breach if the payment to Stormy was classified as a campaign expense, which no one would ever do anyway. And that has a five year stautue of limitations, and it's been six, to my knowledge. If it's five, it's damned close to running out.
If it's a misdemeanour, it's two, and it's done.
For a guy who has shut down prosecution of dangerous felons - but has decided to go after Trump by upgrading a misdemeanor, even if proved - is absurd. And his best witness is a convicted perjurer.
This is a joke.
That is what Progressives HAVE BEEN CLAIMING the entire time
1. If Cohen made the payment ON HIS OWN - that is a campaign contribution To Trump - the raison d'être for the payment to keep the story out of the press there by reducing or eliminating a negative impact towards the election
[ like suppressing the Hunter Biden Laptop ]
2. With Cohen asking for a reimbursement for services rendered, and Trump classifying the payments as a business expense - Progressives claim this was to affect an outcome on the election [ avoiding a negative message in the press ] and therefor a Campaign Expense NOT a Business Expense
And then there is the National Review article posted elsewhere how this is a NON Crime ...
Jonathan Turley: Manhattan DA’s Potential Case Against Trump ‘Legally Pathetic’
“While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws,” Turley said.
He noted that a Section 175 charge “would normally be a misdemeanor” and that the “only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the ‘intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.’ That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.”
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
This DA listened to people who have been ranting forever to get Donald Trump
He figured --this is my chance to get to be Governor, if I can get Trump.
He grabbed that tar baby with both hands and now he is stuck on it.
The smart move would be to drop this farce and start doing the job he has. Prosecuting criminals.
I don't think this guy is smart enough to make the smart move.
He figured --this is my chance to get to be Governor, if I can get Trump.
He grabbed that tar baby with both hands and now he is stuck on it.
The smart move would be to drop this farce and start doing the job he has. Prosecuting criminals.
I don't think this guy is smart enough to make the smart move.
Alvin Bragg Is ‘Struggling’ To Get Grand Jury To Charge Trump, Has ‘Weak Case’
One source called Bragg’s case “weak” and said it is causing a rift within the DA’s office. “They are having trouble convincing the jury to swallow the case. It’s a weak case and has caused divisions in the DA’s office.”
This revelation comes after the grand jury ended up not meeting on Wednesday to consider the charges against the former president. Rumors have swirled their failure to meet suggests prosecutors are struggling to build a strong case against Trump.
The two sources explained the grand jury told jurors they were not needed to appear on Wednesday after they heard evidence regarding the DA’s case. One of the Manhattan court officials said the jury is scheduled to meet on Thursday, and prosecutors “may present one more witness.”
It’s one of the fairer points made by a CNN contributor, and Jones, while a die-hard progressive, has been more honest than most on this network. He correctly called how the blue wall was hanging by a thread in 2016 and that someone like Donald Trump could shatter it. He also admitted to Project Veritas that there was nothing to the Russian collusion allegations. Yet, this Bragg commentary opened Jones to attacks that he was a race traitor (via The Blaze):
There are far too many in the press and in the progressive punditry world that regard Trump as some kind of Al Capone, who continualy manages to escape prosecution while being an obvious criminal (to them). As far as they are concerned, if they can plop his ass in jail for unpaid parking tickets, it's good enough, because after all - they got Al Capone on tax evasion.
And I really hate to say this, but this is a very similar stance the right took of Clinton - BILL Clinton. There's no question in my mind that Hillary is a crook, through and through, and I've believed that since '92. With Bill, the right was content with doing ANYTHING to get him, because the damned guy was just too slippery.
But again, in fairness - this is what they said of Reagan. "Teflon Ron" the left called him. Nothing sticks.
I've just never seen such an all out war to take down a man of any crime they can conjure up. We have at least a handful of progressives who have said openly, it doesn't even matter if he committed ANY CRIME at all.
Probably the biggest complaint is J6. They believe he orchestrated it. Or encouraged it. Or somehow incited it. None of those hold any credibility based on anything resembling facts or evidence, but it's common on the left to go all "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - "this happened after this, therefore this happened BECAUSE of this".
"Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon". For those familiar with Shirley Jackson. It IS however the same kind of reasoning that had people doing human sacrifice.
I am sorry, but there's been a pattern in the press and among the Dems and the people who just parrot their obviously invented pronouncements (because I believe that THEY - the Dem politicians - do not believe it, but know their constituency WILL). - and it works like this:
Crazy persons do something crazy because of politics - if he's right wing, he was guided/inspired/influenced - OR INSTRUCTED BY - right wing politicans to do their crazy thing.
If he's LEFTIE - nah, he's just crazy, nothing to see here.
Which is why when a bunch of GOP leaders are shot at by a crazy gunman, no Democrat leader is held "responsible" for his enraged outburst. Nobody, no press, nothing points to vicious remarks by Dems "inspiring" the gunman. Nope. He's just crazy.
Donald Trump says the election was stolen and a band of nitwits break into the Capitol AFTER being told by Trump to protest peacefully - oh no, not only did he incite the crowd, but he PLANNED it.
These are just two stories juxtaposed - but I could fill this page with such. An utter lunatic hippie who walks around naked, flies a BLM flag outside his hovel - busts into Pelosi's home - and it becomes part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Yeah.
And I really hate to say this, but this is a very similar stance the right took of Clinton - BILL Clinton. There's no question in my mind that Hillary is a crook, through and through, and I've believed that since '92. With Bill, the right was content with doing ANYTHING to get him, because the damned guy was just too slippery.
But again, in fairness - this is what they said of Reagan. "Teflon Ron" the left called him. Nothing sticks.
I've just never seen such an all out war to take down a man of any crime they can conjure up. We have at least a handful of progressives who have said openly, it doesn't even matter if he committed ANY CRIME at all.
Probably the biggest complaint is J6. They believe he orchestrated it. Or encouraged it. Or somehow incited it. None of those hold any credibility based on anything resembling facts or evidence, but it's common on the left to go all "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - "this happened after this, therefore this happened BECAUSE of this".
"Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon". For those familiar with Shirley Jackson. It IS however the same kind of reasoning that had people doing human sacrifice.
I am sorry, but there's been a pattern in the press and among the Dems and the people who just parrot their obviously invented pronouncements (because I believe that THEY - the Dem politicians - do not believe it, but know their constituency WILL). - and it works like this:
Crazy persons do something crazy because of politics - if he's right wing, he was guided/inspired/influenced - OR INSTRUCTED BY - right wing politicans to do their crazy thing.
If he's LEFTIE - nah, he's just crazy, nothing to see here.
Which is why when a bunch of GOP leaders are shot at by a crazy gunman, no Democrat leader is held "responsible" for his enraged outburst. Nobody, no press, nothing points to vicious remarks by Dems "inspiring" the gunman. Nope. He's just crazy.
Donald Trump says the election was stolen and a band of nitwits break into the Capitol AFTER being told by Trump to protest peacefully - oh no, not only did he incite the crowd, but he PLANNED it.
These are just two stories juxtaposed - but I could fill this page with such. An utter lunatic hippie who walks around naked, flies a BLM flag outside his hovel - busts into Pelosi's home - and it becomes part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Yeah.
What do the people of NYC think of this guy ignoring real dangerous crime to only want to deal with political crime.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
IMO New York people are too uninformed to even notice. They just go to the polls or they send in their ballots and vote for what the party put out there.
The hush money case against Donald Trump could backfire. Here’s why
Trump’s familiar refrain in response to allegations of wrongdoing is that he’s consistently been the victim of “witch hunts.” If he can show that’s true in the Stormy Daniels case, it gives fuel to his claim that it’s true in other cases, as well.
More and more, that threat looks likely.
Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley has argued that the Trump hush money case is “long on politics, but short on the law.” It’s not just Republicans who feel that way.
Centrist political commentator Michael Smerconish, for example, has derided Bragg’s case against Trump as “weak.” CNN legal analyst and frequent Trump critic Van Jones has called on Bragg to call off the dogs in the current probe.
Trump indictment would be a political prosecution
It appears likely Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will indict Donald Trump in the coming days. The potential charge would be connected to a $130,000 payout in 2016 to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Allegedly, this was hush money to buy her silence about a 2006 affair she had with Trump. The potential crime is related to falsifying business records, not the payment itself. This crime is usually a misdemeanor but can be bumped up to a felony.
If that sounds a bit convoluted, you’re right. NBC News, no right-wing source, wrote the “legal underpinning” of the case “appears far from open-and-shut.” In short, the legal theory is untested. Further, the incident took place more than six years ago. In a vacuum, this isn’t a pressing matter.
But bringing down Trump has long been a pressing matter for many of the country’s most powerful leftists. The FBI spied on the Trump campaign. That effort included an FBI lawyer falsifying a document to get a FISA warrant. The most scandalous part of the Russia collusion hoax is probably the FBI’s role in prolonging it.
It appears likely Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will indict Donald Trump in the coming days. The potential charge would be connected to a $130,000 payout in 2016 to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Allegedly, this was hush money to buy her silence about a 2006 affair she had with Trump. The potential crime is related to falsifying business records, not the payment itself. This crime is usually a misdemeanor but can be bumped up to a felony.
If that sounds a bit convoluted, you’re right. NBC News, no right-wing source, wrote the “legal underpinning” of the case “appears far from open-and-shut.” In short, the legal theory is untested. Further, the incident took place more than six years ago. In a vacuum, this isn’t a pressing matter.
But bringing down Trump has long been a pressing matter for many of the country’s most powerful leftists. The FBI spied on the Trump campaign. That effort included an FBI lawyer falsifying a document to get a FISA warrant. The most scandalous part of the Russia collusion hoax is probably the FBI’s role in prolonging it.
Meanwhile, yesterday James O’Keefe stirred the pot by hinting that he has whistleblower evidence from inside the Alvin Bragg story.
For clarification, prosecutors aren’t required to present exculpatory evidence to Grand Juries, which is one reason people say they can indict a sliced-pork sandwich. So if James does have something, it’s probably not that. But one imagines all sorts of possibilities, like a lawyer from the Manhattan DA’s office admitting Bragg wears black dresses and rides on a broomstick while hunting the President or something.
☕️ DRAG AND DONUTS ☙ Friday, March 24, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Grand jury re-postponed; does O'Keefe have a Grand Jury story?; 5th Circuit halts federal vaccine mandate, again; turbo cancers and SADS; flaws in the Proxy War; culture-war win in Orlando; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
