Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday
-
-
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 âhush moneyâ 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 celebrityâs 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 Yorkâs U.S. Attorneyâs 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 Braggâs 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 Braggâs 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 Braggâs 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 campaignâs legal budget. Yet, there was no hue and cry for this type of prosecution in Washington or New York. -
DONâT let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
@George-K said in Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday:
Best comment: "Trump will definitely be in NY. He will love the spectacle."
Agreed. He's called for his supporters to be there. He'd look like a big goober (
like what else is new) if he didn't show up.There's what looks to be a detailed analysis of what is likely to happen Tuesday here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/18/what-we-know-donald-trump-indictment/11498610002/
Former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner says it could happen, but that a perp walk is unlikely. The bulk of the comments in the article could be interpreted as maybe yes, maybe no -- the ol' CYA.
Trump's own lawyer says, 'it's becoming more probable' -- lawyer waffle. He can hardly call his own client a liar, after all.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
