Why I believe a Stormy Daniels hush money indictment of Trump is a bad idea

You have evidently believe whatever cockamamie Bull and and poppycock story that comes down the pike.... So you might wish to be careful when casting stones in that thin walled Glass House of yours

 

I can't disagree with what you say which is why I for one think this will not be the only charges against him.

In his case putting all your eggs in one basket would make no sense for many reasons including the ones you listed. From a strategic point of view you charge with as many possible crimes as possible if for no other reason to have a better hand when plea bargaining. As a prosecutor I never went to trial on a single charge. The few that I had to take always plea bargained down and had multiple charges.

 

Pithy aphorisms are nice, but a prosecutor is never going indict based on one, they will exercise prosecutorial discretion, which is to apply all the facts, considerations, ramifications, chances of winning, etc., not to mention how it all applies to the law.

 

"We", meaning sensible people, but a large swath of his base hang on his every word, and for that fact, Trump has damaged confidence in elections, i.e, democracy itself, to a degree hitherto unseen in history. So, on #4, I'm just thinking about taking measures to repair the damage he has done.

I understand, and agree with you on #5, but I believe the conversation has to be started, the seed of an idea planted, and hopefully, in time, it might grow.

He is one of the co-conspirators in the Eastman/Navarro scheme to overturn the election, via several options, all of which result in the VP being forced to throw the vote for president to the house, where they knew that republicans have or had a two vote advantage in the state delegations. Navarro's contribution to the scheme was to get Pence to remand the electoral count objections to the states. It's one thing for a contested election to occur organically, but as a scheme to intentionally bypass a state certified election is another matter, altogether. I believe it is illegal under the 'fraud against the United state's" (which I think is) 52 U.S. Code § 20511

It will all play out, one way or the other, methinks.

 

Did what? What she did not do that Trump did do, with numerous conspirators, was to, as evidenced in the Eastman/Navarro scheme, to overturn the election, via several options, all of which were supposed to result in the VP being forced to throw the vote for president to the house, where they knew that republicans have or had a two vote advantage in the state delegations. Navarro's contribution to the scheme was to get Pence to remand the electoral count objections to the states. It's one thing for a contested election to occur organically, but as a scheme to intentionally bypass a state certified election is another matter, altogether. I believe it is illegal under the 'fraud against the United state's" (which I think is) 52 U.S. Code § 20511, but it might be another law the DOJ will go for, if they indict per Special Counsel recommendations.

 

Al Capone was nailed for tax evasion.... if that is the best they can dig up on Trump something like that.... the ends justify the means.... whether they have a solid case or not..

 

Trump followed the law.... Electoral count act of 1887..... It is a law on the books... Trump did nothing wrong..

 

More often than not, it is imaginary. And if they do, it is because they did something that they were not suppose to.

As for Mueller he did, some 60 pages worth where he listed the obstruction Trump attempted to do on him and how to sway the report. Mueller also stated clearly he never exonnerated Trump to begin with. As I have stated before, the Mueller Report was incomplete since Trump was never disposed in written or oral testimony under oath AND he was not getting any help from he GOP Congress to make his job easier, among other things.

 

NO where in our legal code the ends justify the means. If that were the case, I can guarantee you the old duel with dueling pistols would be the norm today.

 

The DA at that time dropped the case, not dismissed by the court with prejuduice. However, money payments are a different nature than the prior case which was a lawsuit for sexual assault. And since the judge was not granting a lot of the evidence to prove that claim on legal bounds because he was President, here we are.

 

I think the only other charges that may come against him is his handling of classified documents AND how he did not cooperate with the investigation from the get-go while trying to negotiate on what he should and should not keep. That is it.

 

Government officials often delete non governmental emails. Her mistake was putting both on the same server. Your contention is speculation and there is no proof
"deep state' to which you refer are merely government employees, and there is no evidence they are playing politics. I'm sure in the annals of history, it happens, but such arguments as 'deep state' do not belong in a court of law. Bar room rants, yes, courts of law, no. FBI director Comey stated publicly there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. There was no proof her 'administrator' was directed by her to delete the emails after the subpoena was served, there is only evidence that she directed him a few weeks prior to the subpoena. IN short, that is why Comey made his decision against prosecution. But, this is beating a dead horse.

There is no evidence Joe Biden played any significant role, nor profited from, Hunter's dealings. Moreover, whatever his foreign dealings were, they fall under the heading of 'lobbying' (insofar as influence) and entrepreneurship for his dealings, and that is the status quo in America. Therefore, his only indictable crime will be not registering as a foreign agent, and there, it might be just a fine and no prosecution. oh, and the other matter of improperly filling out a firearms application ( I forget what kind it was), but not writing on the application his drug history. So, lying on a gun application. I doubt prosecutors will go after anyone in any president's family unless they have something more substantial than these items.

An attack on the capitol is prima facie evidence of crimes, and possible evidence of Trump's conspiring to commit sedition/subversion, or something along those lines. But, I doubt the DOJ will pursue that line, as there is evidence of a planned scheme to overturn the outcome of the election, some steps legal, others not, it's on the Eastman memo, and there is evidence a number of acts were committed in furtherance of the scheme, all of which constitutes fraud against the United States, noting that the riot probably diminished the chances of the scheme's success, and many congresspersons and senators who were in on the plan to object to state's electoral vote, in a conspiracy to overturn the election, decided not to do it because of the riots.

As always, 'caveat', "IANAL", these are my layperson's understanding of law.




.

 

but it is in the unwritten Democratic code.

 

I know, but as the saying goes, "you can't fix stupid."

A better conversation is why admit the conspiracy theories and giving them due in mainstream media, including Fox and others. That conversation will be started once the Dominion Lawsuit is findally done with either Fox settling out of court for large sums of money AND promising not to do that sort of thing again, or they go to trial and end up the result of someone named Alex Jones.

The VP was never going to do that any way. And Georgia is at the forefront with this. They had an investigative grand jury, which does not actually make indictments, just recommendations, but the Georgia DA will have to go before an actual grand jury, present the evidence, and come up with indictments on who was involved.

Yes it will.

 

Given that we have witnessed numerous evidentiary facts that he is grossly unfit for the office of the President, you can rest assured the same people do not want him to be elected and will do everything in their power to achieve that objective. As for putting Trump in jail, well, we believe he did commit crimes, the evidence for it is overwhelming and criminals belong in jail.

The point is, no one is 'out to get Trump' in the sense of 'in a vacuum' -- we are out to exact justice for his crimes, which should be the the objective and concern of any US Citizen.

 

But Republicans have been following this rule for quite a while now. And that example was trying to replace one set of electoral college voters for the ones already selected after the state certified the election, among others.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-conservatives-think-ends-justify-means/

 

That is what Bragg is doing, 'further investigation'. As I don't believe you are recalling correctly, I ask you to quote Mueller in his report. But, it must be stated that Mueller believed that the MR did not exonerate Trump, at least on the obstruction charges. As to the hush money case, you'll have to cite page and paragraph or provide the actual quote from the text which supports your contention.

Federally speaking, the statute of limitations has expired, but because in New York, the clock can stop on the statute of limitations when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state. Trump visited New York rarely over the four years of his presidency and now lives mostly in Florida and New Jersey. Therefore, the statute of limitations hasn't actually passed. If Trump had not run for Prez, and stayed in NYC, there would be no hush money case.

 

What is not healthy is for a President, or former president, to convince some 65-75 million Americans that the election is rigged.

so, if 'health' is of any concern to you, consider the national health, beyond partisanship. Trump has damaged America to the pleasures of Putin, et al.

DeSantis in my view, given his grandstanding stunts to garner likes and thus votes from Trumplandia types, he should not be president. Given his firing of an elected state attorney without evidence of any acts which might predicate such a firing, only vague statements he made, demonstrates DeSantis incompetence.

America needs someone better than that. Better than Trump, better than DeSantis.

 

As to why Alan Bragg didn't prosecute, I think it was obvious. He had just gotten elected and didn't want rush into something as world attention demanding as indicting the former president, he just didn't have the cajones to do it. Slowly, he is building up to it, but whether he will, and there is evidence he will, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Electoral count act of 1887.... do your homework and get back to us.... it is a law on the books, Trump do nothing wrong...

 

Why don't you quote where he said specifically that indictment was justified. As I recall he raised issues that MAY have justified further investigation. You're correct below in saying he did not exonerate Trump, but he also didn't say the evidence was sufficient for indictment.

Sorry, no. I don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm not invested in the issue, nor do I live my days waiting anxiously for next Trump gotcha.

. Don't get your hopes up.

 

If I recall correctly the issue at the time was where the money came from; Trump's personal funds or from his campaign funds which would be illegal. I think the NDA was executed prior to charges being filed.

 

I don't know if you remember having seen me post about it but DeSantis was here doing a press conference and my city after the hurricane and people were flooded in out in the county stranded except for in and out by boat.

Someone told the governor that they had no gas for their generators. The governor himself personally called the oil company that owns the building where I work and said you make sure those people have gas.

My boss man who owns all of the mechanic equipment and everything besides the building and runs the place for the last 40 years, personally told me about this.

That was results, results that I don't think would have happened from any other politician. He actually gave a damn about the plight of some of his constituents.

He personally picked up the phone and made it happen.

We need someone like that that makes things happen.

We went from very sporadic gas deliveries to gas just like before the hurricane overnight.

 

I don't think that's obvious at all, however as he's the a New York DA, if he does end up indicting, you'll definitely have a point.

 

confused, so you don't believe Trump said that