[deleted]
Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
91–100 of 1001 posts
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#92> After he became president, Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the hush money and falsely recorded those payments as legal fees. so, if i understand correctly, the main issue is the "falsely recorded those payments as legal fees" part and not the hush money part?
yeah, paying money to someone to keep them quiet isn’t necessarily illegal (i think.. a lawyer’s knowledge would be appreciated here), but trying to write it off as legal fees seems to be the issue. i imagine there are tax implications, as well as what pool of cash the money was paid from (i.e. if it was from campaign money). it’s impossible to say for certain what the exact issue is until the charges are revealed
The legal fee thing is a case of misdemeanor falsification of business records on its own.
The fact that it was done to cover up a second crime (breaking federal campaign finance law) arguably converts it to a felony according to New York state law.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#93Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the lamest, least armed “overthrowers” of a government ever? ;)
Yeah kinda funny how the same people who claim the Second Amendment is useless because "you stand no chance against the military" also think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by a bunch of unarmed yokels.
>> also think the government was >thisTrying my best to not engage in any pointless discourse in this thread, but there were plenty of highly armed people (quite literally waiting to be called in, staying in nearby hotels - just because they were dumbasses doesn’t mean they weren’t highly armed) as well as the fact they did try to call the military in & it was hindered by maleficence.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#95I am going to post a mildly unpopular opinion on what it actually means.
In a word: nothing.
Regardless of how you see Trump, he is, and has been basically since he became President, the presumptive nominee of the Republican party with remaining candidates hoping to take him down. With all that in mind, what does this indictment actually mean in terms of possible penalty?
In a word: nothing.
Felon can still run for POTUS spot. There is a reason for that too along the lines of "well, you don't want current political party to just make up shit willy-nilly".
All this before we even get to the substance of the actual transgression, which, to me at least, is on about the same level as Bill Clinton's charge ( and arguably, his was worse depending on deeply you want to discuss it -- because contrary to some comedians, it was not just about a bj ).
So who benefits?
Trump. Media ( good circus equals good ratings ). The guy who will be running the circus will make a name for himself.
And.. that is it. I am not even sure why I am taking this as stoically as I am. Maybe the over the top happiness displayed on other social media made me hesitate.
FWIW, I am all about 'no one is above the law', but, I think, anyone on this forum can easily point to instances where that is not exactly axiomatic lately. And I think you will note my restraint in not pointing out any names for the sake of trying to keep this post semi-neutral in tone.
Now.. note that they are getting him on some relatively small stuff. All that stuff about Russia, nuclear secrets raid, running bs charity, being peed on.. none of that panned out in a way that touched Trump. And that is the last card to play.
You would think they would get him at least on something better to put on the news. They are getting him on a legal technicality that he will shrug off the same way he shrugged off not paying taxes.
And this? This will only make believers more adamant and it does not in any way damage Trump. This is democrats saying:
"We don't know how, but by golly we are gonna lose this one!"
You gotta laugh man. You gotta. Otherwise you will start crying.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter. Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.
This framing comes up all the time. Is there anything that would…not be good for Trump’s campaign?
[deleted]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
There's all kinds of unprecedented legal and political ramifications nobody can predict from this. Don't get me wrong, I think every POTUS in recent memory should be locked up for war crimes, but going after living presidents for petty nonsense isn't worth what falls out of it. This is complicated by the fact Trump is going to run again in 2024, putting this further into uncharted territory.
[deleted]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, adjacent to presidents, Henry Kissinger remains both alive and not charged in any international criminal courts. I think he's literally 99 years old now.
Doesn't the US credibly threaten to invade the Hague should any international court there decide to pursue charges against an American citizen? Best you could hope for is domestic charges or for Kissinger to make a visit to Viet Nam and get arrested there.
Which is really why this international criminal court has no real meaning - only the winner in a conflict gets to also win in the court.
For example, do you really think that by charging putin, that he'd really get arrested in participating countries? Or would the warrant be ignored?
And if putin does lose his war, and goes into exile, the ICC warrants would then be possible to enforce (now that no nukes is on the line). But putin knows this, so if the war goes badly, would it not make better sense to fight it out to the bitter end, rather than lose out to being arrested if he goes on exile?
The court that has no enforcement mechanism is mostly just political show boating.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#99I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…
We’ve prosecuted a vice president candidate for similar crimes.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senator-and-presidenti...
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter. Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.
This framing comes up all the time. Is there anything that would…not be good for Trump’s campaign?
There is no such thing as bad publicity.