Charges

[DCHawk1]

Can’t do my own research right now but the socials says a governor refusing to cooperate with extradition is a no-no.

Irrelevant.

Trump is turning himself in -- because that's were the drama is.

[Sparko]

I expect Hunter Biden will win his defamation and abuse of office cases based on some pretty sloppy accusations and mishandling of personal property. Probably plead down the tax thing. Trump should have never led a national party outside of Russia. He has been a mistake to whoever supported him left and right for half a century. Criminality incarnate.

[japhy]

You're not paying attention.

I'm paying attention, we just have different points of reference for what a shit show looks like. I was seven years old and standing on the corner of 55th and Lawndale when a real fuckin shit show went down. My grandfather was one of the guys in leather jackets and blue riot helmets with a shotgun in his hand hiding behind a car looking up at windows for snipers. I could see the smoke from the fires from my grandmother's apartment. It looked at times like the whole city of Chicago was on fire from where we were.

And that too passed.

http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/riot ... -1968-mlk/

The difference is the people starting the fires in Chicago just had their leader murdered. They had no hope and they had nothing to lose. Your never want to get in a fight with someone who has nothing to lose, burning it all to the ground while getting shot is the best they can hope for.

The realtor who chartered a private jet to fly to DC for Jan 6 realized she had something to lose after the feds came for her. And her "leader" was heading off to Mara-Lago to ask the rubes for money to pay for his "revenge". I just don't see Richard Spencer and Enrique Tarrio grabbing guns and running through streets knowing that in prison they won't have access to personal stylists or proper grooming products. And I'm not envisioning another hard hat riot heading to the DA's office in NY.

But we will see.

The current president will spend his last days visiting his remaining son in prison. The next president will be charged with a felony. Senators, Congresshumans, governors (not from Illinois) will go to prison. And none of it will be based on anything real (except Hunter). It'll be tit-for-tat partisan political abuse of prosecutorial power. You fucked our guy; we'll fuck yours.

Sorry, but trying to understand the pretzel logic here.

So your thinking is.... do not prosecute politicians for crimes because tit for tat will be hell? And somehow politicians knowing that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes, even if it rises to trying to overthrow our legitimate elected government will be better? Your thinking is that a trumped up felony charge is somehow equal to a Trumped out treason ( we all know what is coming after the Stormy Daniels indictment) cuz a crime is a crime is a crime?

So it will be no guardrails and anything goes....or everyone is on trial all the time?

It seems to me that DT previewed this routine already with his attempts to get a court to overturn the election. If there is nothing there, summary judgements solve that issue. And if more attorneys get sanctioned that would seem like a good deterrent.

Your dystopian future sounds more like a DT wet dream than reality. Unless of course the Republicans continue to allow Jim Jordan to play Inspector Clouseau for eternity.

I think we should go ahead and act like we have laws in this country and they apply to EVERYONE.

[Overlander]

I know they are looking for that person

[DCHawk1]

I'm paying attention, we just have different points of reference for what a shit show looks like. I was seven years old and standing on the corner of 55th and Lawndale when a real fuckin shit show went down. My grandfather was one of the guys in leather jackets and blue riot helmets with a shotgun in his hand hiding behind a car looking up at windows for snipers. I could see the smoke from the fires from my grandmother's apartment. It looked at times like the whole city of Chicago was on fire from where we were.

And that too passed.

http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/riot ... -1968-mlk/

The difference is the people starting the fires in Chicago just had their leader murdered. They had no hope and they had nothing to lose. Your never want to get in a fight with someone who has nothing to lose, burning it all to the ground while getting shot is the best they can hope for.

The realtor who chartered a private jet to fly to DC for Jan 6 realized she had something to lose after the feds came for her. And her "leader" was heading off to Mara-Lago to ask the rubes for money to pay for his "revenge". I just don't see Richard Spencer and Enrique Tarrio grabbing guns and running through streets knowing that in prison they won't have access to personal stylists or proper grooming products. And I'm not envisioning another hard hat riot heading to the DA's office in NY.

But we will see.

The current president will spend his last days visiting his remaining son in prison. The next president will be charged with a felony. Senators, Congresshumans, governors (not from Illinois) will go to prison. And none of it will be based on anything real (except Hunter). It'll be tit-for-tat partisan political abuse of prosecutorial power. You fucked our guy; we'll fuck yours.

Sorry, but trying to understand the pretzel logic here.

So your thinking is.... do not prosecute politicians for crimes because tit for tat will be hell? And somehow politicians knowing that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes, even if it rises to trying to overthrow our legitimate elected government will be better? Your thinking is that a trumped up felony charge is somehow equal to a Trumped out treason ( we all know what is coming after the Stormy Daniels indictment) cuz a crime is a crime is a crime?

So it will be no guardrails and anything goes....or everyone is on trial all the time?

It seems to me that DT previewed this routine already with his attempts to get a court to overturn the election. If there is nothing there, summary judgements solve that issue. And if more attorneys get sanctioned that would seem like a good deterrent.

Your dystopian future sounds more like a DT wet dream than reality. Unless of course the Republicans continue to allow Jim Jordan to play Inspector Clouseau for eternity.

I think we should go ahead and act like we have laws in this country and they apply to EVERYONE.

Nah. If there's serious wrongdoing, then prosecute. indeed, the other cases against Trum are serious.

This one -- which the Feds already DECLINED to prosecute -- is NOT serious. It's pure political catharsis -- as this board shows.

[dolomite]

I was hoping for something a little more juicy than tax invasion.

I think the term you’re looking for is “witch hunt”

https://www.fluther.com/36829/what-is-t ... e-man-ill/

‘Show me the man, I’ll find you the crime’

this is not an exact quote; this is instead the premise of a quote. i don’t know who said it or what the exact quote is, so my questions to you are: who said this quote, and what is the exact quote?

The meaning of the quote, inasmuch as I understand it, is that everyone has skeletons in his or her closet.

[jfish26]

The current president will spend his last days visiting his remaining son in prison. The next president will be charged with a felony. Senators, Congresshumans, governors (not from Illinois) will go to prison. And none of it will be based on anything real (except Hunter). It'll be tit-for-tat partisan political abuse of prosecutorial power. You fucked our guy; we'll fuck yours.

Sorry, but trying to understand the pretzel logic here.

So your thinking is.... do not prosecute politicians for crimes because tit for tat will be hell? And somehow politicians knowing that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes, even if it rises to trying to overthrow our legitimate elected government will be better? Your thinking is that a trumped up felony charge is somehow equal to a Trumped out treason ( we all know what is coming after the Stormy Daniels indictment) cuz a crime is a crime is a crime?

So it will be no guardrails and anything goes....or everyone is on trial all the time?

It seems to me that DT previewed this routine already with his attempts to get a court to overturn the election. If there is nothing there, summary judgements solve that issue. And if more attorneys get sanctioned that would seem like a good deterrent.

Your dystopian future sounds more like a DT wet dream than reality. Unless of course the Republicans continue to allow Jim Jordan to play Inspector Clouseau for eternity.

I think we should go ahead and act like we have laws in this country and they apply to EVERYONE.

Nah. If there's serious wrongdoing, then prosecute. indeed, the other cases against Trum are serious.

This one -- which the Feds already DECLINED to prosecute -- is NOT serious. It's pure political catharsis -- as this board shows.

Do I feel like this is going to kick start something of a cycle? Probably. Great conversation for a different day - I think there are possible positives to politics being less attractive of a thing for someone to want to do.

But I want to focus on the notion that these charges, or their subject matter, aren’t serious. I think this perspective is absolutely influenced by JUST HOW MUCH CRIMING AND OTHER MALFEASANCE TRUMP DID.

These charges are small potatoes because Trump and his coterie basically ran a traveling state and county fair world record potato show for the better part of a decade.

But - what we’re talking about was payments made on the eve of a presidential election, made to keep information quiet that might have swung that election.

That’s extremely serious. And it’s not made any LESS serious by just how much WORSE stuff was done before, during and since.

[ousdahl]

whoa!

we didn't even get to the Trump mug shot yet, and DC is already downplaying this, and whatabouting Hunter!

you guys don't give me nearly enough credit for this sock.

[PhDhawk]

If politicians are committing crimes and there is sufficient (real) evidence for an indictment, then charge them...all of them. I am ok with tit for tat, I trust the legal system (certainly more than the political system).

It would serve to sort of....drain the swamp.

And to fish's point...this reminds me if Al Capone going to prison for tax invasion. It would be nicer to get an indictment for a more serious charge, but it's good to hold criminals accountable.

And we should all go re-read the magna Carta if we think politicians should not be charged for unsexy crimes.

[japhy]

Nah. If there's serious wrongdoing, then prosecute. indeed, the other cases against Trum are serious.

This one -- which the Feds already DECLINED to prosecute -- is NOT serious. It's pure political catharsis -- as this board shows.

Once again asking questions to try and clarify. You and Randall obviously have more vested in trump's innocence and have more information/facts than I do since you have both sort of declared trump "not guilty" before the trial starts.

My questions are in two parts.

This is a NY State case, are Federal and NY laws the same or are there differences? If different how so?

And I understand that you both have doubts about the impartially of this proceeding, but as I understand it the purpose of a grand jury is to let a group of citizens vet the case put forth by the prosecution as a guard against unwarranted prosecution. In other words they can't drag a defendant into court and force them to spend a bunch of money on lawyers until they convince a pre-jury jury that it is worth spending court time/money/resources on this case.

So are you two telling me that grand juries don't work or this jury itself is somehow prejudiced? If so how?

Feel free DC and Randall to answer this jointly ( for the purpose of efficiency of effort) in case one of you feels as though your answer speaks to both your concerns, or answer separately.

[DCHawk1]

LOL.

Ham sammiches.

Enjoy it. They'll enjoy theirs too.

[japhy]

LOL.

Ham sammiches.

Enjoy it. They'll enjoy theirs too.

I accept your surrender.

[DCHawk1]

When your argument boils down to "grand juries iz alwayz rite," you have waved your own white flag.

As for federal vs. NY law, you're trying to make the case that NY law better addresses campaign finance violations that BOTH the DoJ and the Federal ELECTION Commission declined to pursue?

Oooookay.

[defixione]

Did either of the DOJ or FEC give their definitive reason for not pursuing the case?

[KUTradition]

Sorry, but trying to understand the pretzel logic here.

So your thinking is.... do not prosecute politicians for crimes because tit for tat will be hell? And somehow politicians knowing that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes, even if it rises to trying to overthrow our legitimate elected government will be better? Your thinking is that a trumped up felony charge is somehow equal to a Trumped out treason ( we all know what is coming after the Stormy Daniels indictment) cuz a crime is a crime is a crime?

So it will be no guardrails and anything goes....or everyone is on trial all the time?

It seems to me that DT previewed this routine already with his attempts to get a court to overturn the election. If there is nothing there, summary judgements solve that issue. And if more attorneys get sanctioned that would seem like a good deterrent.

Your dystopian future sounds more like a DT wet dream than reality. Unless of course the Republicans continue to allow Jim Jordan to play Inspector Clouseau for eternity.

I think we should go ahead and act like we have laws in this country and they apply to EVERYONE.

Nah. If there's serious wrongdoing, then prosecute. indeed, the other cases against Trum are serious.

This one -- which the Feds already DECLINED to prosecute -- is NOT serious. It's pure political catharsis -- as this board shows.

Do I feel like this is going to kick start something of a cycle? Probably. Great conversation for a different day - I think there are possible positives to politics being less attractive of a thing for someone to want to do.

But I want to focus on the notion that these charges, or their subject matter, aren’t serious. I think this perspective is absolutely influenced by JUST HOW MUCH CRIMING AND OTHER MALFEASANCE TRUMP DID.

These charges are small potatoes because Trump and his coterie basically ran a traveling state and county fair world record potato show for the better part of a decade.

But - what we’re talking about was payments made on the eve of a presidential election, made to keep information quiet that might have swung that election.

That’s extremely serious. And it’s not made any LESS serious by just how much WORSE stuff was done before, during and since.

also not made less serious just because a DOJ chose not to pursue charges

[DCHawk1]

Did either of the DOJ or FEC give their definitive reason for not pursuing the case?

They couldn't convict John Edwards for using campaign funds to pay hush money, and so didn't think it was worth pursuing Trump for NOT using campaign funds for paying hush money.

[DCHawk1]

also not made less serious just because a DOJ chose not to pursue charges

Wut?

[DCHawk1]

Do I feel like this is going to kick start something of a cycle? Probably. Great conversation for a different day - I think there are possible positives to politics being less attractive of a thing for someone to want to do.

But I want to focus on the notion that these charges, or their subject matter, aren’t serious. I think this perspective is absolutely influenced by JUST HOW MUCH CRIMING AND OTHER MALFEASANCE TRUMP DID.

These charges are small potatoes because Trump and his coterie basically ran a traveling state and county fair world record potato show for the better part of a decade.

But - what we’re talking about was payments made on the eve of a presidential election, made to keep information quiet that might have swung that election.

That’s extremely serious. And it’s not made any LESS serious by just how much WORSE stuff was done before, during and since.

They're also small potatoes because they're misdemeanors on which the statute of limitations had expired.

Bragg bootstrapped the campaign finance charge in order to create a felony charge and extend the statute of limitations. Campaign finance, of course, is not his jurisdiction.

Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't prosecute serious infractions. Heck, I'm not even saying don't prosecute Trump. But by making Japhy feel tingly and warm all over, Bragg is undermining the public confidence in the more serious prosecutions.

[DCHawk1]

And we should all go re-read the magna Carta if we think politicians should not be charged for unsexy crimes.

This is the definition of a sexy crime. Just not one that would be prosecuted against anyone not named 'Trump.'

[ousdahl]

DC, have you seen all the charges Trump is accused of?

isn't it like over 30 counts?