Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:14 am My favorite part of this entire thread is how even DC is going full Randy.

Subtle difference.

Can you find it?

Yea.

at the end of the day, Randy’s not my sock.

Close

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:10 am https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ting-leap/

WaPo's Ruth Marcus

the indictment unsealed on Tuesday is disturbingly unilluminating, and the theory on which it rests is debatable at best, unnervingly flimsy at worst.

To be fair, she’s coming at the papers from a federal procedural perspective (which makes sense given her beat).

I know it’s simply unacceptable to acknowledge or occupy any gray area, but I still think that these two things are both true: (1) NY is right to enforce its laws, and (2) the NY charges are (relatively speaking) very small potatoes in comparison to the rest.

Where I split from other generally-aligned perspectives is that I’m 100% good with NY going first. One, there should not be coordination on these things. Two, I’d imagine that Trump is making Willis’ and Smith’s job easier with each tweet (or whatever). I really do think there’s a meaningful chance that Trump is playing his way into a pulled passport or possibly even house arrest.

Other than they have first person testimony, plea agreents, complete documentary evidence, and even first person material witnesses who were paid off, they have nothing other than clear evidence of election tampering. The root of the problem is subverting democracy. Jon Edwards did much less. The material effect of catch and kill was palpable.

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:14 am Other than they have first person testimony, plea agreents, complete documentary evidence, and even first person material witnesses who were paid off, they have nothing other than clear evidence of election tampering. The root of the problem is subverting democracy. Jon Edwards did much less. The material effect of catch and kill was palpable.

A couple things on the relative seriousness of the charges:

1 - New York has a particular interest in enforcing its laws as governing financial/insurance/tax matters. A loss of confidence in those laws has a potentially catastrophic effect on its state and local economies.

2 - As with so many other things, there is a “flooding the zone” issue here. Because of the last few years, we’ve entirely lost sight that the Daniels/McDougal/Cohen/AMI stuff would have been - on its own - one of the biggest scandals in American political history. The fact that it’s relatively insignificant in the context of other things done by the same guy doesn’t make this any less worthy of investigation/prosecution.

Al Capone says: "Hi"?

Analysis: A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump. The unsealed case against Donald J. Trump accuses him of falsifying records in part to lay the groundwork for planned lies to tax authorities.

The unsealed indictment against former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday laid out an unexpected accusation that bolstered what many legal experts have described as an otherwise risky and novel case: Prosecutors claim he falsified business records in part for a plan to deceive state tax authorities.

For weeks, observers have wondered about the exact charges the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, would bring. Accusing Mr. Trump of bookkeeping fraud to conceal campaign finance violations, many believed, could raise significant legal challenges. That accusation turned out to be a major part of Mr. Bragg’s theory — but not all of it.

“Pundits have been speculating that Trump would be charged with lying about the hush money payments to illegally affect an election, and that theory rests on controversial legal issues and could be hard to prove,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former state prosecutor.

“It turns out the indictment also includes a claim that Trump falsified records to commit a state tax crime,” she continued. “That’s a much simpler charge that avoids the potential pitfalls.”

...“The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme,” Mr. Bragg wrote in the statement of facts that accompanied the indictment.

The statement of facts also described how Mr. Trump paid Mr. Cohen more than Mr. Cohen had paid Ms. Daniels to cover income taxes Mr. Cohen would incur. Mr. Bragg further emphasized that point in his news conference.

[...]

Thanks, Fish and Trad. To me, having the women you paid off, one who was pregnant, is a pretty easy case to make. Their tax records would verify it unless they falsified their own--which I doubt. Their attorneys would have surely had them file an amended return in the event.

Speaking of, that Gwyneth Paltrow case was the whitest of all time

I read his name a Tapioca 100% of the time.

That must have been cathartic.

https://news.yahoo.com/exonerated-centr ... p_catchall

japhy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 3:45 pm That must have been cathartic.

https://news.yahoo.com/exonerated-centr ... p_catchall

No kidding.

Hard to believe so many Americans are OK with a pos racist like Trump.

To be clear, I’m not sure Trump knew (or knows, even now) that he was a Russian agent.

That would assume facts not in evidence.

The most useful of idiots

The Storm is here again.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/qan ... 23148.html

My favorite part....

From the outside, it may seem like wishful thinking, but such is the prerogative of a Q soldier: endure loss after loss, years of humiliation and disappointment, but never stop believing that you know a hidden truth and your vengeance is close at hand. Just have to wait a little longer.

.....sounds familiar.