“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!”

Uh. Ok. I still doubt there's going to be much death or destruction. Not much more than we Americans usually do. You can put your horn hat on and ride down to Washington if you want. Check out the Lincoln Memorial. It's incredibly moving for people who aren't jaded as hell.

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” — NOS4A2

I'm curious if you see anything wrong with this statement of Trump's. I count 7 things.

It’s not in all-caps.

I feel sorry for the Trump faithful. They must be suffering from whiplash. First he tells them he is going to be arrested and is ready to put on a show for the cameras and prepares them to protest, and now, less than a week later tells them the case is going to be dropped. Of course neither scenario is backed by facts. But then again, in Trump world facts don't matter because there are always "alternative facts".

At his rally yesterday he said he was an example of why the "weaponization of law enforcement" was the biggest problem the U.S. faces — and told the crowd: "They're coming after you." (Axios)

Translation: whoever is against me is the enemy we must fight against. Now someone might want to dismiss this as mere words without consequence, but as comforting as that may be it is dangerously disingenuous.

So you embrace it, which means you can defend it.So:
1) what's the relevance of getting more votes than prior sitting Presidents when his opponent got even more (he lost pop vote both times)?
2) Is a former President above the law?
3) What makes you think there's no evidence of crimes?
4) What's the basis for claiming "it's known by all" no crime was committed?
5) What's the basis for claiming a "false charge"?
6) What is the benefit of mentioning "death and destruction"?
7) Are you aware of the Grand Jury subpoena for docs marked classified, Trump's attorney's letter certifying all had been turned over, and that more such docs were found when the search warrant was executed?
8) Do you deny that at least one crime was committed related to the Stormy Daniel's payment? (e.g. at least a misdemeanor, even of statute of limitations passed - it still .plies a crime committed).
9) Are you aware Trump tried to get the DOJ to lie and claim there was significant election fraud?
10) Are you aware Trump falsely accused Dominion of election fraud?
11) Are you aware Trump repeated a variety of claims about election fraud even after multiple people told him directly these claims were debunked? (E.g. he repeated the debunked Fulton Co. "suitcases of ballots" claim on 1/6 after he received briefings about what actually happened).
12) Are you aware John Eastman pushed a novel electoral college theory that he knew SCOTUS would not accept?
13) Are you aware Trump continues to push the bogus "2000 Mules" claim despite it being debunked?
14) Is Trump's rhetoric consistent with embracing rule of law, and is this at all relevant to you?

TRUMP INDICTED BY GRAND JURY IN STORMY DANIELS CASE

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-hush-money-stormy-daniels/index.html

However note that at time of writing, while jury has voted to indict, the indictment is yet to be unsealed (i.e. made public) - however this is now expected as a matter of course.

It’s about time. Very interesting. It’s safe to say that everything they cried foul about Trump was a reflection of their own impulses. They are indicting their greatest political opponents on trumped up charges, as if there was no political animus behind it. Trump is now like Navalny, and Biden like Putin. It has all been proven true.

:clap: :100:

1 SET OF INDICTMENTS DOWN;
3 SETS OF INDICTMENTS (SO FAR) TO GO!

CRIMINAL DEFENDANT-1
DJTrump (aka "Loser" :lol:)

My Ass Got Arrested!

I note the GOP’s MAGA firebrands are going all in on the ‘corrupt Government/Deep State’ conspiracy theory. It’s going to be very, very tense, but I have to believe that at the end of the day, they’re backing a loosing side, and ultimately that the Republican Party are going to pay a very heavy price for their foolishness. Let’s just hope they don’t succeed in dragging down the Republic itself in their death spiral.

Eh, good. Criminals should be indicted. About time. Hopefully many more to come. It’ll be good for the country.

I think they will come to see that backing Trump is a liability, but I would not bet on it. A major factor is what will happen with the protests Trump is instigating. With each protest following each indictment if the protest turn violent, which seems likely, I think more and more sensible Republican voters will turn against him. When enough do the political "leaders" will follow.

But there is another factor. The timeline to MAGA, for deep pocket, high power conservatives, means going back to undoing the socialist programs of Franklin Roosevelt. Of course for the average MAGA supporter it means something different, they do not want to give up Social Security. But this is not where the dark money is. On the other hand, they despise Trump and will only support him as long as they think he can further their own plutocratic interests.

On another note. Watch Trump's left shoulder. His posture has changed. He tries to appear confident but he seems to be weighed down by the mounting legal pressures. But this is likely to make him more erratic and dangerous.

I am a liberal Democrat and I think Donald Trump was a very bad president and is a very bad man. I have no doubt he broke the law in important ways. Still, I think this could easily turn into a be careful-what-you-wish-for moment. To me, it's certainly nothing to celebrate.

To me, it would make more sense to just indict him for his actions on and before January 6, 2021 rather than this charge. Yes, I know the crimes are in different jurisdictions.

Trump is slowly getting repositioned by the Democrats for a second presidency. Impeaching, indicting, or otherwise attempting to disqualify Trump from this election cycle is going to be seen as undemocratic and he'll become a martyr.

I see this as a major fuck up by the Democrats. They need to run a good candidate and forget about Trump. He'll be dead before his trial and appeals.

If there are grounds for a criminal charge then justice demands it be pressed. Waiving it for political reasons is just more corruption.

Notice the mask. Can't tell, you know, Republican from Democrat.

Trump is slowly getting repositioned by the Democrats for a second presidency. Impeaching, indicting, or otherwise attempting to disqualify Trump from this election cycle is going to be seen as undemocratic and he'll become a martyr. — Hanover

I'm not sure your right, but I fear you might be.

FWIW, maybe (wishful thinking), in order to bait-n-switch radicalized MAGA morons, Criminal Defendent-1 will be arraigned and read the list of ("36" I've heard) indictments by the Clerk of the Court tomorrow, on 31 March, Friday afternoon, in Lower Manhattan, NYC. TR45H will keep his mouth shut and stay off social media pursuant to the court's pre-arraignment order as a condition of his release.

I expect Fulton County, GA indictments to drop by first week of May. And then Federal indictments on Obstruction of Justice, Espionage Act Violation, etc in "the Mar-a-Lago documents case" by June or sooner.

I suspect Criminal Defendant-1 will manage to delay "the J6 Insurrection case" so that if indictments don't drop by September 2023, they will remain under seal until either TR45H is forced out of running for president or after Election Day 2024.

:victory: :cool: Happy First Indictment Day!

TR45H will keep his mouth shut and stay off social media — 180 Proof

worse than solitary confinement for this particular defendant, one would think.

Gift copy of the NYTimes Op Ed on the indictment.

Apparently being charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records.

I see this as a major fuck up by the Democrats. — Hanover

If there is evidence of a crime then the grand jury was right to vote for indictment and the DA right to bring charges. He might be a Democrat, but it was the decision of him and his Manhattan attorneys (and the grand jury), not the Democratic Party.

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party should have pressured a DA into not bringing charges despite evidence of a crime because it would have been better for them politically? Surely we should all be against that kind of corruption. I'm sure we'd all be against it if it was a Republican DA ignoring evidence of a crime committed by Trump, or a Democrat DA ignoring evidence of a crime committed by Biden. The fact that the DA and Trump belong to different political parties shouldn't make any difference. Political expediency shouldn't influence law enforcement.

I see this as a major fuck up by the Democrats. — Hanover

That's a sad inditement of the US justice system. I thought the whole of the US political system was about the separation of powers.

I get the impression that Americans don't really believe in their justice system. They pay lip-service to it but they seem to believe if you are rich and powerful, you can/should be able to use your wealth and power in every sphere, including justice, to gain advantage and favour. If someone as wealthy and powerful as Trump is held to account then it's presumed it can only be because some even more powerful agency (eg. the Democrat party) has engineered that situation. Of course, this makes the likes of Trump, regardless of the result of criminal proceedings against him, theoretically above the law as any such proceedings are presumed illegitimate a priori. Trump can never do wrong. Therefore, where wrong is done, another party, be it the Democrat party or even the justice system itself must be wrong . Ergo, Trump did not fuck up; the Democrats fucked up or the justice system fucked up.

I think there's also a case of people taking "innocent until proven guilty" too far. They presume innocence (which is fine), but then use that to baselessly assert that therefore all the evidence that proves guilt must be false or fake or fabricated or whatever. Or they just ignore the evidence altogether, and just assert that the prosecution was politically motivated, and so even if he's clearly guilty he shouldn't be held accountable.

Sure, my main point though is there's always an out for those like Trump who are both rich and powerful and entrenched on one side of the political divide. Excuses will always be made, blame will always be reapportioned, and everything, including the notion of the separation of powers and the concept of law and order itself will be sacrificed at their feet because power is the only sacred principle. And it's true of both sides. If Hillary Clinton had been indicted, the Dems would be looking for reasons to employ the same playbook, though maybe with a bit more subtlety.

I expect Hanover is consistent btw and would criticize Republicans for shooting themselves in the foot if Clinton were indicted in a red state. It's the way things are looked at over there.

I expect Hanover is consistent btw and would criticize Republicans for shooting themselves in the foot if Clinton were indicted in a red state. It's the way things are looked at over there. — Baden

The impeachment of Clinton was a massive mistake and is often cited for the reason why the Republicans lost power after great gains.

There is a political reality that cannot be ignored. You can go on about how justice demands the prosecution of every prosecutable crime damn the torpedoes, and we can then end up with failed impeachments and acquittals followed by emboldened politicians who should have lost power.

The Manhattan case is a case about misuse of campaign funds and falsification of records. It's a finance regulatory case.

Prosecute the man for calling the Georgia Secretary of State and asking for fabricated votes and stop with this diversion into whether Form 1876-b (I made that form up, so don't look it up) was falsified.



This isn't about me not caring about justice or about whatever this psychological analysis is regarding the inconsistencies in the American mindset, and I sure as hell would never vote for Trump. The man is an anti-democratic dictator wanna be.

I wish he'd be hit for something real, not whether he might have improperly paid off the woman he slept with.

The Clinton example is apt here. Whatever started that meaningful investigation ended in whether he lied about getting a blow job. He shouldn't have lied about it, sure, but the Republicans should have let that go.

The impeachment of Clinton was a massive mistake and is often cited for the reason why the Republicans lost power after great gains.

There is a political reality that cannot be ignored. You can go on about how justice demands the prosecution of every prosecutable crime damn the torpedoes, and we can then end up with failed impeachments and acquittals followed by emboldened politicians who should have lost power. — Hanover

Impeachment and prosecution are different things.

The Manhattan case is a case about misuse of campaign funds and falsification of records. It's a finance regulatory case. — Hanover

It's a financial crime, and financial crimes should be prosecuted (and punished if found guilty).

Either apply the law equally to all offenders or get rid of the law. Why should Trump be given special treatment just because he's a former President? It may be politically expedient, but the fair application of the law shouldn't be motivated by politics. That reeks of corruption.

I wish he'd be hit for something real, not whether he might have improperly paid off the woman he slept with. — Hanover

This is a very rhetorical way to phrase it. It's like me embezzling funds from some company I manage and then describing the subsequent prosecution as being just about "improperly paying for a new car".