Possible Trump Indictment

[mossrose]

I was editing while you answered my post explanation is in the edit.

I know. Was being mostly facetious, and my thinking is that he is a Democrat, and only Republicans can be arrested for that sort of thing.

[shunyadragon]

Breaking News! This just in...:

Extremely Woke and Liberal Anti-Trump Prosecutor may indict Trump.

What a surprise, huh?

Surely this guy is thinking twice. They better stop and think of the cost of such a stunt. It will backfire on them and Trump as usual will walk away looking like .

Prosecutors are in general anti-criminals. It is easy when the evidence is overwhelming.

[Gondwanaland]

I don't want Trump running again, but I also don't want to see democrats misuse the justice system to eliminate a political threat in an election either. And that is what this is. I also don't think it will work. It will fail and it will just energize Trump's base and make it that more likely he will win the primary. They are helping Trump, not hurting him.

No, it's not what it is. They want Trump in the news and playing the martyr like he is, because they want him to be the nominee as it is an easy win if he is.

[Starlight]

Trump’s call for protests gets muted reaction by supporters


Former President Donald Trump’s calls for protests ahead of his anticipated indictment in New York have generated mostly muted reactions from supporters, with even some of his most ardent loyalists dismissing the idea as a waste of time or a law enforcement trap.

I've got to say, that after the violent events of Jan 6, Trump now once again calling for serious protests, without going to any effort at all to make it really really really clear that he means peaceful and non-violent protests, is pretty awful.

If that's not a crime, it sure should be. He incited a violent protest once. Now he's trying to do it again.

[Starlight]

I wonder... was Bill Clinton arrested for doing pretty much the same thing while he was IN office?

This is a campaign finance violations case. The crime is not the affair. It's the money paid, who paid it, and whether it was paid for the purpose of helping him win an election.

If it was paid for the purpose of helping him win an election (e.g. by paying her to keep her mouth shut on the affair in the lead up to the election), then it is a campaign contribution, and those are strictly regulated, with some pretty harsh penalties for violating the associated law. People in the US can and do fairly regularly go to prison for campaign finance violations. It's one of the few white-collar crimes left that the US justice system still seems to take seriously. Trump's lawyer who made this payment has already served prison time for making this illegal campaign contribution payment. The affair might be salacious, but it's not the crime.

[Starlight]

No, it's not what it is. They want Trump in the news and playing the martyr like he is, because they want him to be the nominee as it is an easy win if he is.

I do think most Dems see Trump as the easiest GOP nominee to beat, so they do generally want to see him on the ticket again.

I think these cases against him will help him in the primaries, because Republican voters like to believe they are victims of liberals out of get them so will rally behind Trump if he's also seen as a victim of liberals out to get him. A possible exception to this is if he's imprisoned for something that looks publicly really serious with regard to the Georgia case or the Classified documents case... Republicans might be less likely to vote for him if he's in prison.

I think the average independent swing voter will shy away from him in the General election if he is found guilty of crimes. In the mind of the run-of-the-mill non-political normal person, criminal = bad, and they won't tend to cast their vote towards a known criminal if they have an alternative person to vote for that they're okayish with.

[Terraceth]

I do think most Dems see Trump as the easiest GOP nominee to beat, so they do generally want to see him on the ticket again.

Not so sure. I saw a bunch of liberals want Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016 so the Democrats would get an easy win, and we see how that turned out. I'm not so sure Democrats are going to be as interested in trying it again this time around. Though I suppose someone can point out that this plan worked for them in 2020 when Democrat-aligned groups backed more extreme Republicans in some primaries with the hopes that it would lead to easier Democratic victories (which actually worked for the most part), so maybe the fact it didn't work in 2016 will be forgotten because of how it worked in 2020.

Although, the best-case scenario for the Democrats would actually be that Trump loses the primary and then feels so slighted he runs as an Independent, which would essentially guarantee a Democratic victory.

[eider]

Stormy Daniels.

Trump is the only man in the world that got paid by the hooker -- as in having to pay him $300,000 in legal fees

So Trump uses hookers? OK.

[Diogenes]

So Trump uses hookers? OK.

Better than holding and sniffing young girls.

[Mountain Man]

It's being reported that Robert Costello, former attorney for Michael Cohen, gave testimony to the grand jury that blew a big hole in the DA's case. He says he presented evidence to the grand jury that Cohen acted alone when making the $130,000 payment, and that none of Cohen's testimony to the grand jury could be trusted because the man was a proven liar.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...o/11507702002/

[Ronson]

It's being reported that Robert Costello, former attorney for Michael Cohen, gave testimony to the grand jury that blew a big hole in the DA's case. He says he presented evidence to the grand jury that Cohen acted alone when making the $130,000 payment, and that none of Cohen's testimony to the grand jury could be trusted because the man was a proven liar.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...o/11507702002/

I can see giving one's attorney a great deal of latitude in dealing with run-of-the-mill legal matters, but hushing a witness before an election? No way. That had to be Trump's decision. Now it's quite possible it was Cohen's decision to use campaign money to hush her up, thinking he could move money around and it not be detected.

[rogue06]

Prosecutors are in general anti-criminals. It is easy when the evidence is overwhelming.

Yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Joe they didn't seem all that happy about the pending indictment. You'd think they'd be getting ready to drop balloons & confetti in celebration. But everyone on their panel, save Al Sharpton (who the co-host, Mika Brzezinski, gave the look you reserve for your friend when he says something particularly stupid) think this is a weak case which Trump will walk away from. I think they feared this was only going to make him a stronger candidate.

No real surprise though. Back when the whole Stormy Daniels thing was a story you had legal experts of all types agreeing that this is a very difficult case to get a conviction on. Basically, all the accused has to say is something along the lines of that he wanted to spare his family the humiliation of a scandal. Unless they can prove that wasn't the motive (good luck), that pretty much shuts it down.

[rogue06]

I've got to say, that after the violent events of Jan 6, Trump now once again calling for serious protests, without going to any effort at all to make it really really really clear that he means peaceful and non-violent protests, is pretty awful.

If that's not a crime, it sure should be. He incited a violent protest once. Now he's trying to do it again.

Yeah, he incited them by telling them to behave in a peaceful manner and not to engage in violence because that's what "they" do.

[rogue06]

I do think most Dems see Trump as the easiest GOP nominee to beat, so they do generally want to see him on the ticket again.

Since it worked sooo well in 2016.

[rogue06]

Not so sure. I saw a bunch of liberals want Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016 so the Democrats would get an easy win, and we see how that turned out. I'm not so sure Democrats are going to be as interested in trying it again this time around. Though I suppose someone can point out that this plan worked for them in 2020 when Democrat-aligned groups backed more extreme Republicans in some primaries with the hopes that it would lead to easier Democratic victories (which actually worked for the most part), so maybe the fact it didn't work in 2016 will be forgotten because of how it worked in 2020.

Although, the best-case scenario for the Democrats would actually be that Trump loses the primary and then feels so slighted he runs as an Independent, which would essentially guarantee a Democratic victory.

The Democrats want to face Trump so much that they've pulled out all stops trying to make him ineligible.

Yeah. That doesn't wash.