Trump indicates he'd testify in hush money trial, says a conviction could 'make me more popular'

"ME" as opposed to his campaign. That exonerates Trump.

 

That's what I read but the indictment can be read on line and it lists this class E felony 34 times: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 Falsifying Business records.

 

Falsifying Business records is a misdemeanor UNLESS the records are falsified to hide or commit another crime. The indictment doesnt list this other crime that is being hidden or committed.

 

I don't understand how that is even possible. The ham sandwich thing: the grand jury isn't saying a person is guilty, just that if person A did B, and B is outlawed by statute X, then person A would be in violation of statute X. Very odd. And creative. Dersh says prosecutors, with the great power of the state, should never be creative. There's enough lawlessness out there to keep them busy without getting creative.

 

I am not a Biden supporter, but I will vote for Biden as he is better then Trump, so I agree with you - Trumpism is dangerous

 

just like Clinton's case, but it was asked, they should ask it in Trump's case too

 

Possible, but the fact remains that most Americans don’t want Trump to regain the white house as most Americans don’t want Biden reelected. Numbers wise, approximate 35% want Trump, but 65% don’t. 35% want Biden, but 65% don’t. making up that 65% in both cases includes the 30% who dislike don’t want neither one. It’s 35-35-30.

 

Personally, this is a me too. I totally dislike Trump, never voted for him and never would. Now I can distinguish between how I feel and how the electorate are viewing this rematch with all its flaws and unwantedness. I used to do monthly election forecasts a long time ago, so I always look at the entire electorate first and foremost. Surely, both major parties knew how disliked and unwanted their choices for 2024 were long before the primaries. Their choices make me wonder if winning this November was even a goal of theirs when they chose their candidates.


Perhaps its this political era we live in today. That of not only Trump who has thrown traditional historical standards and wisdoms out the window, but that of polarization, the great divide along with the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. Perhaps this has to do with the modern primary system we went to in 1976. Trump wouldn’t even be considered as a nominee under the old primary or selection process, pre-1976. No way. Another big difference is between 1939-1976 an 75-80% of all Americans identified or affiliated with both major parties, independents 20% or a bit more. Today, that number is down to 58% with independents making up 42%. Pre-1976 both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings also. The democrats their solid conservative south, the republicans their liberal Rockefeller republicans of the northeast. Back then the Democratic Party was known as the big tent party, the party of the working man. The republicans as the country club party, the party of business. I digress.

 

?????? Clintons case was a sexual harassment case. Other incidences of sexual harassment ARE relevant to the case.

 

If Trump paid money, it is prostitution.

Trump didn't pay the money and then cook the books until is was thought to be an election issue.

If Clinton should have been prosecuted for something, then fine. But, it isn't an excuse for Trump cooking the books.

 

The case against Trump for Stormy Daniels is a "cook the books" case.

And, I do not agree that past crimes not prosecuted are a consideration when adjudicating current charges.

If someone is charged with murder, they can't defend themselves by pointing to someone who murdered, but wasn't charged.

 

Yes, I don't believe this is about prostitution.

The charges pertain to cooking the books.

 

not if the money was paid long after the fact to keep her mouth shut.

He would have paid it whether he was running for election or not. Stormy deciding to shake him down because of the election, believing the shake down would be much more lucrative, doesnt make Trumps payment about the election.

He didnt cook the books.

 

It demonstrates the double standards of our justice system. And John Edwards was prosecuted, tried and found not guilty. Thats likely why the DOJ never prosecuted. Edwards affair was during the campaign and paid for by his largest campaign donor.

 

True; IF he paid her to shush and not for sex.

IF he hadn't been running for election nobody would have givenAshit.

That's what the trial is about.

 

True.

The crimes have to do with the rules related to elections.

So, if he weren't running for office, the most they could have tried for is a prostitution charge - and there is TONS of that which does not get prosecuted.

 

Indeed. A not guilty verdict just indicates that the prosecution could not prove the crime to a satisfactory level. It is a legal term that does not indicate the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Because some legal situations are so challenging... it is better to render a not bulty verdict on a guilty party, than a guilty verdict on one that is NOT guilty of the crime.

 

That's easy for you to say because you know Hilary is in no danger of being prosecuted for this. Don't you think selective prosecution is wrong? And what books did he cook exactly? You think legal fees is even a lie?

 

No. Cooking the books would imply some financial advantage.

 

Yes, we should be careful to hold everyone to the law.

But, failures of doing that in the past can not mean that we no longer prosecute those offending that law.

Failing to prosecute a bank robber doesn't mean that we can all now rob banks without fear of prosecution.

 

He falsified financial records.

You can call it what you want.

You could read the charges.

 

Good observations. The theme that comes through is that the binary system of two parties does not seem to work anymore. This seems to be creating a disillusionment about the entire electoral process . Given that many are dissatisfied with the two candidates , how come it ended up this way?? There were some solid candidates at the beginning of the political season. They were weeded out . So does that suggest that the populous is fixed in their thinking . It also seems that every election over the past decades has yielded candidates people don't like.....for one reason or another and have to "hold their nose" as they vote. So is it the populous or the system or both???

 

There is nobody under the sun other than Trump who would be charged with a crime for this situation. That is selective prosecution. It has nothing to do with being careful to hold everyone to the law. You know it to be true in your heart of hearts.

 

Man I hate not being able to edit my own post! Some real genius who thought up that! I wanted to say nobody else in the United States or any freedom loving society. I could see Putin or the like locking up a political foe for this. But New Yawk certainly wouldn't be prosecuting anyone else for it,

 

The situation is that he broke campaign finance law.

Lots of people have done that.

Maybe their reason for doing it wasn't the same, but that's not a factor in how the laws are written.