Trump Arrest Thread

[SharkTanked]

Here's another hint...

If 34 counts is true most of what has been written in the media is total bunk. On both sides of the media.

 

[retrofade]

On 3/31/2023 at 2:40 PM, Bob said:

It’s an insignificant amount of money. Total sham

The amount doesn't matter, because the amount is pretty irrelevant. Also, the max donation that could be given to a political campaign is $5,600. 

[madmartigan]

Clearly a coordinated conspiracy against Trump. The whole world is against him and he’s such a GOOD dude! 

[Bob]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:01 PM, retrofade said:

The amount doesn't matter, because the amount is pretty irrelevant. Also, the max donation that could be given to a political campaign is $5,600. 

If this were any other person in America, the prosecutor would have looked the other way. It’s something you’d expect to see in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia. It’s concerning for our country, to say the least

[happycamper]

On 3/31/2023 at 2:53 PM, Bob said:

Millions. The prosecutor is off the rails. Since you likely consume news from only left wing sources educate yourself on why this is a complete sham

 

you all are bloodthirsty, partisan hacks that truly and pathetically suffer from none other than TDS. It’s disturbing how trump lives rent free in all your brains

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/bragg-crosses-the-rubicon-indicting-trump-on-stormy-daniels-nonsense/

 

so if a former president, say, stole your car and crashed it into one of your properties but only did 850k in damages to you, not worth prosecuting?

[Bob]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:07 PM, happycamper said:

so if a former president, say, stole your car and crashed it into one of your properties but only did 850k in damages to you, not worth prosecuting?

not an apples to apples comparison there. Try again!

[alum93]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:05 PM, Bob said:

If this were any other person in America, the prosecutor would have looked the other way. It’s something you’d expect to see in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia. It’s concerning for our country, to say the least

If this were any other person,  this would have happened a long time ago.

[happycamper]

On 3/31/2023 at 3:18 PM, Bob said:

not an apples to apples comparison there. Try again!

So if a former president, say, accepted 930k to veto a bill, not worth prosecuting?

[Bob]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:22 PM, happycamper said:

So if a former president, say, accepted 930k to veto a bill, not worth prosecuting?

Ha ha ha. This is campaign finance junk. We're talking an immaterial amount of money.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/bragg-crosses-the-rubicon-indicting-trump-on-stormy-daniels-nonsense/

"At issue are bookkeeping shenanigans that Bragg would ordinarily not give the time of day. In a nutshell, Trump booked the reimbursement of a loan as if it were a payment of legal fees. Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, laid out $130,000 on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, to pay Stormy Daniels — the porn star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford — to keep quiet about an affair she says she had with Trump 17 years ago. On the books of the Trump organization, the reimbursement was made to look like ongoing legal fees paid in monthly installments in 2017. So trifling is this that it is not clear New York State suffered any financial harm — we’re talking merely about how an expense was described in the accounting ledgers, not about tax evasion.

But it gets worse. Falsification of financial records is just a misdemeanor in New York, which is why it’s virtually never charged. It has only a two-year statute of limitations, meaning that this one is time-barred. To inflate the misdemeanor into a felony, with a five-year statute of limitations that might — might barely — make the indictment timely, Bragg would have to show that Trump falsified his records in order to conceal his commission of another crime. That is, there would have to be some other crime, Trump would have to have known that, and he would have to have acted with the intent to conceal that crime.

Again, if the reporting is accurate — and we won’t know this for sure until the indictment is unsealed — Bragg is arguing that the crime Trump concealed was a failure to disclose an in-kind campaign contribution under the campaign-finance laws.

It would be hard to quantify how outrageous that allegation would be. Campaign-finance violations are federal. When the New York penal law refers to concealing “another crime,” it is plainly talking about another New York state crime. The Manhattan district attorney has no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign-finance statutes. Moreover, the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission — the federal agencies that do have jurisdiction in this area — looked at the Stormy Daniels hush-money arrangement and opted not to proceed against Trump."

 

Further, the prosecutor is a partisan piece of shit:

"Bragg is an unabashed progressive prosecutor whose overarching approach to his job is to minimize resort to criminal prosecution for the resolution of offenses. With defendants who commit serious crimes, Bragg’s practice is to use his charging authority to avoid accusing them of offenses that would require incarceration sentences, and to minimize the number of offenders who are in state custody."

 

 

[happycamper]

On 3/31/2023 at 3:44 PM, Bob said:

Ha ha ha. This is campaign finance junk. We're talking an immaterial amount of money.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/bragg-crosses-the-rubicon-indicting-trump-on-stormy-daniels-nonsense/

"At issue are bookkeeping shenanigans that Bragg would ordinarily not give the time of day. In a nutshell, Trump booked the reimbursement of a loan as if it were a payment of legal fees. Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, laid out $130,000 on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, to pay Stormy Daniels — the porn star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford — to keep quiet about an affair she says she had with Trump 17 years ago. On the books of the Trump organization, the reimbursement was made to look like ongoing legal fees paid in monthly installments in 2017. So trifling is this that it is not clear New York State suffered any financial harm — we’re talking merely about how an expense was described in the accounting ledgers, not about tax evasion.

But it gets worse. Falsification of financial records is just a misdemeanor in New York, which is why it’s virtually never charged. It has only a two-year statute of limitations, meaning that this one is time-barred. To inflate the misdemeanor into a felony, with a five-year statute of limitations that might — might barely — make the indictment timely, Bragg would have to show that Trump falsified his records in order to conceal his commission of another crime. That is, there would have to be some other crime, Trump would have to have known that, and he would have to have acted with the intent to conceal that crime.

Again, if the reporting is accurate — and we won’t know this for sure until the indictment is unsealed — Bragg is arguing that the crime Trump concealed was a failure to disclose an in-kind campaign contribution under the campaign-finance laws.

It would be hard to quantify how outrageous that allegation would be. Campaign-finance violations are federal. When the New York penal law refers to concealing “another crime,” it is plainly talking about another New York state crime. The Manhattan district attorney has no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign-finance statutes. Moreover, the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission — the federal agencies that do have jurisdiction in this area — looked at the Stormy Daniels hush-money arrangement and opted not to proceed against Trump."

 

Further, the prosecutor is a partisan piece of shit:

"Bragg is an unabashed progressive prosecutor whose overarching approach to his job is to minimize resort to criminal prosecution for the resolution of offenses. With defendants who commit serious crimes, Bragg’s practice is to use his charging authority to avoid accusing them of offenses that would require incarceration sentences, and to minimize the number of offenders who are in state custody."

 

 

So what laws are worth prosecuting?

[SharkTanked]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:05 PM, Bob said:

If this were any other person in America, the prosecutor would have looked the other way. It’s something you’d expect to see in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia. It’s concerning for our country, to say the least

Any person in America not running for election would not get indicted for breaking campaign finance laws.

[Bob]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:47 PM, SharkTanked said:

Any person in America not running for election would not get indicted for breaking campaign finance laws.

Yeah, I doubt that.

[SharkTanked]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:48 PM, Bob said:

Yeah, I doubt that.

So a person not running for an election WOULD get indicted for breaking campaign finance laws? Huh. Which witch is getting hunted here?

[818SUDSFan]

On 3/30/2023 at 3:30 PM, UNLV2001 said:

And goddammit you wonderful, God-fearing, true Patriots, GIVE TILL IT HURTS OR UNTIL WE SAVE AMERICA!

And don't be a cheapskate! MAKE THIS A MONTHLY RECURRING DONATION!

ALL THE WAY UP TO ELECTION DAY!

WHETHER I'M ACTUALLY ON THE BALLOT OR NOT!

[Bob]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:47 PM, happycamper said:

So what laws are worth prosecuting?

It's hard to say sometimes, but I think Trump ripped off his mattress tag once, better get him for that too

 

 

[UNLV2001]

[SJSUMFA2013]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:47 PM, happycamper said:

So what laws are worth prosecuting?

The ones black people break

[SharkTanked]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:59 PM, SJSUMFA2013 said:

The ones black people break

For Bob, I think it is more gayz and trans, but you could be right.

[SJSUMFA2013]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:00 PM, SharkTanked said:

For Bob, I think it is more gayz and trans, but you could be right.

Right I forgot he thinks gay people should be prosecuted just for existing

[SharkTanked]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:03 PM, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Right I forgot he thinks gay people should be prosecuted just for existing

As an aside...