Fogbow

Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely
The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office recently signaled to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges for his role in the payment of hush money to a porn star, the strongest indication yet that prosecutors are nearing an indictment of the former president, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.

The prosecutors offered Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, the people said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.

In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer. His lawyers could also meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges.

Any case would mark the first indictment of a former American president, and could upend the 2024 presidential race. It would also elevate Mr. Bragg to the national stage, though not without risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/nyre ... bragg.html

New case, this time to hit the former guy himself, before that only his then attorney Michael Cohen was in court. The former guy at the time was immune cause impotus.

The unindicted co-conspirator, AKA Individual 1.

Tfg gets a Mae West letter

jemcanada2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:22 am The unindicted co-conspirator, AKA Individual 1.

From the federal case, AFAIK.

This is the NY state case.

I would like to have a word with the federal prosecutors who indicted Cohen not individual 1. Yes I know Cohem was indicted for other things (which he says are untrue, and certainly the crap about him being liable for the other payoff, involving what's her name and the Enquirer, seems like utter crap), but still. You'll have to prove to me that this was not corruption on the part of DOJ.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:38 am

jemcanada2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:22 am The unindicted co-conspirator, AKA Individual 1.

From the federal case, AFAIK.

This is the NY state case.

I would like to have a word with the federal prosecutors who indicted Cohen not individual 1. Yes I know Cohem was indicted for other things (which he says are untrue, and certainly the crap about him being liable for the other payoff, involving what's her name and the Enquirer, seems like utter crap), but still. You'll have to prove to me that this was not corruption on the part of DOJ.

So many possible cases that it’s hard to keep them all straight.

Just heard on MSNBC that Cohen met today with the DA's office today for the 20th time.

Who remembers when we all loathed Cohen? So long ago.

It would be nice to have him charged at the same time with multiple things. But maybe it might be better to have new charges once a week?

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:07 am It would be nice to have him charged at the same time with multiple things. But maybe it might be better to have new charges once a week?

I like the idea of weekly charges and watching Trump slowly fall apart with each new charge. Treat him like he treated our country.

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:05 am Just heard on MSNBC that Cohen met today with the DA's office today for the 20th time.

Who remembers when we all loathed Cohen? So long ago.

Says who?



That interview where Cohen kept saying “says who?” is the first time I remember ever seeing him.

Jim wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:14 am

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:07 am It would be nice to have him charged at the same time with multiple things. But maybe it might be better to have new charges once a week?

I like the idea of weekly charges and watching Trump slowly fall apart with each new charge. Treat him like he treated our country.

That never gets old.

As I understand it from CNN and Elie Honig:

The charge for the hush money is generally a misdemeanor in New York. However, it is a wobbler, so it can be charged as a felony if the DA can prove the fact that it was in essence an unreported political contribution. Even then it is the lowest category felony in New York.

My belief is that this is being blown out of proportion. I give it about a 5% chance of going to trial and an even lower conviction rate if they charge it as a felony. The only thing that this does is give oxygen to tfg and something for his fans to glom onto.

Save your energies for the important stuff, guys. This alleged crime is not worth it over the long run. Throw tfg a bone, let him bask in his glory for a few days, and then hit him with both barrels from Georgia and the DOJ.

I also want to thank RdA for adding "hush money" to the title of this thread because I gets confuzzled.

humblescribe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:47 pm
My belief is that this is being blown out of proportion. I give it about a 5% chance of going to trial and an even lower conviction rate if they charge it as a felony. The only thing that this does is give oxygen to tfg and something for his fans to glom onto.

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:05 am Just heard on MSNBC that Cohen met today with the DA's office today for the 20th time.

Who remembers when we all loathed Cohen? So long ago.

I will admit it, I never loathed Mikey. There’s something about that bad boy…

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:17 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:05 am Just heard on MSNBC that Cohen met today with the DA's office today for the 20th time.

Who remembers when we all loathed Cohen? So long ago.

I will admit it, I never loathed Mikey. There’s something about that bad boy…

Same here

Trump’s lawyer says his indictment will be “a sad day in our country.” However, she’s “not as panicked as the media likes to make this.” Then says Stormy Daniels made up the story about sex with Trump so she could extort him. Finally, suggests Michael Cohen may have been in on it.

If Stormy's description is accurate, Melanie knows...

I respectfully disagree with Chancery -- while, in a vacuum, charging Trump might seem like a bad idea legally, my belief is that Trump must be charged for all of the offenses for which there is sufficient evidence to prosecute him. At the very least, the standard should be whether or not an ordinary citizen would have been prosecuted if they did such a thing. Already, Habba (presumably) lied when she said that Trump never had sex with Stormy Daniels. One part of holding Trump accountable (both legally and politically), in my opinion, is to build a coherent record of his statements (and his lawyers' statements on his behalf) on the many crimes he is accused of. If he is put in the position of taking contradictory positions on the record his arguments lose credibility in all venues. I think, this is a case where bringing as much as possible out into the open is necessary for the public good.

Just my $0.019999999...

Kendra wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:36 am https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 8223054850

Trump’s lawyer says his indictment will be “a sad day in our country.” However, she’s “not as panicked as the media likes to make this.” Then says Stormy Daniels made up the story about sex with Trump so she could extort him. Finally, suggests Michael Cohen may have been in on it.

OMFSM - I think the court case of Cohen provides the evidence of it not being an extortion, why would Cohen go to prison for not getting anything himself.

Slarti the White wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:38 pm I respectfully disagree with Chancery -- while, in a vacuum, charging Trump might seem like a bad idea legally, my belief is that Trump must be charged for all of the offenses for which there is sufficient evidence to prosecute him. At the very least, the standard should be whether or not an ordinary citizen would have been prosecuted if they did such a thing. Already, Habba (presumably) lied when she said that Trump never had sex with Stormy Daniels. One part of holding Trump accountable (both legally and politically), in my opinion, is to build a coherent record of his statements (and his lawyers' statements on his behalf) on the many crimes he is accused of. If he is put in the position of taking contradictory positions on the record his arguments lose credibility in all venues. I think, this is a case where bringing as much as possible out into the open is necessary for the public good.

Just my $0.019999999...

I agree. I don't see why these charges would be pursued by prosecutors unless they were part of a plan to support further legal action against Trump. I think it's the first blow of the battering ram on the castle gates.

As people on the bird site are noting, the statute of limitations for state-related crimes is rapidly approaching. E.g.:

Slarti the White wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:38 pm I respectfully disagree with Chancery -- while, in a vacuum, charging Trump might seem like a bad idea legally, my belief is that Trump must be charged for all of the offenses for which there is sufficient evidence to prosecute him. At the very least, the standard should be whether or not an ordinary citizen would have been prosecuted if they did such a thing. Already, Habba (presumably) lied when she said that Trump never had sex with Stormy Daniels. One part of holding Trump accountable (both legally and politically), in my opinion, is to build a coherent record of his statements (and his lawyers' statements on his behalf) on the many crimes he is accused of. If he is put in the position of taking contradictory positions on the record his arguments lose credibility in all venues. I think, this is a case where bringing as much as possible out into the open is necessary for the public good.

Just my $0.019999999...

Slarti, I'll see your [clever] 2¢ and raise you a 1971 subway token from New York City:

Sufficient evidence does not correlate to conviction. To me sufficient evidence is enough to file charges. Sufficient evidence is not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt. And prosecutors are given lots of leeway in deciding which crimes to pursue against which defendants (except of course in Florida).

Lawyers make statements all the time that play fast and loose with the truth when they are representing their clients, so I really don't think Habba's mendacity means a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

The majority of supporters of tfg do not care one iota about criming. And, I don't think they care about the public good; they only care if they benefit (or think they benefit.) Many of them are undereducated or uneducated. When you say, ". . .is to build a coherent record of his statements (and his lawyers' statements on his behalf) . . .If he is put in the position of taking contradictory positions on the record, his arguments lose credibility in all venues," you are being logical and you are thinking critically. Never have I been convinced that any supporter of tfg thinks logically or critically. This applies to voters and to his fellow Republicans. He can post all he wants on social media, and the rubes and knuckle-draggers will believe every word.

No, there has to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that he committed one or more serious crimes, not a wobbling misdemeanor. He needs to face some dicey choices: Cop a plea or risk a trial where all his peccadilloes are out in the open. And then if--granted a big if--the right wing outlets actually cover his convictions with a semblance of truthfulness, then and only then, some of his supporters will quit on him, and we can move on from this dark period.

I think I agree with Humble.

At the end of the day, I dont see the payment to Stormey as any big deal. The defamation thing is important to her, of course, but paying someone for sex isn't much of a crime to go to the wall for.

That she was one of history's all time most expensive hookers doesn't really change the fact that she got paid for sex.

The source of the funds is the only thing that is worth the effort. Does anybody get jail time for misuse of campaign funds? How many other candidates have been prosecuted for paying for a little comfort?