Grand jury votes to indict Trump

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And those that said GWB was dumb were wrong too. All partisan politics.

I guess, but intelligence wasn't his thing. Folksy disarming personality was his thing. He's the kind of guy who could sit down with you and you'd honestly believe he cared about every little thing you were telling him. That was his gift. If your daughter brought home a macaroni picture and you pasted on his fridge, he'd honestly want to see it.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Well, the indictment is mind-numbingly dull and repetitive. I'm not reading all that. The statement of facts is easier to stomach, just barely. If the prosecution has it right, there's little doubt that Trump (and the others listed) committed crimes as alleged. It's pretty clear-cut.

That said, what a giant wet fart of an indictment. I'm generally in favor of fraud being a crime, but we're basically talking about lying on an expense report so the wife doesn't find out where her sister got that new necklace. Of all the possible kinds of fraud, this is probably the furthest from genuine criminal behavior as it's possible to be. It's extremely shitty human behavior, to be sure, but we're basically criminalizing being a self-centered asshole at this point.

Even the tax charge is weak. They falsely characterized a repayment as income so that Cohen could pay more taxes than was required? Oh, the humanity!

Bragg should be kicked out of the Democratic party for this.

Not so fast, my friend. Let me play devil's advocate:

How clear cut is it that Trump entered or directed to be entered a false recording of the purpose of the payment? The indictment and the statement of facts is heavy on the passive voice, short on direct facts regarding Trump's statements, isn't it? It's not like the Trump we all know is detail oriented (or even knows that details need to be taken care of). What if the ultimate testimony is that Trump said "just take care of it?" Is that enough to show he did or intended to do this crime?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't understand that. He caused the type of entry to be made into a book or computer program by approving the payment?

Yes, because it's not the form or the structure of the entry that was fraudulent, but the categorization. It wasn't a legal services payment, but it was entered as such at his behest. So that's that.

I've already said multiple times I think this is weak as flying f*ck, so let's be clear on that. But by the letter of the law, it's a pretty clear charge.

 

[outside shooter]

I bet the judge will be really happy when his wife and daughter receive death threats for allegedly being "Trump haters"

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not so fast, my friend. Let me play devil's advocate:

How clear cut is it that Trump entered or directed to be entered a false recording of the purpose of the payment? The indictment and the statement of facts is heavy on the passive voice, short on direct facts regarding Trump's statements, isn't it? It's not like the Trump we all know is detail oriented (or even knows that details need to be taken care of). What if the ultimate testimony is that Trump said "just take care of it?" Is that enough to show he did or intended to do this crime?

I think the meetings between Trump, Cohen, and whoever was the CEO of the Enquirer take care of that.

Again, my comments were based on the assumption that the prosecution's statement of facts was essentially accurate.

 

[Stuffshot]

You missed my point. It doesn't matter what he does. He can point out facts about the judge and the judge will claim it incites violence.

Whatever he said will be twisted around to make it sound like he's inciting violence.

If I was Trump, I'd FU - issue the gag order and let's take it to the Supreme Court.

Wait, are you suggesting Trump should intentionally violate a New York State Court's gag order and then expect the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the state court's order?

Wow. Are you a legal expert or something?

 

[UncleMark]

It's not like the Trump we all know is detail oriented (or even knows that details need to be taken care of). What if the ultimate testimony is that Trump said "just take care of it?" Is that enough to show he did or intended to do this crime?

If he said "just take care of it" and it wasn't posted to the Owners Prostitute Expense line, then who's responsible?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

but the basic story is that: they concocted a scheme to pay off various people to help his chances in the election.

How many times do we think this might have happened in U.S. politics? If you told me that every presidential candidate since 1800 has done it, I would not be suprised.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Yes, because it's not the form or the structure of the entry that was fraudulent, but the categorization. It wasn't a legal services payment, but it was entered as such at his behest. So that's that.

I've already said multiple times I think this is weak as flying f*ck, so let's be clear on that. But by the letter of the law, it's a pretty clear charge.

Which paragraph says that Trump told them how to enter the payment category? I missed that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How many times do we think this might have happened in U.S. politics? If you told me that every presidential candidate since 1800 has done it, I would not be suprised.

Did you miss the part where I used the phrase "wet fart of an indictment?"

 

[UncleMark]

And, Trump's rambling Mar-a-Lago speech tonight operated as much a motivator for Trump opponents as for his supporters.

Where can we find good coverage of that?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

If he said "just take care of it" and it wasn't posted to the Owners Prostitute Expense line, then who's responsible?

The person who created the false record of it being a legal expense (which might not even be cut and dry from a mens rea perspective for Trump if he said it).

And there's no allegation of prostitution here. How dare you!

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Did you miss the part where I used the phrase "wet fart of an indictment?"

I'm not trying to catch you in anything, Goat. Just asking questions right now and thinking out loud.

 

[UncleMark]

The person who created the false record of it being a legal expense (which might not even be cut and dry from a mens rea perspective for Trump if he said it).

And there's no allegation of prostitution here. How dare you!

Okay, Owners Whore Expense.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yes, because it's not the form or the structure of the entry that was fraudulent, but the categorization. It wasn't a legal services payment, but it was entered as such at his behest. So that's that.

I've already said multiple times I think this is weak as flying f*ck, so let's be clear on that. But by the letter of the law, it's a pretty clear charge.

I don't think the prosecutor is required at this point to disclose or explain every square inch of his case.

For one thing, we haven't seen the grand jury transcripts or documents. Trump will challenge the charges soon and the prosecutor will respond. That may be when we learn some of the details.

 

[outside shooter]

How important are the tax fraud counts?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think the prosecutor is required at this point to disclose or explain every square inch of his case.

For one thing, we haven't seen the grand jury transcripts or documents. Trump will challenge the charges soon and the prosecutor will respond. That may be when we learn some of the details.

True, so I will listen to my own advice and not make assumptions. But I do have a sinking suspicion that this will turn out to be a nothingburger that helps Trump politically. Yay, Democrats.

 

[zeke4ahs]

True, so I will listen to my own advice and not make assumptions. But I do have a sinking suspicion that this will turn out to be a nothingburger that helps Trump politically. Yay, Democrats.

I think of course this will inspire his base. I don’t see it helping with independents or Democrats. I think people are sick of him and the drama he brings.

 

[Lucy01]

He (allegedly) caused them to be entered by approving/directing the payments.

Hearsay, you have nothing.

 

[Stuffshot]

True, so I will listen to my own advice and not make assumptions. But I do have a sinking suspicion that this will turn out to be a nothingburger that helps Trump politically. Yay, Democrats.

Also, it seems reasonable to assume the prosecutor was thinking that detailed disclosure of facts would make it more difficult for him to find an uninformed jury later on. So he released the bare minimum.

Although the automatic Trump apologists think the indictment proves there is little or no evidence, they and the public are not entitled to see the evidence and haven't.

All the evidence will be disclosed to Trump's attorneys at some point (not the public), and I assume there are deadlines to do that. With any luck, Trump will uncontrollably blab more of the facts, anyway, so we'll soon learn more.

Edit to add:

When questioned by reporters, Bragg indicated that the prosecution had access to materials including “text messages, e-mails, contemporaneous phone records, [and] multiple witnesses” which will be presented in court.​

Alvin Bragg on Trump Arrest: 'I Will Not Normalize Serious Criminal Conduct'

The Manhattan district attorney addressed reporters following the arraignment of former President Donald Trump

www.rollingstone.com

We've seen none of that stuff.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Hearsay, you have nothing.

That's not what hearsay is, but whatever.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Dec. 4 is the next HEARING. Any trial would be well into the election season.

Check your calendar again.

The longer this lasts, the better for Trump for the primary. You disagree with this?

 

[outside shooter]

This is funny. A Trumper was passing out whistles to New Yorkers and thought they would be used to drown out any protesting critics of Trump. He didn't know that MTG was appearing. His whistles sent her fleeing from "audio assault"

 

[outside shooter]

The longer this lasts, the better for Trump for the primary. You disagree with this.

Agree, it helps him be the nominee, and he will surely lose the election. But no Democrats want Trump to be the nominee, even if they are fairly sure that he will lose. Because we have seen the incredible damage done to our country by Trump, EVEN WHEN HE LOSES. And they don't trust even the small possibility that he'd win and destroy the country even more.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I guess, but intelligence wasn't his thing. Folksy disarming personality was his thing. He's the kind of guy who could sit down with you and you'd honestly believe he cared about every little thing you were telling him. That was his gift. If your daughter brought home a macaroni picture and you pasted on his fridge, he'd honestly want to see it.

That’s nice, but you can’t actually say GWB wasn’t dumb?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That’s nice, but you can’t actually say GWB wasn’t dumb?

Oh, no, he definitely wasn't dumb. I'm just saying "being smart" wasn't his big thing, that's all.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

This is funny. A Trumper was passing out whistles to New Yorkers and thought they would be used to drown out any protesting critics of Trump. He didn't know that MTG was appearing. His whistles sent her fleeing from "audio assault"

View embedded media

I’m no more impressed by the twits you link than I am by the twits dbm links.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Oh, no, he definitely wasn't dumb. I'm just saying "being smart" wasn't his big thing, that's all.

Yes, but claiming he was dumb was constant by Democrats, including here. This is the kind of stuff we need to stop.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes, but claiming he was dumb was constant by Democrats, including here. This is the kind of stuff we need to stop.

I agree with that. He was simple and folksy, but not dumb. He was a smart guy.

 

[outside shooter]

I’m no more impressed by the twits you link than I am by the twits dbm links.

I linked a tweet with a live interview by a senior NBC News reporter, and you equate it to QAnon crap?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I linked a tweet with a live interview by a senior NBC News reporter, and you equate it to QAnon crap?

A senior nbc news reporter. is that better than q crap?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Agree, it helps him be the nominee, and he will surely lose the election. But no Democrats want Trump to be the nominee, even if they are fairly sure that he will lose. Because we have seen the incredible damage done to our country by Trump, EVEN WHEN HE LOSES. And they don't trust even the small possibility that he'd win and destroy the country even more.

True for you, unlikely for most Dems. Dems are no smarter than Republicans. They just mostly THINK that different falsehoods are true.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I linked a tweet with a live interview by a senior NBC News reporter, and you equate it to QAnon crap?

You seem to like twits. More power to you, I guess.

 

[Spartans9312]

Agree, it helps him be the nominee, and he will surely lose the election. But no Democrats want Trump to be the nominee, even if they are fairly sure that he will lose. Because we have seen the incredible damage done to our country by Trump, EVEN WHEN HE LOSES. And they don't trust even the small possibility that he'd win and destroy the country even more.

I’m just glad you finally identified as a Democrat.

 

[TommyCracker]

That's a very good point. And I'm with you in theory. But when Trump is getting sworn in on 1/20/25, I'll be cursing your confidence.

I'll will be here and support you in cursing me to the depths of hell and beyond if Trump wins again.

I just don't see his path other than blatant shenanigans. Trump is proven rocket fuel to dem voters while as appealing as a shit sandwich to the middle (meaning some will hold their nose and vote for him but, not all).

The issue is this version of Trump is going to be (based on early appearances) like a Rambo sequel....10 times more blood and violence. He's going to some pretty dark areas so far.

Secondly we've seen his movie before. Other than the loyalists I don't see how going even more Trumpy plays in the general.

My belief is like any dying populous movement, he'll always have a core 5 to maybe 15% of the base. That's not enough in the general but it's enough to f#$k the party over since it's already trying to win in the margins. Hell even a 2 to 3% drag will severely damage the party.

Then you've got Desantis trying to out Trump Trump, which I don't believe plays to the general. That only works if Trump has been martyred and out of the way needing someone to avenge him. If Trump is active, Desantis just looks like a fraud as those two keep trying to out Trump each other.

Desantis is going to have to decide does he try to kill Trump, dooming his fate or does he try to be Beta-Trump, again dooming his fate while looking weak next to Trump. He's way too far down the culture war campaign. He's already picked his weapon of choice.

For example it's expected that Florida will institute a six week abortion timeline. Which will feed meat to both bases, but more towards the dem base because Trump says he supports a near total ban (so as crazy and offensive as six weeks is, it won't be enough to Maga). If he doesn't do it, now that it's passed the republican legislative, that will piss off maga who he needs to win the primary. If he does do it, well that's just keeping up with Trump.

I'd feel better if we could have someone younger, brighter and much more polished but it looks like Biden is going to run again, which puts a crack in my confidence.

 

[outside shooter]

I’m just glad you finally identified as a Democrat.

I referred to Democrats as as "they", as any independent would. The later "we" refers to ALL of us, except those in the cult, who have learned what happens even when he loses. Dems, pubs, independents.

 

[outside shooter]

True for you, unlikely for most Dems. Dems are no smarter than Republicans. They just mostly THINK that different falsehoods are true.

I know a lot of Dems. My wife, kids, coworkers. None of them want Trump to be on any ballot. Independents don't either. Real Republicans shouldn't either. He's a cancer to the country, win or lose.

 

[TommyCracker]

I can agree , Ive said many times not a fan of the man, not to your degree , but what we are seeing happen is scary

It's really not that earthshaking.

Politicians go to jail all the time. Something like 4 out of the last 10 Illinois governor's have been indicted and served time (remember Blagojevich?).

Senators have been indicted many times.

Other foreign leaders have been indicted in democratic countries like France.

We've never had a President indicted probably because most have been career politicians who get their position for how they carry themselves. We've never had a guy like Trump with his background get elected to the job.

That it's never happened before doesn't mean that it never will happen. The President isn't a King for a reason.

 

[TommyCracker]

Yes, but claiming he was dumb was constant by Democrats, including here. This is the kind of stuff we need to stop.

He got raked over the coals for his gaffs like Biden. There were a lot of them, you can't deny it.

He was despised from the left because of several things, starting with Gore being declared the winner only to have Florida, with his brother as Gov, overturn it. That chapped some asses but Gore did the right thing and conceded.

Mainly though for getting into a confusing war that didn't make any sense (so Bin Laden attacks the US so our answer is we go after Iraq??? We go after them on the basis that they are building nukes but yet we couldn't prove it. It was the first 'war' that we provoked while not going after the guy we are all committed to get. Looked like another oil war by an oil guy from Texas and his war mongering friends in Cheney and Rumsfield).

Add to it the economy, particularly the stock market was disasterous, especially compared to the 90's and we were again in massive debt after starting with a surplus....yeah, GWB didn't have a great run especially from the POV of the left.

He'd be welcomed with open arms compared to where the party is today but he pushed me further left as I was a Perot guy in the 90's, although I liked Willy as he was what I considered myself....a strong capitalist who believes that we should take better care of each other while making shit tons of money.

 

[Bloom.]

I brokered dozens of settlements of sexual harassment lawsuits conditioned on confidentiality.

Did any of your clients try to hide those settlement payments on federal documents and portray those payments as your salary?