Donald Trump's Historic Indictment: 34 Counts of Business Fraud and a 'Not Guilty' Plea

Trump is charged with 34 criminal counts connected to the payment of $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 as part of a nondisclosure agreement.

After becoming the first president in American history to be impeached twice while in office, Donald Trump is now the first former president to face criminal charges.

Trump was indicted on Tuesday afternoon in a Manhattan courtroom, where 34 criminal charges were leveled against the former president and presumed front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination. It is a bizarre and unprecedented situation, but one that feels in some ways inevitable (and perhaps even a bit overdue and underwhelming) given the sheer number of allegations and investigations that have been swirling around Trump for years.

Let's leave aside the debate over the merits of these charges (or lack thereof) and the chance that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg can make them stick. There will be ample time for the courts of law and public opinion to have their say about all that.

Here's what we know for now: Trump is charged with 34 criminal counts connected to the payment of $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 as part of a nondisclosure agreement that was intended to keep Daniels from exposing their 2006 affair. Trump pleaded not guilty to those charges.

More specifically, those charges are all various counts of filing false business records in the first degree, which could carry a sentence of up to four years in prison per count. That's a crime that is normally a misdemeanor but that can be upgraded to a felony if the alleged fraud is meant to cover up another crime.

It's at that point where things will get tricky. The other crime, in this case, is a federal campaign finance violation for which Trump has not been charged, much less convicted. The indictment claims that Trump allegedly committed the underlying fraud as part of an effort to boost his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election.

Between August 2015 and December 2017, the indictment alleges, Trump "orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit [Trump's] electoral prospects," the indictment reads. "In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York."

Before the prosecution can even have a chance to prove its case in what many observers have termed a novel legal theory, the case will have to survive a likely motion to have the charges dismissed.

Kara Scannell, a reporter for CNN who was in the courtroom, said on the air that Judge Juan Merchan declined to impose a gag order on Trump or his attorneys—though the judge reportedly did ask the former president not to engage in incendiary remarks on social media.

Trump arrived at the Manhattan district attorney's office in a manner unlike most of the other 50,000 or so people who are arraigned there every year: with a multi-car motorcade and a Secret Service detail. He was exempted from having his mug shot taken and was not placed in handcuffs, though the Times reports that the former president's fingerprints were taken.

Trump waved briefly after exiting the motorcade before entering the building."Seems so SURREAL — Wow, they are going to ARREST ME," Trump posted on his Truth Social account as his motorcade rolled away from Trump Tower on Tuesday just shortly after noon. "Can't believe this is happening in America."

Trump exited the courtroom about an hour after he'd entered and did not offer any public remarks. He was reportedly scheduled to return to Florida later in the day on Tuesday, bringing an end to yet another surreal moment in his ongoing political saga.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

So it was about Stormy Daniels after all.

[CindyF]

In other news of the day:

"In what is likely to be one of the vital well-timed rulings of all time, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals awarded former President Donald Trump $121,962.56 in legal professional charges from grownup movie star Stormy Daniels.

The practically $122,000 is along with the roughly $500,000 that she was ordered to pay him final 12 months."

[Don't look at me!]

LOL

[angelinajolie]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com

[A Thinking Mind]

So the people pretending we didn't know anything about the indictment or the charges were just blowing smoke up their own ass for the past five days.

[A Thinking Mind]

And yes, I'm still a little bit sour about this shit. We knew EXACTLY what this indictment was about, we knew the laws that were at play, and yet people were playing coy with, "Well let's just see the indictment, then we'll know so much more about this!" And the indictment itself has much fewer details than what we already knew and it's about the exact thing we've been predicted.

Shocker, the thing Michael Cohen was providing evidence of to the grand jury is the thing the indictment was about, based almost solely on his testimony (which he's previously contradicted).

[RickAbrams]

It is not solely based on Cohen's testimony. It is based on the written records. Cohen told the truth but Bragg was unethical in bringing any indictment on ledger entries made in 2017. That is NOT Cohen's fault. He told everyone in time for timely indictments on these entries and all prior DAs wisely decided not to bring charges during the S/L period because they do not amount to a hill of beans. I think Bragg can be disbarred for bringing a case in 2023 for acts in 2017 knowing that at max the S/L was 5 years, more likely only 2 years as a misD, and most likely -- nothing charged is worthy of any indictment.

[soldiermedic76]

There is actual evidence from Cohen's attorneys that he didn't tell the truth, including emails etc that he lied when he 'confessed'.

[A Thinking Mind]

He either lied to the grand jury, or he lied in his previous confession. His story is inconsistent.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

The only people who have consistent stories are crooked cops.

[debo10]

No he didn't! Even the lawyers said he was and is a liar! This is why he is not a good witness. This sets a dangerous precedent. If I were a conservative DA, I would indict Biden, Hillary, and Obama in retaliation. This madness has to stop! We have no rule of law ever since Covid. The democrats have usurped our democracy all while screaming that 'No one is above the law!' Yet Maxine Waters threatened republicans, Chuck Shummer threatened Kavanaugh, Obama made promises to the Russian consulate, Hillary colluded with Steele on Russian dossier, Biden and son took money from China and Ukraine, and on and on...I wouldn't let this go. As a matter of fact, I would have impeached Biden on the Border, Student Loan, Ukraine, China, and lying to the American people about the laptop.

[Freethinksman]

I doesn't set any kind of precedent. Convicted criminals including perjurers often testify in court. The jury will be apprised of his prior convictions and they will weigh the evidence knowing that he has lied in the past.

No one is above the law. And Cohen went to jail for the claims Trump is going to make. If Cohen lied in making the same claims that Trump is making, the jury will have to figure out what's real from the other evidence presented. Look, I get you don't like what's happening, and a case could be made that Ex-Presidents should have complete and total immunity. But then you'll have to give Obama the same favor. This is not "madness". Madness would be claiming he is guilty of charges for which there is no evidence. Your claims of Biden's, Hillary's and the other Democrats guilt has not been alleged by any prosecutor. And not for lack of investigation. If any of them *did* commit a crime, I would hope they would be charged with them. But the fact that the Republicans in Congress are single-mindedly trying to find proof of the "weaponization" of government with nothing but allegations to the public that they won't attest to in court. If anything needs to stop it's that shit.

[migrant log picker]

Good grief you are a partisan idiot. Holder ignored Congressional subpoenas and walked. The lawfare has gone nuclear and you can bet in 2 years Biden, Fauci, Mayorkas and Garland will get the same treatment (though my guess is Gropes won't make it that long). I'd be watching my back if I were Bragg as well when the SDNY gets a R prosecutor.
I'd be happy if the whole lot jailed each other and got them out of our hair before they destroy the economy. Or a suitcase dirty nuke renders DC uninhabitable for 10,000 years.

[Sevo]

"...No one is above the law..."
In this case the law reads that being Donald Trump is illegal, right, TDS-addled shit?

"Your claims of Biden’s, Hillary’s and the other Democrats guilt has not been alleged by any prosecutor. And not for lack of investigation."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.

[DesigNate]

The press conference that supposedly cost her the election actually laid out exactly what crimes she had broken and ended with saying no sane prosecutor would charge her.

The fuck.

[Minadin]

The press conference that cost her the election was her 'basket of deplorables' campaign speech.

[Methadras Aszlosis]

And there are signed statements from both Stormy Daniel’s and Michael Cohen saying they didn’t have an affair and that it wasn’t trumps money but cohens own money taking out a HELOC to pay her respectively. This entire clown show is to appease the leftist base that had been frenzied since 2015 about “getting trump”. But we all know once you give the crazy rabid leftists this, they will ask for the death penalty in contradiction to their ideologies. They are rampant anti-American hypocrites, but they don’t care about that either.

[DesigNate]

Facts changed.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No, it's about keeping Trump out of office, using any means necessary. It's the Sam Harrisification of politics.

[perlmonger]

I wonder if Sam Harris would have felt the same way about "dead children on Hunter's laptop" if they'd been his.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Sam went further than that. He had a... clump of cells of a point when he was talking about Hunter Biden being a Hunter Biden issue, but then when he went further and explicitly said he didn't care about the Joe Biden corruption implicated via the emails either, then fuck him with a rusty spoon. That's before even talking about the "any means necessary" bullshit.

[The Last American Hero]

It would break his brain to be torn between his love of progressive politics and worship of the state and his biological urge to care about his offspring. Being a skeptic, he would regard the biological urge as a relic of our primitive past and his enlightened politics as the only rational choice.

Verdict, would not care about the kids.

[CindyF]

The Hill has posted a copy of the indictment.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3933605-read-trump-indictment-and-statement-of-facts/

I can't believe NY arrested a former President, or anyone over such a matter. Bragg might actually have put his Bar license at risk. Remember what happened to Nfong after the Duke Lacrosse team false charges.

[A Thinking Mind]

Bragg might actually have put his Bar license at risk.

That's a funny joke. The New York Bar Association is probably already commissioning a statue of The Man Who Got Trump.

[BarkingSpider]

That would be a fat, commie simian.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

As an example of copypasta, it actually outdoes Sqrlsy.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bestest part is that, if Trump HAD reported it as a campaign expenditure, and used campaign funds for it, Bragg would still have prosecuted him, only on the theory that it wasn't legitimately a campaign expenditure.

He was going to prosecute him regardless.

[A Thinking Mind]

Yup. This was completely a Catch-22. Same act, same law, same legal principle, and the DA could still make precisely the same argument about false business records. And since it's a crime without a victim he doesn't need to find a complaining witness anywhere to substantiate it.

[BigT]

"In China, the criminal justice system is not really about crime or justice as much as it is a tool used by the powerful to shut down or scare off those who threaten their power. "

The US is completely different.... Oh, wait.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Remember what happened to Nfong after the Duke Lacrosse team false charges.

Yeah but that was a bunch of college kids. This is Trump.

[dbruce]

Except for Karen McDougal AND David Pecker AND Michael Cohen AND catch and kill AND false business records AND Weiselberg AND insurance fraud AND banking fraud AND campaign fraud AND etc.

[Diarrheality]

You left out the Chicago fire and the Kennedy assassination. Oh, and pineapple on pizza.

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize it's a bit of a cliche, but pineapple is really good on pizza, especially paired with anchovies. It's got that salty sweet thing going, and plenty of Unami, too.

[EmmaBella63541]

I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

Here is I started.……......>> GOOGLE WORK

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Boehm beat the hell out of Sullum to get this article.

[Pear Satirical]

Nah, Sullum is out sick today. Something about it lasting more than 4 hours or some such nonsense.

[HorseConch]

Beat him to completion. Sullum is currently resting and smoking a cigarette to recover.

[Dillinger]

did the Roundup too

[Zeb]

Seems like an awfully broad interpretation of campaign contributions. Is anything a candidate does to improve his public image or reputation really a campaign expense? I wouldn't think so. Is getting a haircut or buying new clothes a campaign expense?

[Stuck in California]

Actually, yes, they are campaign expenses.

I remember Al Gore paying some feminist substantial money to tell him to wear more brown, and Sara Palin got lambasted because the powers that be demanded a new wardrobe and the campaign spent a lot of money on it, just as two examples.

That said, your point is valid. This is a case of generating a crime using the broadest interpretation possible.

[Zeb]

Are they campaign expenses because those particular services were paid for with campaign funds, or does any haircut you get while running for office count?

[HorseConch]

The fact that they are charging felonies for covering up an uncharged crime seems like grounds for dismissal in a real case.

[A Thinking Mind]

I got into this a few days ago, but I'll rehash it here.

There's potentially a legal theory you could advance in which you commit a crime in furtherance of an uncharged crime. The historical precedent some TDS lawyer cited was Gitlow v New York. Now, that decision had some 1st Amendment implications which means it wouldn't hold up today-the modern SCOTUS would almost certainly decide it differently because we use the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard, called "Imminent Lawless Action" as a test for whether speech can qualify as incitement.

But here's the theoretical scenario. You go out and incite a riot. You tell people armed with torches to go over there and burn down that Target and that apartment complex, and get them fired up enough that they actually do it, and it's sufficient to meet the Brandenburg standard. However, all of the people involved were wearing masks, none of them carried cell phones, so it's impossible to identify any of them. The arson and violence actually happened, and your speech incited it, but nobody can be charged with the underlying felony. You didn't burn anything, but you committed a crime that advanced the underlying felonious action.

That's a purely theoretical case, though, and you can see how it doesn't align with the facts here. In that case, you can point to the bodies in the street and the smoking ruins of a building as demonstration that a crime actually happened.

In this case, Donald Trump was investigated for campaign finance violations but never charged. They know what the act was, they know what the law was, and it's unclear that what he did was a violation of the law. There's no clear evidence any underlying crime actually happened. Presumption of innocence is an enshrined legal standard, so absent a conviction, charging someone with covering up a separate crime should be impossible when the act itself is not definitively criminal. (It might be different if you charged someone with covering up evidence of a murder, when a murder clearly happened but you can't prove that the person destroying the evidence was the murderer).

The standards are unreachable, here. New York would need to prove that the underlying conduct itself was criminal, except it has no authority to charge or prosecute the underlying crime, so it actually can't present that proof. Even if it could, that underlying crime is beyond the statute of limitations itself and Trump could never be charged with it, and therefore is being denied his rights to defend against that charge in a timely fashion by bootstrapping it to another charge in order to steal time for the charges to drop. So his right to a fair trial is being denied by this attempted rulebreaking by the DA's office.

[Stuck in California]

I don't know. But, I think it's the paid for campaign funds thing that absolutely makes the difference.

Even then... for fuck's sake Mr. district attorney, there's NO CRIME HERE! The real travesty of justice will be how much damage this sort of shit does to the rule of law.

[Nardz]

LOL

The rule of law been done, bro

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Actually, yes, they are campaign expenses.

I remember Al Gore paying some feminist substantial money to tell him to wear more brown, and Sara Palin got lambasted because the powers that be demanded a new wardrobe and the campaign spent a lot of money on it, just as two examples.

But those things were done specifically, expressly and solely for campaign purposes. Are you under the impression that Trump didn't regularly get haircuts before he became a politician seeking public office?

[Stuck in California]

Why are you trying to fight about this?

It's like saying "Are you not aware Sara Palin actually wore clothing before she became a politician running for public office?"

This is weird. Go argue about something important, because what I'm saying here totally isn't.

[A Thinking Mind]

I would assume that any ambiguity errs on the side of the defendant. If there's a viable alternative explanation for the reasons taken-ie, Trump would still have purchased the NDA even if he wasn't running for office, in order to spare his wife embarrassment-then that would make the theory about falsifying records completely unprovably.

[Super Scary]

"then that would make the theory about falsifying records completely unprovably."

Well that's no good. How is he supposed to prove his innocence?

[Dillinger]

>>ambiguity errs on the side of the defendant

to the jurors not on the take.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I would assume that any ambiguity errs on the side of the defendant."

It works in the opposite direction for Trump. He's subject to "the rule of Severity"; Any ambiguity in the law must be interpreted against him.

Well, he might be the first Republican to be subject to that rule, but you can be sure he won't be the last, unless maybe this stupidity blows up in their faces.

[Don't look at me!]

Yes, he will have “a chance to prove his innocence “.

[Spiritus Mundi]

John Edwards $1250 haircut was a campaign expense.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-edwards-haircut-hits-1250/

[CindyF]

".......given the sheer number of allegations"

Democrats certainly know how to play the game now. Make repeated accusations, then use the number of allegations to prove he must be guilty of something.

[Stuck in California]

Yeah, that's TDS on display.

They did the same thing with Bush regarding literally everything running up to the Kerry election, constantly repeating apocryphal nonsense, referring to him as stupid, only framing any statement in terms of "Republicans tried to deflect criticism by saying..." For fuck's sake, they were running someone against the "stupid" president who went to the same school at the same time and had a lower GPA, but the deal was to just repeat, repeat, repeat, until people believed it.

My point is that it has been happening for a very long time. It just went insane in the Trump years. And this reason author is buying into it, wholesale, without the blink of an eye.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Make repeated accusations, then use the number of allegations to prove he must be guilty of something.

It's called "Swiftboating".

See also Benghazi.

And Hunter Bidens Penis.

[Mother's Lament]

"Benghazi"

Is that the one where you guys jailed an Egyptian filmmaker for causing terrorists to attack embassies?

"Hunter Bidens Penis"

Why does Hunter Bidens penis look exactly like an enormous bribery scandal, Shrike?

This is why everyone calls you a fifty-center.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

enormous

That's what Republicans keep saying.

[Mother's Lament]

So why are you trying to deflect from a bribery scandal by talking about penis?

[Sevo]

turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

[Don't look at me!]

It was her turn!

[CindyF]

Also in today's news:

"In what is likely to be one of the vital well-timed rulings of all time, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals awarded former President Donald Trump $121,962.56 in legal professional charges from grownup movie star Stormy Daniels.

The practically $122,000 is along with the roughly $500,000 that she was ordered to pay him final 12 months."

[Stuck in California]

What "News" site are you quoting here?

Just asking because the grammar is horrific.

[HorseConch]

Never heard of this website, so don't shoot the messenger. I just searched for the first sentence and this came up.

https://dailyheadlineslive.com/news/breaking-courtroom-orders-stormy-daniels-to-pay-trump-121962-56-in-legal-professional-charges-plus-the-500000-she-was-ordered-to-pay-him-final-yr-report/

[JesseAz]

And Fox also reported. It happened today.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-awarded-nearly-122k-attorney-fees-stormy-daniels

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Interesting timing.

[Stuck in California]

Yeah, that's a bot article. Definitely not from a native English speaker, too.

Not that it matters, it's just hilarious to read "news" in an "All your base are belong to us" quality of translation. Looks like they prompted it with the Trump boys' tweets and never edited the output.

[CindyF]

Here is another source:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-awarded-nearly-122k-attorney-fees-stormy-daniels#&_intcmp=fnhpbt9

[Stuck in California]

I'm not doubting the story! Don't take that as against you Cindy. It's just grammatically kind of a mess, enough that I was wondering if it was bot written.

Sorry to derail the actual point, which is that Stormy is in DEEP to Trump.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Nothing about INSURRECTION?

Because one Reason commenter told me it's only appropriate to use the justice system against your political opponents when they've committed the most serious crimes like INSURRECTION. Going after them for lesser crimes is strongman authoritarian stuff.

#DefendDemocratsAtAllCosts

[Don't look at me!]

Welcome to our banana republic.

[SRG]

I think that charges under 175.05 would be no-brainers, but under 175.10, it seems a tough ask if there have been no convictions for the other crimes required for a 175.10 charge to stand.

[Don't look at me!]

Look at the expert in American law over here.

[SRG]

I claim no expertise - I do claim to know more and to be smarter than you, but that is a bar so low not even a cockroach could limbo under it.

[JesseAz]

It is a false claim proven by your posting history as well.

Do you know what "with intent to defraud" covers in legal terms?

[SRG]

Yes.

[JesseAz]

Explain please. Elaborate if you will. How does it apply here.

Yes. Youre being walked into a trap. Let's play.

[SRG]

I'm not interested in playing games with bad-faith posters such as yourself. By all means use the google if you don't know.

[JesseAz]

And shrike retreats as he knows he argues based on politics and not based on facts.

Lol. Stop claiming you're intelligent.

[Sevo]

SRG's momma said so and SRG has yet to find out she's a liar.

[Don't look at me!]

I do claim to know more and to be smarter than you, ..

Got anything to back that up, or just more toxic nonsense?

[Spiritus Mundi]

He didn’t kelo was a liberal majority decision. I would also wager even money he posted lots of nonsense about HO2 under a different handle.

[SRG]

He didn’t kelo was a liberal majority decision.

Flatly untrue. Some idiots here - like Mother's Lament, in his "oops" comment - seemed to think that because I condemned Kelo, I must have thought it was a right-wing decision. Obviously the concept of intellectual integrity is unknown to them.

You will note that nowhere did I say who decided Kelo - because I assumed that everyone else knew who decided it.

I would also wager even money he posted lots of nonsense about HO2 under a different handle.

If you can find a way to make the bet and verify the identity of the poster, I will take that bet.

[Mother's Lament]

"like Mother’s Lament, in his “oops” comment – seemed to think that because I condemned Kelo, I must have thought it was a right-wing decision."

That actually chapped your ass? How delightful.

Let's look at your comment: "Kelo – a truly terrible decision that, it seems, many of the right-wingers on this thread approve of"

Golly, however would we have gotten that impression that you thought it was a right wing decision?

[JesseAz]

Shrike is one dumb mother fucker.

[Mike Laursen]

The comments about HO2 were posted by Tulpa.

[Mother's Lament]

You lying fuck.

Not only did you post them, you admitted to posting them and defended them for a full year, before suddenly deciding to blame Tulpa for your fuck up.

[Mother's Lament]

Here's the thread: https://reason.com/2021/01/12/antique-plate-fiestaware-school-evacuation/#comment-8695663

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Throw it all at the wall - see what sticks.

[A Thinking Mind]

Except that 175.05 is a class b misdemeanor and well beyond the statute of limitations. They can only charge 175.10 because that's a felony and they tenuously arguing tolling measures kicked in that place it within the statute of limitations.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For whom the statute of limitations tolls.

[Mother's Lament]

The report says that they’re Class E felonies. That’s the lowest felony. As others here noted, Bragg’s already bootstrapping this matter by taking what would be a misdemeanor ordinarily and trying to make it a felony.

[Methadras Aszlosis]

He’s trying to take a federal felony and bootstrap it as a state felony all with expired statutes of limitations. That is an impossible legal theory to attempt.

[Mother's Lament]

As the last five years have proven, law and legal theory are pretty much irrelevant when the establishment's political class has a witch they want to burn.

[Nardz]

There are no rules. Only weapons.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think that charges under 175.05 would be no-brainers

Well, that certainly would explain you liking them.

[Dillinger]

how did you end up on the legal beat is Sullum in a coma?

>> boost his chances

frauding up the place to boost chances specific to (D)

edit:>>given the sheer number of allegations and investigations

dude, no.

[TamaraFoster]

After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
.
Read all about it here…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[InsaneTrollLogic]

34 counts of "business fraud" to cover up a crime or crimes, but not any mention of what the crime or crimes may be. Usually the indictment includes what crime or crimes the business fraud was done for. This indictment does not. The only fraud going on here is being committed by Alvin Bragg.

[perlmonger]

I fucking hate these people for making me defend Donald Trump.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Tell me about it. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 because I liked neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton. I did vote for Trump in 2020 as I like Biden even less. I've never been a fan of the man, avoided his TV shows, ignored his intrigues in the news, yet I'm forced to defend him as I'm also defending the rule of law, the Constitution, and common decency at the same time against his detractors who trample on all of this just so they can "get him".

[A Thinking Mind]

I haven't voted for Trump once. Every time I've seen him on the ballot I've voted for someone else, including the 2016 primary (voted for Kasich), then Gary Johnson, then Jo Jorgensen. I will not vote for him in 2024 if there's any realistic alternative.

And yet there's so many lies, misrepresentations, and blatantly bullshit attacks on him that I find myself defending him more than I've ever defended anyone else in politics. TDS is just bottled insanity.

[JesseAz]

How the hell did you vote Jo after she placate to the lefts anti racism creed? She is the worst form of pretend libertarianism. She damaged the party.

I will never vote for anyone parroting any form of critical theory even if done from ignorance.

[Heresolong]

"She damaged the party."

As though Gary "bake the cake" Johnson wasn't enough. And the guy who shows up to the LP convention in his Star Trek uniform, cause nothing says "serious political party" like Trekkies LARPing at the convention.

[SusanM]

But, if all the choices are a farce, why not just vote for the ones who own it?

[THX1138]

“What’s an Aleppo?”

edit: "What is Aleppo?"

[DesigNate]

I voted for Spike, didn’t really care about Jo.

Then, I live in Texas and wasn’t worried about the state flipping.

[Nardz]

"the 2016 primary (voted for Kasich)"

Oof.
Fitting though.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/JohnKasich/status/1643243010992291840?t=gYB78yAx9sKbGxkBWXXUOTcUlt9VIu5wH6fc37Gdgtw&s=19

I'm proud of these students who know that this battle has to be won with peaceful protests in the streets.

[Link]

[Methadras Aszlosis]

You’re angry that your being ‘forced’ to support that guy you don’t like is getting railroaded by the legal system as a revenge attack for his very existence using the color of authority and infinite power of government to do it? Do yoU even remotely not hear how utterly petty that sounds?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Agree with everything you said insanetrolllogic. I also voted L in 2016 and Trump in 2020. To this day I've never seen his TV show. But it was clear that he was the better candidate then and he may be the better candidate now. The Libertarians have fully beclowned themselves and after decades of voting for them I'm done.

[Sevo]

Still get $ calls from the LP, and was a member for some time, but it became obvious that the party had accomplished exactly zero in the 50 years (?) of its existence.
Trump, OTOH, accomplished more in 4 years than any POTUS since Silent Cal.
Cue Zeb to dispute the '100 year' claim; it was 94 or so.

[Zeb]

It's probably true that Trump was the most libertarian president since Coolidge, but that's really not saying very much. I'd much rather he got reelected, but he failed to "drain the swamp", to make any significant cuts to the cost or size of government or to do much of anything to restrain the insane reactions of federal public health agencies to covid.

[A Thinking Mind]

I was there like 2 years ago. At this point I just hate them and need to see them utterly fail because they're trying to destroy so much of this country. It's not even about Trump anymore, they're using Trump and the threat of Trump as naked excuses in their pursuit of power.

[JesseAz]

The left has been that bad since 2016 at a minimum. The threats of their current aims have been around for decades.

[Super Scary]

"It’s not even about Trump anymore, they’re using Trump and the threat of Trump as naked excuses in their pursuit of power."

Just imagine what stunts they are going to try and pull with the next "Trump" (read: literally Hitler) once they are done with him.

[Nardz]

"they’re trying to destroy so much of this country. It’s not even about Trump anymore"

Like some of us have been saying for years...

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Perhaps you are not defending Trump, but the rule of law.
Trump just so happens to be the target.

[migrant log picker]

My exact experience since the annoying turd beat The Hag. Even normally not insane people will ignore the trashing of all Constitutional rights when it's being done to Trump. They just can't fathom that at some point the shoe will be on the other foot and their anti Trump wet dream for a day will be in the crosshairs.

[CindyF]

I've been looking for that info as well. Opinions and articles on cases or rulings by legal experts usually refer to the actual crime and criminal code the accusation is based upon. I have yet to find it in the Trump matter. I suspect it is titled "Pay-back for beating HRC in 2016).

[A Thinking Mind]

I got into this with Mike Laursen in a previous article where I explored the tenuous legal theory that "criminal means" doesn't need to be a specific crime, dating from a 100 year old SCOTUS decision that's been invalidated.

The lawyer who wrote that previous article was reaching like crazy to try to square that circle and it showed. This attempt to charge a felony of concealing an underlying crime that is probably not even a crime is ludicrous.

[Mike Laursen]

That’s not how it went down. You simply dismissed the legal theory out of hand for no other reason than it’s being old.

I called you out on it, and then you actually bothered to explore the theory.

And, now, you are altering the chain of events in the re-telling.

[A Thinking Mind]

Then let's be perfectly accurate.

I said that a 100-year-old citation is problematic because it's probably been either swallowed up or overturned by more recent caselaw, because that's how the process actually works. If the most recent cite you can find is 100 years old, there's a fair chance the legal principles it's speaking to are no longer understood the same way, or the laws themselves have been written differently.

You expressed skepticism that old citations could be a problem and I explained to you how we're no longer following Dred Scott and Plessy V Ferguson. You deflected because that response made you look really dumb.

When I had a bit more time to actually follow the citation and then read up on the case and the issues within the case, to my utter LACK of surprise, I found that I was right all along, because of course I was, and wasn't literally inventing the concept that caselaw is not static. The case was decided using a 1st Amendment standard we no longer utilize (even if the case itself was significant on 14th Amendment and Incorporation grounds), because decisions in Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess V. Indiana have become the ruling cases on charges of incitement. It also turned out that it was a crappy pull by that lawyer anyway, since the facts are so wildly disparate to make a valid comparison. But it wouldn't be surprising, this guy wasn't going deep into legal research for his quick blog entry, he was pulling a case that was kind of famous (for other reasons) in which he remembered the issue coming up just to put up a very flimsy argument justifying the charges.

And at the end, you patted yourself on the back as if you hadn't been proven wrong for doubting that 100 year old case citations might have issues.

[Mike Laursen]

You still changed the order of how the conversation went in your retelling.

[A Thinking Mind]

And it was literally every single document they could tenuously connect to this-basically every check and ledger entry that shows him paying Michael Cohen. A blatant effort to run up the number of charges all stemming from one single act.

I suspect Reason might actually chime in on this blatant charge-stacking, just to remain consistent, but it's especially ridiculous in this case. Because they claimed this was for the purposes of concealing a crime but can't even state what the crime was.

[Dillinger]

>>Usually the indictment includes what crime or crimes the business fraud was done for.

dismissal motion on insufficient indictment?

[soldiermedic76]

Yes, a crime that he's never been charged with, let alone convicted of that is federal not a state crime, in which the two governing bodies that would prosecute both declined to go forward with it. So, it's should be pretty open and shut, as the defense just needs to ask what crime, and then point out that the alleged crime is out of Bragg's jurisdiction, that the two bodies whose jurisdiction it falls under investigated and decided not to pursue charges, ergo, under the 5A, no crime can be alleged to have occurred as there was no conviction let alone even a trial.

This is such a Rube Goldberg case that it should in a fair world be thrown out. Additionally, the Defense team can also point to the fact that the only other person ever charged with paying hush money with campaign finance laws was acquitted. Also, point out the fact that Congress keeps a fund just for these sorts of payments which are not reported as campaign funds either. This entire prosecution is so surreal. I can't believe anyone is actually supporting this monstrosity.

You want to know how to get Trump? Ignore him. He can't stand being ignored. Instead, those of us who wanted the GOP to move on from Trump the person (if not his policies, per se) have to deal with the fact that the left just fucking handed Trump the nomination on a platter, which I think is their plan. They know their chances in 24 are not very good, so let's get the guy with verbal diarrhea nominated again so we can scare all those wine drinkers in the suburbs into voting for the senile guy who killed the economy but thinks he actually saved it.

[A Thinking Mind]

Additionally, the Defense team can also point to the fact that the only other person ever charged with paying hush money with campaign finance laws was acquitted.

And that was much more egregious-he was literally having his campaign donors make the payments to his mistress, and he's also not a person with a controlling interest in a company named after him. He actually was misusing campaign funds and hiding the fact and it still wasn't enough.

Trump paid this one out of pocket. It's not that he got an illegal campaign contribution from Cohen, what they're getting him for is repaying Cohen out of his own pocket. Every document they're citing are related to expenses paid to Cohen. It's perfectly legal to pay anything out of your own pocket to advance your own campaign, so this is not even tenuously a problem. They're just upset that he called them legal expenses instead of campaign expenses, which at worst should result in a very nominal fine, plus interest.

I fucking hate everything about this. It's the literal embodiment of 3 Felonies A Day, it's a legal Catch-22. The prosecutor could have taken the same facts, if Trump had labeled it "Campaign expenses," and charged this as falsifying business records for misclassifying his legal expenses.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""It’s the literal embodiment of 3 Felonies A Day""

This is the kind of thing that real justice reformers want to end.

[migrant log picker]

Say, didn't The Hag pay a fine to the FEC for calling the payment for the "Dossier" legal services on her campaign disclosure forms? Guess that means she's next up in the docket.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""Additionally, the Defense team can also point to the fact that the only other person ever charged with paying hush money with campaign finance laws was acquitted.""

That might matter more in the appeal than at trial.

[Nardz]

"I can’t believe anyone is actually supporting this monstrosity."

Maybe you'll wake up some day.

[Nardz]

"You want to know how to get Trump? Ignore him. He can’t stand being ignored. Instead, those of us who wanted the GOP to move on from Trump the person (if not his policies, per se) have to deal with the fact that the left just fucking handed Trump the nomination on a platter, which I think is their plan. They know their chances in 24 are not very good, so let’s get the guy with verbal diarrhea nominated again so we can scare all those wine drinkers in the suburbs into voting for the senile guy who killed the economy but thinks he actually saved it."

Ah, so it's the Ds playing 12 dimensional chess this time...

[Spiritus Mundi]

They make it as ridiculous as they can to rub your face in their power. Just like Biden and Harris, the two dumbest people ever be President and VP. They knew they were going to steal the election. Dumb and dumber were a big fuck you, never try that agian, we rule you bitches message to the american people. They should of just charged him with killing Jimmy Hoffa. He will be convicted. Every legally solid objection will be over ruled or thrown out. The level of overt bias will be farcical.

[Nardz]

Correct.

[Sevo]

"...Instead, those of us who wanted the GOP to move on from Trump the person (if not his policies, per se)..."

Gonna start here:
Trump did the best job as POTUS in protecting our freedoms and keeping the govt's hands out of our pockets than any POTUS since Silent Cal.
Do you somehow fantasize that we're to find a candidate who delivers those results and is also a daddy figure?
Trump's a blow-hard, a loose cannon, someone in whose company I'd probably prefer not to spend more than 5 minutes, but he remains the best damn POTUS we had for 100 years.
How far are you willing to allow your quest for perfection to damage the very, very good?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""but not any mention of what the crime or crimes may be. ""

They seem to be relying on what Cohen pled guilty to. Someone pled guilty therefore the crime exists.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The walls have closed in-ish.

[perlmonger]

They're really more like poorly assembled cubicle walls that just sort of fell over.

[mad.casual]

In reality, the walls are closing in.

[CindyF]

"“From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects,” Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg alleges"

The above statement from Bragg takes some gall! The Clinton Campaign actually paid to have the Steele documents created and her campaign was fined by the FEC for mislabeling that expense. So Trump gets indicted for his attorney preparing and having Daniels sign the same type of NDA that are entered into quite often (and for which Daniels is ordered by the court to pay costs for violating it).

Anyone who is okay with the above is okay with any political prosecutions so should expect the pay-back that is coming.

Meanwhile, Clinton pays to have fake accusation prepared against Trump in order to "benefit [her] electoral prospects, is fined, and no criminal charges are even considered.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Yep. This is so totes not political. Yep, not a political lynching job done on a presidential candidate they love to hate, yet love to keep in the public's eye.

It does take some serious gall by Bragg, and to see this go forward and no criminal charges brought against Hillary Clinton or her campaign by comparison is ridiculous.

[A Thinking Mind]

He was still engaged in an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 election in December of 2017. I'm just gonna let that one stew just a little bit.

[Don't look at me!]

Time travel , dude.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""The Clinton Campaign actually paid to have the Steele documents created and her campaign was fined by the FEC for mislabeling that expense. ""

Political friends get fined or immunity. Political enemies get prison or indictments.

[JesseAz]

Let's leave aside the debate over the merits of these charges (or lack thereof) and the chance that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg can make them stick.

LOL

[Minadin]

"Between August 2015 and December 2017, the indictment alleges, Trump "orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election"

I'll be very interested to find out what the hell Trump was doing in December of 2017 to influence the outcome of the November 2016 election, and whether or not it involved the use of a DeLorean.

[perlmonger]

"Just get it up to 88 mph, Mr. President."

"This time machine is simply the greatest thing ever, Doc. Simply the greatest!"

[mad.casual]

Actual fictional Donald Trump: "I'll steal a historical sports statistics book from the future, take it back to my past self, place some bets, build a casino, marry women with boob jobs, philander, and generally bath in my opulence."

Fictional actual Donald Trump: "I'll use the time machine to go back in time to pay off the porn star I was sleeping with so I don't lose the election that took place almost a year prior."

[Dillinger]

2015 Biff & 2016 T do look similar ...

[Minadin]

The resemblance is uncanny, both the looks and the story.

[Don't look at me!]

Have you ever seen them both in the same room?

[CindyF]

Well, if Trump hadn't continued to hide the document, they could have overturned the 2016 election and HRC would have waltzed into the White House so that her husband's interns could return.

Legalized insurrection theory, I guess.

/s

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm sure he went on a most excellent adventure through time.

[Dillinger]

San Dimas High School football rules!

[A Thinking Mind]

Party on, dudes.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Here's the indictment.

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

I don't know how far the idea that just because Cohen plead guilty to some crimes to save his own ass means Trump is guilty of the same.

A lot seems to be about paying people or trying to get people to shut up regarding things what would not bode well during an election. Not sure how that a crime.

[A Thinking Mind]

It's potentially a class B misdemeanor, depending on your theory of the documents. Calling it "legal expenses" is probably a completely valid ledger entry for what he actually did, but if you're being a real stickler, maybe you'd have a case.

But they're not charging that because it's way outside the statute of limitations. They have to push an absurd legal theory that it was in covering up another crime he's never even been accused of, prior to this, and that New York has no authority to actually accuse or charge him with. In fact, the FEC actually looked into it and declined to charge. He has to be presumed innocent of the other crime by any sane legal standard, so this legal theory should be dead in the water. But it's literally the ONLY way they could actually charge him over this, through complete bullshit, so he just advanced this theory anyway.

[HorseConch]

It seems like a total and absolute stretch to us the cover up of crimes that they haven't and almost certainly won't bring charges for. Not sure what the end game is here, but convicting Trump of anything seems like it will require a totally fucked up jury.

[A Thinking Mind]

In order for this to stick, they'd actually have to have a trial-within-a-trial to prove the underlying crime. Which is dogshit, it's not a crime New York could ever charge him with, but they're going to try to charge him with it in this backdoor fashion to convict him of the top charge as well as the underlying charge.

It's an utter monstrosity of a case.

[milagurzufkiev]

Normal, healthy, mentally sane Americans close their eyes and a vivid image of a gay man dances into his head. In that image, the man is thrusting his erect penis in and out of another man's bunghole until he has a pleasurable, shuddering orgasm resulting in the powerful ejaculation of gobs and gobs of HIV infected man cream into the other man's colon. When the normal American opens his his eyes, he's sweating and gags in disgust. Liberals picture that and think "Aww, what a sweet, healthy, courageous marital act between a husband and a husband!"

[NOYB2]

Do you seriously think heterosexual Americans don't engage in just the same sex acts as homosexual Americans?

Do you seriously think heterosexual Americans don't spread plenty of STDs?

FYI, HIV transmission is completely preventable with drugs these days.

[Vernon Depner]

I think heterosexual MEN like the idea of "just the same sex acts as homosexual Americans", but good luck finding a straight woman willing to do what gay bottoms do.

[Just thinkin aloud]

Then there's actual straight, heterosexual men who ain't about any of that sh!t.
Stop being vanillaphobic!

[Untermensch]

And then there’s you, who writes your crappy gay fanfic and pretends to hate it.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Wrong thread.

[Mike Laursen]

"The Aristocrats!"

[HorseConch]

Is it common to charge journal entries as individual crimes. Also, is it common to charge the guy who almost certainly didn't know true detail of the accounting for accounting crimes? It seems like there would be something broader to get the Big Guy, or they would charge co-conspirators that would have had to make the entries.

[Don't look at me!]

Everyone knows trump does the bookkeeping for his multibillion dollar corporations at his kitchen table at night.

[kramartini]

The indictment does not specify any facts that constitute a crime. Does not explain why business records are false or what other crimes might have been committed to make this a felony. There is nothing there, repeated 34 times.

[Mother's Lament]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but most of the charges seem to be “charge stacking”, where the prosecutor trys to charge as many times as he can on the exact same thing.

For example if a form that had signatures or initials on the same form multiple times. Each signature/initial could be counted as a potential charge, even if it’s all on the same form and just one incident. So if you had a 10-page form with signatures or initials on each page, you could potentially make 10 separate charges out of it.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

It's enough copypasta to make Sqrlsy proud.

[Pear Satirical]

It's how prosecutors secure plea bargains; either you play ball or they pile the charges a mile high.

[Roberta]

Does it explain whom truthful and accurate business records were owed to? Otherwise it looks like criminalizing lies in your diary.

[NOYB2]

Kara Scannell, a reporter for CNN who was in the courtroom, said on the air that Judge Juan Merchan declined to impose a gag order on Trump or his attorneys—though the judge reportedly did ask the former president not to engage in incendiary remarks on social media.

IT'S A TRAP!

Seriously, does anybody think Trump is not going to engage in incendiary remarks on social media?

[Don't look at me!]

So what if he did?

[Super Scary]

"Seriously, does anybody think Trump is not going to engage in incendiary remarks on social media?"

I think they're counting on it.

[A Thinking Mind]

Or he'll just say something fairly banal and they'll claim it's incendiary. Twitter already played this game over two years ago.

[Richard Rider]

I'm no Trump fan, though I agree with several of his policies.

But one needs to understand how ALL of us "active professionals" are exposed to selective prosecution.

Read -- and REread "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silverglate. He shows that -- with all the laws on the federal books today, too many with nebulous meanings -- a motivated prosecutor can find three FELONIES a day to prosecute an "active professional."

Indictments are easy to get, as the DA provides the "Grand Jury" (a misnomer) all the info he wants, and ONLY what he wants.

No defense evidence or attorney is allowed. Hence the old saw is that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.

[JesseAz]

Based on Braggs legal theory a company agreeing to refund you money if you didnt enjoy their product as long as they don't leave a review is fraud.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What the Supreme Court ought to do, when it gets the chance, is to issue a ringing opinion about the importance of grand juries in protecting innocent suspects, and make sure the grand jurors are informed of this.

Originally, grand juries were supposed to report crimes which the authorities might have missed. This at least involved some local knowledge not derived from the authorities themselves.

Now the authorities just expect the grand jurors to be nice little rubber stamps.

And after turning grand juries into rubber stamps, the establishment whines that grand juries are rubber stamps. (Unlike judges who approve warrants only after careful investigation of the facts).

[Cyto]

They also are good for compelling testimony that could not be obtained by simply asking.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is more like "Thirty Felonies a Day", if you read the indictment. Basically, making the payment was a felony, entering it into the ledger was a felony, Cohen writing a receipt was a felony, entering THAT into the ledger was a felony... Starting to get the picture? They transformed one act into 34 by counting every individual step as a separate felony.

You picked up a dollar bill off the pavement? Theft! You put it in your pocket? Another count! You walked away. Another count! You spent some of it on a pack of gum. Another count! You put the change in your pocket. Another count! And all for the fraudulent purpose of misrepresenting your breath as fresh and minty, so, they're all felonies!

[Iwanna Newname]

So who is the victim in this crime? It's not the IRS, since he's not accused of tax evasion. It's not the voting public, since the FEC has declined to issue any citations. It's not an unwary businessman, since his company isn't up for sale. It's not stockholders, since I think his company is not public. Is it all those people whose feelings were hurt by his mean tweets?

[JesseAz]

Nobody anywhere was defrauded. That is what British shrike is missing above.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Since it's a victimless crime, a progressive DA shouldn't try to turn the charges into felonies. That's very anti-progressive.

If the person's last name was anything other than Trump we wouldn't be hearing about it.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Using the police power of government to keep non-progressives out of power is peak progressive.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I understand it. this is the same prosecutor who files homicide charges against people who were attacked by robbers - because the robbery went wrong and the robber ended up dead.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Yes, the one and the same asshole DA.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/nyc-politicians-demand-alvin-bragg-drop-jose-alba-murder-charge/

Alba, 61, is charged with second-degree murder in the fatal stabbing of Austin Simon, 35, inside the grocery store at 3422 Broadway in Hamilton Heights shortly after 11 p.m. July 1.

Surveillance video shows Austin shoved Alba against a wall of merchandise and was trying to lead him away when the older man fought back and plunged a knife into his neck.

“Despite having no criminal record and video showing Mr. Alba acting in self-defense, you charged him with second-degree murder and asked the court to hold him on $500,000 bail, which was only reduced to $250,000 by the judge,” the councilmembers wrote in the letter to Bragg, a Democrat.

[Pear Satirical]

Wasn't there another incident of Bragg doing this recently, with the guy being handcuffed to his hospital bed?

[Minadin]

Quite recently.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/01/nyc-garage-worker-charged-with-attempted-murder-for-shooting-thief/

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Yes, a parking garage security guy, shot twice by a perp, was able to wrestle the gun away and shot the perp dead, then was charged.

[Pear Satirical]

And Bragg has the nerve to say and I quote "We can not, and will not normalize serious criminal conduct."

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1643349194332053507

[CindyF]

So, who in Bragg's office leaked the information yesterday that it was 34 charges? That would seem to be a bigger crime that what Trump is charged with committing.

4. (a) Grand jury proceedings are secret, and no grand juror, or other person… may, except in the lawful discharge of his duties or upon written order of the court, disclose the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony, evidence, or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding.

[Don't look at me!]

Laws don’t apply when it comes to the orange man.

[RickAbrams]

NY's felony statute of Limitations is 5 years and everything alleged happened in 2017. I am dyslectic but I believe that 2017 plus 5 is 2022. Thus, if Trump made all the false entries on December 31, 2017, his S/L ran last December 31, 2022. Let's count: 2018 = 1 year, 2019 = 2 years, 2020 = 3 years, 2021 = four years, 2022 - five years. I bet even Karl Rove could do this math.

That's not the only trouble with this indictment. A non-egomanical DA would have skipped all the sex stuff and let the serious cases in other jurisdictions go forth untarnished by this asinine indictment. Instead, Alvin Bragg has defecated all over the serious charges.

[Nardz]

There are no legit serious charges

[Liberty Lover]

34 counts of already litigated bullshit. The Feds turned it down. The State of NY turned it down. The previous DA turned it down.

State DA Letitia James who also ran on 'get Trump" spent three years investigating his business practices and came up with zero felonies, zero misdemeanors, and one bogus lawsuit for fraud with no one who was defrauded. Still it goes on.

I believe the Democrats will rue the day they let this happen or supported it. Times change and no Democrat has been squeaky clean. Revenge will be taken eventually and you will hear Democrats squeal like the pigs they are.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Hey, remember when congress got his taxes? What happened with that?

[Vernon Depner]

Since the Democrats have seized the election process, "times" will not "change" anymore. They don't worry about what will happen when the Republicans are in charge again, because that will never happen.

[Mike Laursen]

“they let this happen”

Not letting it happen would be interfering with a DA.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"The indictment claims that Trump allegedly committed the underlying fraud as part of an effort to boost his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election."

Guilty! According to the Constitution, or some Tweets, Trump tuning for President is a crime, Trump winning the election is a crime, and just being Trump is a crime. Thus any infraction related to being Trump becomes super-crime.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I'm a Libertarian so I don't believe there should be "campaign finance laws" or government-mandated "business filings". Therefore, I don't support any indictment that depends on those laws. There's more than enough actual crimes to jail Trump on without having to resort to this nonsense.

[Don't look at me!]

List them.

[Pear Satirical]

Orangemanbad
Mean Tweets
Beating Hillary Clinton
Things Biden has done

[Sevo]

Being Donald Trump!

[Pear Satirical]

I believe that falls under "Orangemanbad."

[Sevo]

I'll go for that.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Steele Dossier. Russia collusion. Geez. You set 'em up, I knock 'em down.

[CindyF]

To this day, there are democrats that think the Steele document accusations were true and have all been proven. Just think, they walk around daily without a handler. Avoid them at all costs!

[Sevo]

There are commenters here who claim to be libertarian who share that belief.

[Mother's Lament]

Shrike Anastasia's heard of thousands. Don't you watch CNN?

[A Thinking Mind]

It'd be nice if one of the libertarian writers here advanced this argument. Absolutely none of this bullshit even SHOULD be a crime, even if you accept absolutely everything the prosecution is arguing. Having sex with a porn star, paying her to shut up while you're running for office, and labeling your legal expenses as legal expenses are all perfectly standard things libertarians should be in favor of.

[Sevo]

"...There’s more than enough actual crimes to jail Trump on without having to resort to this nonsense."

TDS-addled shits keep making this claim, and not a single one has supported it.
Fuck off and die.

[Just thinkin aloud]

To be fair, these are the same people that think Communism and socialism works, it just hasn't been done right...yet. It takes some special kind of retardation to maintain that level of cognitive dissonance.

[Sevo]

Read Pinker on "Rationality" some time back. Mostly good arguments for rational thinking, except that he refers to the 'madness of the Trump era' (blaming Trump), and accepts the notion that climate change is an existential concern, in spite of the fact that not a single one of the catastrophists' prediction has proven anywhere close to accurate. 30 years, not ONE accurate prediction; Kennedy assassination whackos have a better record.
He covers the concept of 'rational ignorance', but both of those are more like 'selective ignorance'.

[Nardz]

Leftists aren't people

[awildseaking]

"given the sheer number of allegations and investigations that have been swirling around Trump for years."

Is this the newest least libertarian thing Boehm has ever said?

I DUNNO GUYS HE SURE DOES LOOK SUSPICIOUS

[Mother's Lament]

I hope Volokh - or some lawyer - would explain how a prosecutor can base a charge on another crime without having to cite the crime and the guilty verdict proving it occurred.

It seems like the failure of the indictment to specify the "other crime" that is alleged to have been aided or concealed presents a basic Sixth Amendment infirmity.

Under that Amendment, the accused has a right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation". A generic allegation that a false record was created for the purpose of aiding & concealing an unspecified "other crime," on its face, leaves Trump in the dark as to the "nature and cause" of the prosecutor's accusation against him.

This is first grade level stuff. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor cannot cite a "crime" without having a guilty verdict proving it is a crime.

[Cyto]

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I don’t know the requirements under NY law for an indictment, but this document is exceedingly vague and incomplete as to the nature of the charges. There is apparently some theory as to why the statute of limitations does not apply… not included? There is a theory as to how to elevate these charges to a felony by claiming a cover up of a crime…. but the crime is neither stated nor charged?

And if you read the counts, you see that all 34 are the same thing… cutting a check. They break out all of the business related accounting as individual crimes…. cutting a check is a crime. Requesting a check is a crime. Writing down the fact that you cut a check is a crime. Recording the payment to accounts payable is a crime. Moving that number to the GL is a crime. Booking the asset and liability is a crime. Marking the check as cashed is a crime.

No details as to how it is possible to “cover up” a crime by writing the number down in the GL accurately.

I cannot help thinking that this prosecutor has no expectation at all of even surviving a motion for summary judgment. He just wants his day on CNN and the hit pieces that flow from the indictment. I am sure this judge will happily oblige him in stringing things along and failing to rule on issues that could resolve the case today. (Did you even properly allege a crime with the requisite components?)

But it sure seems odd to me that all they have is a single check cut to his attorney. And they describe it as “intent to defraud”…. who? Himself? And then every book-keeping step of paying a check in a revocable trust is somehow separate crime, committed by a defendant who most certainly is not involved in any way in any of that other than saying “sure, pay the bill”.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/pepesgrandma/status/1643358466990387203?t=ZUGCMU6DG85sldw0oDZcyw&s=19

????????Breaking Bad Kitty Exclusive

Alvin Bragg has worked with the John Jay Institute for Innovation in Prosecution funded by Soros and more!

Other members include:

♦️Open society staffers
♦️Meg Reiss, DA heading the case.
♦️Ronald L. Davis, Director US Marshall’s nominated by Biden
♦️Cyrus Vance, Prev Dir
♦️Roy L Austin, Biden transition team

John Jay is funded by;
♦️ Atlantic Philanthropies
♦️ Soros Open Society
♦️Ford Foundation
♦️The Tides Foundation
♦️And more!

Evidence in following thread tweets.

Here is the official document that backs up that Alvin Bragg, and his DA heading the Trump case, Mag Reiss, plus others, have all worked together with Soros staffers for the Soros funded, John Jay College and their Institute for Innovation in Prosecution.

This here lists the Funders for John Jay College who ran the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution program that Alvin Bragg and Meg Reiss worked alongside Open Society members with.

Also recall that the Obama Whitehouse also worked with the John Jay College’s Institute for Innovation in Prosecution. I can at least confirm the Meg Reiss, the DA assigned to the Trump case participated at the roundtable at the Obama White House.

[Links]

[DeAnnP]

A few things of note ...

1) Soon after, in August 2015, the Defendant met with Lawyer A and AMI’s
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (the “AMI CEO”) at Trump Tower in New York County.
At the meeting, the AMI CEO agreed to help with the Defendant’s campaign, saying that he
would act as the “eyes and ears” for the campaign by looking out for negative stories about the
Defendant and alerting Lawyer A before the stories were published. The AMI CEO also agreed
to publish negative stories about the Defendant’s competitors for the election

2) In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September
2016 concerning Woman 1’s account, the Defendant and Lawyer A discussed how to obtain the
rights to Woman 1’s account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment. Lawyer A
told the Defendant he would open up a company for the transfer of Woman 1’s account and other
information, and stated that he had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump
Organization (the “TO CFO”) about “how to set the whole thing up.” The Defendant asked, “So
what do we got to pay for this? One fifty?” and suggested paying by cash. When Lawyer A
disagreed, the Defendant then mentioned payment by check. After the conversation, Lawyer A
created a shell company called Resolution Consultants, LLC on or about September 30, 2016.

3) The Defendant, the TO CFO, and Lawyer A then agreed that Lawyer A would be
paid the $420,000 through twelve monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. Each
month, Lawyer A was to send an invoice to the Defendant through Trump Organization
employees, falsely requesting payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered in a given month
of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. At no point did Lawyer A have a retainer agreement
with the Defendant or the Trump Organization.

4) The TO Accounts Payable Supervisor then prepared checks with attached check
stubs for approval and signature. The first check was paid from the Defendant’s Trust and
signed by the TO CFO and the Defendant’s son, as trustees. The check stub falsely recorded the
payment as “Retainer for 1/1-1/31/17” and “Retainer for 2/1-2/28/17.” The second check, for
March 2017, was also paid from the Trust and signed by two trustees. The check stub falsely
recorded the payment as “Retainer for 3/1-3/31/17.”

The remaining nine checks, corresponding to the months of April through
December of 2017, were paid by the Defendant personally. Each of the checks was cut from the
10
Defendant’s bank account and sent, along with the corresponding invoices from Lawyer A, from
the Trump Organization in New York County to the Defendant in Washington, D.C. The checks
and stubs bearing the false statements were stapled to the invoices also bearing false statements.
The Defendant signed each of the checks personally and had them sent back to the Trump
Organization in New York County. There, the checks, the stubs, and the invoices were scanned
and maintained in the Trump Organization’s data system before the checks themselves were
detached and mailed to Lawyer A for payment.

Seems to me Defendant asked AMI to help bury stories to help his campaign. This was done so, and Defendant asked "How much will this cost us?" Defendant asked Cohen to pay for it, and then in the process of reimbursing Cohen lied about "retainers" to cover up the fact that it was to repay him for the campaign help AMI afforded him, thus falsifying business records.

[Cyto]

That is more coherent than their version.

Still need to allege something criminal being covered up.

[Roberta]

Still need to explain who's going to be reading these records, and why they're owed the truth.

[DeAnnP]

I assume the alleged crime is violation of campaign finance law...

In a statement of facts that accompanied the 34-count indictment released Tuesday, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said that Trump set up a “catch and kill” scheme, working with his personal fixers (including now-disgraced attorney Michael Cohen) and American Media, Inc. (the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid) to purchase the rights to damaging stories from people — including adult actress Stormy Daniels, former Playboy model Karen McDougal and a former Trump Tower doorman — and burying the stories, to ensure they’ll never be published.

Suppressing those stories, he said, boosted the Trump candidacy — or, at least prevented it from being harmed.

Had Trump properly recorded those payments — including $130,000 in hush money wired from Cohen to Daniels — they would have been clear violations of campaign finance law.

“To do so, to make that true statement, would have been to admit a crime,” Bragg said.

So instead, he alleged, Trump and Cohen “mischaracterized repayments to Cohen as income” before New York state tax authorities.

The 34 charges, he later said in response to a reporter’s question, are tied to 34 separate falsely recorded business statements intended to conceal criminal conduct — not just one payment.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1643383390224420864?t=3TjRQwSxj1shRjTM_FTbAQ&s=19

Trump has been subjected to the most aggressive, well-financed, open-ended investigation in history by the DOJ, state AGs, private investigators, media orgs, and weaponized Five Eyes intel agencies, and all they found were allegations of paying a former mistress to keep quiet.

All jokes aside, that might make him the least corrupt POTUS in over a century.

[Vernon Depner]

I've made the same argument about Michael Jackson.

[Pear Satirical]

Michael Jackson was a witchhunt as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

No shit. I never in my wildest dreams thought Trump was THIS clean. Beria couldn't find something to charge THIS guy with.

[migrant log picker]

I told people that when he got the nomination. The guy was involved in building shit in NY and NJ. Unions, aldermen, fixers: half the NY pols and 3/4 of the Jersey pols involved have probably done corruption criminal time. With as many enemies as a guy would make playing that game and all his opponents in both parties digging into his past if he was dirty it would have come out. I just assumed there were greased palms in his past, in that circle it's usually SOP. I was surprised nothing came out then or since. By process of elimination you have to assume he was pretty darn clean.

[Sevo]

"...By process of elimination you have to assume he was pretty darn clean."

Further, you'd be perfectly justified as seeing this indictment as nothing more than an attempt at political punishment.

[Roberta]

That was about what I told people who faulted Trump for using/abusing eminent domain: that if you don't use or abuse eminent domain, you're not in that business. The fact that he used it only for his own business gain, and not as an ideologic positive, to me counted as a plus for him.

[Sevo]

"...The fact that he used it only for his own business gain, and not as an ideologic positive, to me counted as a plus for him..."

Not to me. Not a chance in hell I'd defend him as 'wonderful' or anything of the sort; his use of it for his casino was a nothing other than a further check in the 'scumbag' column, and as much as his election was appreciated (defeating the hag), I expected little else. Ended up surprised.
Perfection is not an option folks; we get mean tweets or droolin' Joe; take your pick.
He still has to answer for that parking lot scam.

[Liberty Lover]

Interesting, Watching a real news organization, NewsMax, they pointed out all the supposed ledger entries in the indictment to cover up for the 2016 election happened in 2017, well after the election and Trump being in office. I wonder how DA Braggs will explain that away?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Calendars are racist?

[Sevo]

Doesn't matter. He's guilty of being Donald Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

That’s actually the least stupid part of this: Payment for services rendered often comes AFTER the services. Cohen pays the stripper off before the election, with his own money, then gets paid in return after the election. Perfectly ordinary timing.

Of course, unless you assume that Cohen did it on spec, this kind of verifies that he actually WAS on retainer, and working for Trump, so the payments weren't mislabeled.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1643352722370953216?t=W6pKSlI8_789IvlIJXjZ1w&s=19

This is extremely weird. The anti-Trump cult is extremely weird.

"Ben Collins:
Daniel and Chris met a year ago today. That’s why, a few weeks ago, they decided to get married this afternoon.

They just left the clerk’s office — right as news broke that former President Donald Trump’s motorcade is about to arrive so he can be arrested.
[Pic]"

[Mother's Lament]

It took just 10 years to enter a world in which normal people:

1 Don’t believe anything the New York Times says

2 Don’t think a degree from Yale is worth much

3 Don’t trust the doctors

4 Can’t watch Hollywood films

5 Are comfortable voting for a candidate under indictment

[Leftshot]

So far the only felonies WE KNOW OCCURRED were the leaks over the sealed indictments and other grand jury proceedings. Those of course could only have been committed by Bragg, someone in his office, or a grand juror. The latter is unlikely for a number of reasons. Bragg’s lack of interest in these felonies–much less interest in investigating these felonies–says volumes.

[TamaraFoster]

After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
.
Read all about it here…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[TJJ2000]

Trump formed a whole committee to De-Regulate government....
Of course he's the #1 Enemy of the State! (the Nazi-Empire).
The existence of the Nazi Gestapo police is well established.

[SezWhom]

"Let's leave aside the debate over the merits of these charges (or lack thereof) and the chance that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg can make them stick."

WHAT?!?!?!
Trump has been persecuted for seven straight years, but let's just pay no attention to that. The progressive cabal is clearly practicing banana republic politics; "If you can't beat them, arrest them." But let's pay no attention to that.

That's ALL I'm paying attention to. The audacity of democrats saying that, in order to preserve democracy, we must arrest the competition is downright chilling. Scary. We are moments away from descending into a totalitarian police state, and Reason is saying, "But, on the other hand"! There is no "But on the other hand". We must defend Trump and ARREST the coup leaders. That would be Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and Bragg. Does that seem harsh? Can you really be passive about Trump being arrested for what are pure political reasons, and then be appalled at the thought of arresting the democrat gestapo that is doing this? It's now or never, folks. This is not politics as usual. This is a coup taking place right under your noses, and Reason is whistling past the graveyard.

[TJJ2000]

The fact they think/repeat that the USA is a [Na]tional So[zi]alist 'democracy' instead of a *Constitutional* Republic blatantly makes them treasonous invaders trying to conquer the USA.

[apm247]

Any arepas for Sarait?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Poe's law, my dude.