Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday

[George K]

[George K]

Turley: "Legally Pathetic"

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.
It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.
In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.
Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.
More importantly, Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office. The two lead prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned in protest. Pomerantz launched a very public campaign against Bragg’s decision, including commenting on a still-pending investigation. He made it clear that Trump was guilty in his mind, even though his former office was still undecided and the grand jury investigation was ongoing.
Pomerantz then did something that shocked many of us as highly unprofessional and improper: Over Bragg’s objection that he was undermining any possible prosecution, Pomerantz published a book detailing the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted.

While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.
Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. The campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget. Yet, there was no hue and cry for this type of prosecution in Washington or New York.

[Copper]

So what are you guys going to do as a protest after the arrest.

I'm not sure what options are available. I probably won't go to the Capitol.

My protest will be within a few miles of home, there probably won't be much happening.

[jon-nyc]

[George K]

[Jolly]

What a loser...

[LuFins Dad]

[Axtremus]

“Lock him up” about to become real?

[George K]

Best comment: "Trump will definitely be in NY. He will love the spectacle."

[Jolly]

[Mik]

That’s a good point, because you know they’ll do the same thing to DeSantis.

If our political parties spent as much time trying to build as to destroy we might get somewhere.

[Jolly]

The election then becomes not about Trump, but about voting to destroy a corrupt system.

[Catseye3]

[Axtremus]

Why would you expect Trump to be arrested just because Trump says he expects to be arrested?

For one, Trump has a checkered history with telling the truth.

For two, Trump has more to gain from pulling a publicity stunt about claiming imminent arrest than NY law enforcement has to gain from making the arrest as publicly speculated by Trump.

[Catseye3]

@Mik said in Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday:

If our political parties spent as much time trying to build as to destroy we might get somewhere.

Thank you. You took the words right out of my keyboard. If the Democrats were as loud and energized about finding decent candidates to run as they are in whining about their many grievances, maybe we could get somewhere.

[Copper]

Best question I have seen so far.

Will the Secret Service go to jail with Mr. Trump?

[Mik]

@Axtremus said in Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday:

Why would you expect Trump to be arrested just because Trump says he expects to be arrested?

For one, Trump has a checkered history with telling the truth.

For two, Trump has more to gain from pulling a publicity stunt about claiming imminent arrest than NY law enforcement has to gain from making the arrest as publicly speculated by Trump.

I think he's calling out the prosecutor. He sets some arbitrary date, and if he's arrested, well, he told you so. If he isn't, the prosecution is bogus. It's a win win for him.

[Renauda]

@Mik

I think he's calling out the prosecutor. He sets some arbitrary date, and if he's arrested, well, he told you so. If he isn't, the prosecution is bogus. It's a win win for him.

I agree although the more prudent and efficacious of the two scenarios would be to leave him at large. Let Trump continue in his role of playing Nick Bottom in this real life interpretation of Shakespeare’s character.

[Copper]

[Doctor Phibes]

They're ready...