Did Alvin Bragg just open Pandora's box?

We shall see. If there are some really questionable charges, it will be noted.

 

It must be remembered that there are Republican DAs across the United States that can play that game as well. We are starting to see the game of tit for tat now with the Republicans controlling the House. Still, Bragg has shown how stupid democrats can be even when they shoot themselves in their foot. Instead of saying "Ouch!" they will only aim for the other foot.

 

There's nothing wrong with honest work, no matter what you do. But I have a feeling that his work is far more relevant than what you might offer... for any of these threads.

 

Sure it will...lol

 

this shows just how little experience you have with immigration. yes, they all should come legally, but also given the complexity and expensiveness it is, plus its more draconian approach on specific issues, we have erected bandaids countless times to help correct the problems that the original 1954 Immigration Act fails to consider in today's migration issues. We did this with Cubans and the Cuban Adjustment Act where many Cubans came here illegally from the 1950s to the 1980s. They include Marco Rubio's grandparents, George P Bush's grandparent and the list goes on. But there are also various other laws we have passed to correct the problem which includes the infamous laws that Reagan signed, the one that Bill Clinton Signed the one that George W Bush signed, the one that George HW Bush signed, and so forth. But the point is that laws do change in immigration and to change to deal with an innuse that INA 1954 did not anticipate when we were in the midst of the Cold War.

I understand why they come here illegally. Even refugees can come here illegally and still apply for refugee status. They are not going to go to some consulate in their home country or a neighboring country and apply. For starters, the embassies and consulates don't do that type of work. And second, if it is in their home country, then whatever embasy or consulate, they are watched by the country's security services on who goes in and comes out. It is also why we should pass comprehensive legal immigration reform to make the current law more up to date with the current migration issues and to get rid of the disparities between certain countries and others.

The issue with deficits is a seperate problem with immigration. Most of the immigration, namely USCIS, is paid for by those damn fees. The general fund pays for the ICE, CBP and other immgration enforcement issues, and yet, the GOP wants to increase that number and pay them on GS 11 amd 12 salaries. This is why immigration is so innefficient. A wall is costing some $24 millioin per mile, perhaps more on the southern border, and yet, the same GOP is not concerned with the northern border which is more porous than the southern border. And building walls don't really solve the root causes of illegal immigration, just one symptom at the southern border only. If you want to really solve the illegal immigration system, that means addressing the root causes and coming up with a reasonable solution other than acting like an ostrich when in fear.

Actually, it is very different for obvious reasons that I will not go into. Second, you have not been keeping abrest of the situation. There have been several politicians, namely MTG and her cohorts who have advocated what you were responding to. Tucker pretty much suggested all Trans people were terrorists, so did MTG, and others. And currently, in 33 states, there is a huge wave of anti-trans laws and gay laws in place. The Texas GOP party platform calls Gay people and Trans people "abnormal" and thus should not be allowed to run for office. They range from interfering with the patient-physician right to privacy in determining what type of care, if any, should be allowed and even not allow gay couples to adopt because of a "fear" of child abuse. Some pastors have called for the death penalty as well as some local state politicians, such as Dough Mastriano for instance. But the problem is that the GOP is trying its best to impersonate a totalitarian regime all in the name of "Christianity" and "love." Go figure.

Finally, when it comes to the two-party system, in the past, up to the 1990s, both parties agreed to the same facts, the same issue facing the American people, and so forth. They disagreed on the particulars, namely the solutions, but all agreed there was a problem. Nowadays, one party wants to use alternative facts and reality and ignore the real problems. They go out of their way to start "culture wars" and fear-mongering to anyone and everyone who looks different, all in the "name of freedom." They are simply a bunch of bullies, and when a bully is threatened, then they play victim thinking it is never their fault.

 

Where does it say that the immigration system has to be easy, cheap and fast?

 

"President Trump famously declared during his 2016 campaign that he loved the “poorly educated” because voters with lower levels of schooling delivered an overwhelming share of votes to him.

"Four years later, political pros say most of those folks remain enchanted by the president, but it’s anyone’s guess whether they turn out to vote in the same numbers and whether they will remain attached to the Republican Party after Mr. Trump leaves the presidential stage."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/29/donald-trump-still-king-poorly-educated/

"The Washington Times is an American conservative daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., that covers general interest topics with a particular emphasis on national politics," Wikipedia.

 

Yes, I'm serious and I have a lot of years in PR for causes from left to right on the political spectrum.

BTW, I didn't say the NYTimes was middle-of-the-road. They're moderate liberals always interested in a buck.

Both sides are too extreme, the right more so.

Here's what I said: "MSNBC, Fox News and CNN are free, but they play the same stuff over and over again. I look mostly for free media sources supported by advertising."

I didn't say MSNBC, Fox News and CNN aren't supported by advertising. I did say I don't watch them because they're repetitive.

I summarized my approach is to look for free sources.

It depends upon where you look for coverage. Overall, I'd say the more inflammatory stuff is what gets attention in the popular media.

Red meat news. Most of the people considered "conservatives" by the right are provocateurs spouting stuff few in universities are interested in--they would speak to near-empty rooms because they're spouting anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-black stuff younger, educated people have already rejected.

The left are a pain in the butt because they're trying to radicalize students. Most students understand the game and aren't participating. But that doesn't mean they're going to pay attention to speakers who want to promote what conservatives are promoting to older "haves" who get worked up over red meat issues like homosexuality, abortion, religion, etc.

In what context?

 

It might be.

 

That really isn't the point. But then again, where does it say that the tax system has to be "cheap, easy, and fast?"

 

Republican DAs can't do a damned thing unless they also have judges in their district that will hear the cases they bring. That's turning out to be quite a problem as most of the judiciary also hates Trump and Trump supporters.

 

Charging for each document is standard, hardly "corrupt." But even then, it doesn't explain there being over 30 charges.

 

Perhaps, but I'm not ready to toss in the towel.

 

I'm just guessing here but it's possible that Bragg is considering every payment to Cohen to be a separate charge because they were listed as "legal expenses" instead of as "campaign contributions".

 

Oh, I agree, but I don't think that accounts for 30+ charges

 

You don't even know what's in the indictment and you're making this claim? Egads.

So, are you saying a Democrat indicted in a ruby red state couldn't get a fair trial, either?

OMG--this is Trump's nonsense that they can "come for you" if they come for him.

Geez, you don't know what's in the Trump indictment, but you've already convicted the guy on charges you haven't seen.

There aren't enough courtrooms in the country to convict all Republicans of felony charges.

 

For all we know there might be 800 charges. He could be charging Trump with a separate felony for every payment made for any reason in 2016-2020.

 

You're already threatening Democrats with unfair treatment? What about those of us in the middle? Why should we support your side when you make threats like the one above?

 

I made no threat.

 

That's a fantasy. Current reports are ~30 charges. And he's not just going to charge every payment he's made for anything for any reason for those years. That's lunacy. It's a victim fantasy. No honest person can treat it seriously

 

My assumption is that it might have to do with that. But, that assumes he's stacking different fraud statutes and other issues along with it.

The challenge with Bragg's case is that there is precedent that that paying for an NDA can be either campaign, personal, or business expenses and there are valid reasons to legally pay it out of different entities. He also has to prove Trump approved it and knew it was a crime when he did.

If this were anyone other than Trump this would be a civil matter caught in an audit and told they can't consider it a business expense and they must pay whatever associated tax goes along with it. Then they would either pay the tax or his tax attorneys would contest it and likely win.

Look at it this way. Nick Sandman said he intended to sue a number of employees at CNN. They paid him and had him sign an NDA. Nothing went through the courts. That's a valid legal expense paid to protect the reputations of their employees. Again, if this issue were for anyone other than Trump it wouldn't have gone anywhere. That's why the feds looked at it and ignored it. It's also why Bragg looked at it and ignored it for so long despite some of his fringe prosecutors demanding action.

 

Well, with regard to point #1, Bragg DID get the indictment. It's been in the news for a few days and if you didn't hear about it then I can provide a link but there is nothing wrong with my claim regarding the FACT that Bragg got the indictment.

With regard to point #2, I said no such thing. Republicans, historically speaking, hold a Constitutional view of justice. That is in distinct contrast to Democrats and their Liberal Progressive base that believe in Social Justice and couldn't care a lick whether the Constitution applies or not.

As far as your further commentary, I'm merely posting a personal opinion based on what I have seen of Democrat political tactics over the past several years.

 

Bragg doesn't have to prove anything. All he has to do is convince a jury to convict for whatever reason they feel warrants conviction and that might be as simple as "If you hate Trump, then convict". Yeah, Trump's team will object but the judge can just toss the objection and leave the issue to appeal. The appeal process will then take a few years and it's "mission accomplished" anyway because Trump will always and forever be cast as a convicted felon.

 

You're side made the threat. I guess this means you don't approve, or is it you just haven't gotten around to endorsing it yet?

 

I'm of the mind that two wrongs don't make a right. Are you conceding that what the democrats have done for the last seven years (regarding Trump) was wrong?