Georgia, documents, fake electors, and inciting the mob will be next. This is a parking ticket.
Grand jury votes to indict Trump
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
When a guy gets a ticket for jaywalking, we can bitch and moan all day about it being a nothingburger. But the bitching an moaning might be less when he's nailed for 10 oither things, all of which are way more serious.
My perception is that even Democrats would be far happier had the other, more serious crimes come to an indictment first.
My perception is that even Democrats would be far happier had the other, more serious crimes come to an indictment first.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Do you think they will ignore Trump's attempts to incite violence and threaten the DA?
I think this is already well past a parking ticket but seems like it could easily turn into even more.
It will be interesting if the judge issues a gag order because that's another thing Trump is likely to ignore.
It's the coverup that will be his undoing which in trying to keep office he committed other transgressions that make Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal "love affairs" pale in comparison. Trump is a risk taker and as you say he is sloppy, incredibly so. If you ever wondered why Michael Bloomberg dropped out of his presidential run just look at what Trump took a chance on and Bloomberg avoided. It is really tawdry but politics has always been a dirty business.
Some say there are a lot of parallels between Trump and Charles Foster Kane, if you ever saw Citizen Kane. Kane was a rich man who was a populist too who was brought down by an affair he was having with a singer.
When
Well, the NY AG just made impossible for that NOT to happen. And now, if it doesn't, any Dem running for office is open season.
If the NY AG did this the Dems better damn well know they have the other charges in the bag. Or else they will have, once again, shot themselves right on the old genitalia
It's funny to hear "is that the best the Dems can give us?".
There is no master puppeteer, telling this DA to investigate faster and that DA to slow down a little, since his/her case isn't such a big deal. 10 cases all proceed at their own pace and we simply get what we get when or if they are ready to give it to us. Relax and enjoy it, as a coach once said.
There is no master puppeteer, telling this DA to investigate faster and that DA to slow down a little, since his/her case isn't such a big deal. 10 cases all proceed at their own pace and we simply get what we get when or if they are ready to give it to us. Relax and enjoy it, as a coach once said.
Yes, but the posturing, the media noise, the AG's public statements and pressers.
All could have been toned down. They aren't solving a murder here. They're solving whether paying off a whore was done the right way. Did he cover it up? Woudn't you?
Again, no way in hell this is the first time a dude running for pres paid somebody off. Should have toned this down and focused on the larger shit coming later this year (hopefully).
We’ll see if there was an issue of no one wanting to be the “first” to indict a former so-called president. Wait, was Trump indicted, or indicated? Because Trump said he was “indicated”.
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate | The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been...
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate | The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been...www.americanbar.org
Any reason to believe the prosecutor didn't do that stuff other than your feelz that Trump is innocent?
A gag order like they did with Roger Stone would be delicious. Judge would have to have some big balls because you just know Trump would violate it.
This is horseshit. You know it. You guys go on rooting for this horseshit.
Don’t bother answering. I know your answer.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
You're entitled to your uninformed opinion but that wouldn't go anywhere in court.
Last edited by a moderator:
A certain former president, I guess, wanted the amped-up media noise, or else he wouldn't have leaked the lie of an imminent indictment. Things were at a dull roar until then.
Seeing as grand juries are confidential, and we haven't even seen any charging documents, it's highly irresponsible of you to already assume this prosecutor had violated professional ethics.Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate | The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been...
I asked earlier in this thread.
we know what the investigation was about.
What other, more serious charges could he be facing that pertained to the Daniels investigation?
I’m honestly wondering.
Oh, he sure did.
On a Friday, NBC hinted that an indictment may come in the upcoming weeks. Crickets chirped.
Then on Saturday Trump himself stated on his goofy social media platform that he expected to be indicted the following Tuesday. All hell broke loose. It was a lie. though, since two weeks have passed.
No, he literally didn’t.
You just admitted it. 😂
It’s cool though.
Every time I see you lie about it, I’ll correct you.
Deal?
The leak was precicely that "three days from now, this will happen". The leak was from Trump. It caused a furor. He seemed to be a credible souuce for predicting his own arrest, except that he lies all of the time.
The leak was not the NBC story one day before saying that we think that this might well happen sometime soon, maybe within two weeks. Nobody paid any attention. Crickets chirped. It had no specifics.
Stop lying, hoopsdoc. You look foolish.
The leak was not the NBC story one day before saying that we think that this might well happen sometime soon, maybe within two weeks. Nobody paid any attention. Crickets chirped. It had no specifics.
Stop lying, hoopsdoc. You look foolish.
We don't really know. That's the point. We can make educated guesses. Maybe, for example, it's related to his shady property valuations. Could easily be fraud charges in there.
My point is, there is nothing to justify saying this guy is violating professional ethics before even seeing the charges.
Are you special needs or something?
The NBC story cited “sources” within the DA’s office.
That’s a LEAK. That’s the LITERAL DEFINITION of a leak.
You said Trump “leaked” the lie about the indictment.
That’s impossible. He cannot have been the one to LEAK news of the indictment if NBC already did.
Not that it really matters, but when you first went on this rant last week, I looked up the earliest articles. I didn't see any sources in the DA's office. I saw NBC reporting how various people were preparing for an indictment, and citing those people.
Are you really this dumb?
If I said yesterday that Hood-Schifino was likely going to go pro, did I break the story of him going pro?
Or was it JHS posting on instagram this morning? Well, I guess he talked to Woj at ESPN even before he posted.
Two points that I'm constantly needing to remind myself here are:
1. Trying to control the timing of an indictment goes against the base concept of the law. It boils down to do you have a case or not. You technically aren't supposed to consider outside influences.
Meaning I view this through a political lens and I'm not sure this is in the Dems best interest politically (but mainly because my guess was Desantis was waiting for them to kick off his campaign. Trump being indicted allows him to move back into the slot of defending and potentially protecting Trump without having to actually beat Trump one on one. No surprise he got rid of the Florida law today that forces potential candidates to resign their position if they declare to run for another office). Politically I would prefer to hold off on everything and let Trump and Desantis go after each other.....but that's the point. In that case the indictment would be just a political weapon. Technically it shouldn't consider anything but do you have a case or not.
2. Everything in law is a decision. Someone has the power to make a decision on if they are going to use the law or not. This whole 'if ya did the crime than you do the time' axiom sounds nice and consistent, but there's always a decision made to go forward or not. So when certain groups complain about being targeted, meaning someone has made the decision to go after them via the law, well maybe this will open some eyes. The complaint has always been over the decision of who to target. Classic case like the DECISION of going after marijuana because it's a poor man's drug vs the DECISION of not going after cocaine as it's a rich man's drug. Or the DECISION to a person while not arresting another.
The arguments I've seen in this thread isn't about the crime, it's about the decision to go after it. Again highlighting that the real power is in the decision and always has been.
Nice to see some coming around on that.
1. Trying to control the timing of an indictment goes against the base concept of the law. It boils down to do you have a case or not. You technically aren't supposed to consider outside influences.
Meaning I view this through a political lens and I'm not sure this is in the Dems best interest politically (but mainly because my guess was Desantis was waiting for them to kick off his campaign. Trump being indicted allows him to move back into the slot of defending and potentially protecting Trump without having to actually beat Trump one on one. No surprise he got rid of the Florida law today that forces potential candidates to resign their position if they declare to run for another office). Politically I would prefer to hold off on everything and let Trump and Desantis go after each other.....but that's the point. In that case the indictment would be just a political weapon. Technically it shouldn't consider anything but do you have a case or not.
2. Everything in law is a decision. Someone has the power to make a decision on if they are going to use the law or not. This whole 'if ya did the crime than you do the time' axiom sounds nice and consistent, but there's always a decision made to go forward or not. So when certain groups complain about being targeted, meaning someone has made the decision to go after them via the law, well maybe this will open some eyes. The complaint has always been over the decision of who to target. Classic case like the DECISION of going after marijuana because it's a poor man's drug vs the DECISION of not going after cocaine as it's a rich man's drug. Or the DECISION to a person while not arresting another.
The arguments I've seen in this thread isn't about the crime, it's about the decision to go after it. Again highlighting that the real power is in the decision and always has been.
Nice to see some coming around on that.
Jesus tap dancing christ. Now you’re starting in?
Let’s go through this word for word.
Here are the relevant parts of the original NBC story(emphasis mine)-
“Local, state and federal law enforcement and security agencies are preparing for the possibility that former President Donald Trump will be indicted as early as next week, according to five senior officials familiar with the preparations.”
“The agencies involved include the NYPD, New York State Court Officers, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the officials said.”
Now, read that back to me. Does that or does that not include the Manhattan DA’s office?
Yes, but it in no way says the information came from the DA's office. It just came from people familiar with the preparations.
I mean, maybe one of them was with the DA, but calling this a leak is a stretch.
Read your own damn link. Christ.
It 100% says that the Manhattan DA's office are among other agencies that are having "interagency conversations and planning [that] are precautionary in nature" and that they are "preparing for the possibility that former president Donald J. Trump could be indicted as early as next week".
No wonder everyone snoozed.
You seem to be retro-spinning an article saying that many local, state, and federal law enforcement and security officials are making contingency plans, in case Trump is indicted soon, and claiming it to say that people in those agencies are telling NBC that Trump is going to be indicted soon.
There is a difference.
My place of work had a fire drill today. My employer was not breaking the news that there is going to be a fire soon, they were instead staging a test that was precautionary in nature, wisely (I assume) preparing for the possibility of a future fire.
You’re just messing with me, aren’t you? Ha ha, good one.
You had me going for a minute.
Saying it’s a stretch to say that anyone from the Manhattan DA’s office was involved in the leak when they’re literally the ones CREATING the indictment and the NBC story SPECIFICALLY mentions an official from the Manhattan DA’s office?
Lol. Nicely done.
Yea everyone is responsible on here in their opinions. This bastard is a political hack and that’s all. He and his fellow bastard political hacks can prosecute anyone they want to in Manhattan. Fck he lets murders and theives run around on the streets. Would only seem appropriate for him to allow a bad bad man like Trump run the streets too.
Similar threads
