Donald Trump claims he will be arrested Tuesday in Manhattan probe, calls for protests

[thegeneral 1,415]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Your assumption this is normal is misplaced, in my experience.  Very much so.  I have seen courts read prosecutors the riot act for such deficient charging documents. Generally only when the prosecution pays great obeisance to the court and begs for a chance to supplement their pleading with a Bill of Particulars does the court allow the matter to not be dismissed on the defense motion or the court's own motion.  Generally courts demand that supplemental filing in an extreme;ly short amount of time.

 

All that said I do not practice in new York, so what do I know.

I would love to see this come to a very quick resolution. Let’s have it all done either way as fast as possible. That it will take til next year is a joke.

You actually think this DA will be disbarred? I will take that bet.

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If Trump was indeed being taken to a dungeon, then this would be a terrible delay. But since he’s a free man while awaiting trial I don’t understand your point. 

 

You might if you felt you were wrongly accused.  The legal and financial power of government being arrayed against one is a daunting experience, at best.  Your life is rearranged as you have to prioritize your defense above all other matters.  It is very disruptive of both private and professional life and of course destructive of reputation.  The standard question for most who are found not guilty is who do they see then about getting their reputations back, and the standard answer is no one.

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

Just now, thegeneral said:

I would love to see this come to a very quick resolution. Let’s have it all done either way as fast as possible. That it will take til next year is a joke.

You actually think this DA will be disbarred? I will take that bet.

I did not say or imply that.  I noted there is some chance he will be called before the Bar.  The Bar has many options far short of disbarrment.  There are any number of levels of censure or reprimand far short of being disbarred. 

[thegeneral 1,415]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You might if you felt you were wrongly accused.  The legal and financial power of government being arrayed against one is a daunting experience, at best.  Your life is rearranged as you have to prioritize your fdefense abocve all other matters.  It is very disruptive of both private and professional life and of course destructive of reputation.  The standard question for most who are found not guilty is who do they see then about getting their reputations back, and the standard answer is no one.

I keep seeing this assures him the nomination

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You might if you felt you were wrongly accused.  The legal and financial power of government being arrayed against one is a daunting experience, at best.  Your life is rearranged as you have to prioritize your fdefense abocve all other matters.  It is very disruptive of both private and professional life and of course destructive of reputation.  The standard question for most who are found not guilty is who do they see then about getting their reputations back, and the standard answer is no one.

I dunno. This guy has been in legal trouble his entire life and his practice has always been to seek delays. No doubt he will seek some here and It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that December date gets moved to sometime months later. This is what Trump does. To suppose that now he would like a speedy resolution is very hard to believe. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If Trump was indeed being taken to a dungeon, then this would be a terrible delay. But since he’s a free man while awaiting trial I don’t understand your point. 

 

I know you don’t. Liberals gave  up on satire long ago, when their reality went beyond any possibility of it being satirized. 

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I did not say or imply that.  I noted there is some chance he will be called before the Bar.  The Bar has many options far short of disbarrment.  There are any number of levels of censure or reprimand far short of being disbarred. 

I can’t see any of this happening. Nor have you offered any compelling reason that it should. 

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

Just now, thegeneral said:

I keep seeing this assures him the nomination

I have seen that as well.  I have seen and heard lots of speculation, some well-founded, some outrageous.  Me, I do not try to predict the behaviour of Trump supposters as in my mind they so often defy logic, or at least my logic.

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I know you don’t. Liberals gave  up on satire long ago, when their reality went beyond any possibility of it being satirized. 

Oh that was satire? You’ll have to forgive me, I’m used to satire of the Onion variety. Perhaps that was Babylon Bee type satire? 

[thegeneral 1,415]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I did not say or imply that.  I noted there is some chance he will be called before the Bar.  The Bar has many options far short of disbarrment.  There are any number of levels of censure or reprimand far short of being disbarred. 

I agree he won’t be disbarred. I doubt he will be censured or reprimanded either. We’ll see. The whole thing is very interesting to follow and provides excellent entertainment.

[thegeneral 1,415]

From the internet…Trump listed at 270 lbs during his weigh in..:he finally made it to 270

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I can’t see any of this happening. Nor have you offered any compelling reason that it should. 

Potentially he participated in or allowed leaks of grand jury testimony.  He then drafted a facially insuffuicient indictment to charge a citizen with 34 felony counts.  He devoted limited prosecutorial resources to achieve the voliuntary return of an accused to court for charging on the facially insufficient  charging instrument.  That level of professional incompeternce, potential malfeasance, and poor management of his office holds the profession up to disrepute.  Bar associations take that seriously if they too are not conmtrolled by partisans.

 

You disagree.  You are entitled to do so.  I am embarrassed for the profession.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Oh that was satire? You’ll have to forgive me, I’m used to satire of the Onion variety. Perhaps that was Babylon Bee type satire? 

So any timeline when your crime plan produces some results? A plan includes a timeline. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

59 minutes ago, Reality said:

The evolution of this thread is hilarious. What a focking joke. Also, who is this new idiot tg spending 24\7 in this thread? Hopefully he's being paid to look this stupid...

But then you'd be out of work. 

[BirdGang 312]

3 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

What crime did Trump commit?

Libtards don’t care, they have been desperate for close to a decade to find anything that would stick. Complete clowns. 

[Strike 3,979]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Is it correct that he said that, or that the law does not require it?

 

He did more or less say this.  that is correct.  he is not correct that the law does not require this.  he will be forced to articulate his position when the defense files a motion for a Bill of Particulars.  That he has been so cavalier that such a motion is certain to be granted is more or less disgraceful and beneath the standards of a professional prosecutor.  He has placed his Office in disrepute and the court in an awkward position.  Were i the judge i would have dismissed the matter without prejudice to refile before Trump plead.  Now options are narrowing for the prosecution and the Court.

I don't think they'll have to file a motion.  From what I heard yesterday, in NY they are required to file that document within 15 days of the indictment, 35 if the judge wants to be nice.  So we should have that pretty quickly.

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't think they'll have to file a motion.  From what I heard yesterday, in NY they are required to file that document within 15 days of the indictment, 35 if the judge wants to be nice.  So we should have that pretty quickly.

I am aware that New York, along with Louisianna has some unique procedure and rules.  If I recall they are generically referenced as Field code states and they gave some deference to french jurisprudence as well as english when forming.  I may have that mistaken.  Its been four decades since that information was presented to me.  That is why, I have noted more than once I do not practice in New York.

[thegeneral 1,415]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't think they'll have to file a motion.  From what I heard yesterday, in NY they are required to file that document within 15 days of the indictment, 35 if the judge wants to be nice.  So we should have that pretty quickly.

Do you have a link about this?

[Strike 3,979]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Do you have a link about this?

Talk to Honcho. 

[thegeneral 1,415]

How do Trump people or conservatives on here feel about his calls to defund the FBI and Justice Department?

[seafoam1 1,879]

19 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

How do Trump people or conservatives on here feel about his calls to defund the FBI and Justice Department?

generalpimpledoosh cries "TRUMP!!! "...

...again. 

The TDS must be really starting to hurt bad. Liberals are in so much pain they are trying to pull anyone they can dig their claws into  down with them to hell because they are such a hate filled lonely bunch of pedos.

[Reality 2,710]

16 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

generalpimpledoosh cries "TRUMP!!! "...

...again. 

The TDS must be really starting to hurt bad. Liberals are in so much pain they are trying to pull anyone they can dig their claws into  down with them to hell because they are such a hate filled lonely bunch of pedos.

Is that who that is? Makes sense..

[thegeneral 1,415]

15 minutes ago, Reality said:

Is that who that is? Makes sense..

This dumb ass Seachode guy is confused (about most things I assume) but he thinks I’m some other posters alias. Untrue!

[Reality 2,710]

11 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

This dumb ass Seachode guy is confused (about most things I assume) but he thinks I’m some other posters alias. Untrue!

Rusty has a history of this kind of really odd behavior so, nothing would surprise us. 

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

I am aware that New York, along with Louisianna has some unique procedure and rules.  If I recall they are generically referenced as Field code states and they gave some deference to french jurisprudence as well as english when forming.  I may have that mistaken.  It’s been four decades since that information was presented to me.  That is why, I have noted more than once I do not practice in New York.

Actually I just heard that the defense has until August to file any and all motions. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

they got him this time

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

Look at that. No burning, looting or murdering. 

[thegeneral 1,415]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Look at that. No burning, looting or murdering. 

Congrats to all involved!

[thegeneral 1,415]

18 minutes ago, Reality said:

Rusty has a history of this kind of really odd behavior so, nothing would surprise us. 

And rusty is the Pimpledeux poster or this Seafoam lunatic?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

From the internet…Trump listed at 270 lbs during his weigh in..:he finally made it to 270

You stole that from reddit, I just saw the same comment on the main page this morning

[thegeneral 1,415]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You stole that from reddit, I just saw the same comment on the main page this morning

Right I saw it on Twitter. Pretty good joke.

[jonmx 1,594]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I have seen that as well.  I have seen and heard lots of speculation, some well-founded, some outrageous.  Me, I do not try to predict the behaviour of Trump supposters as in my mind they so often defy logic, or at least my logic.

The indictment is idiotic.  For one, it is beyond the 5-year statue of limitations.  For two, the falsification of business records is only a felony in connection with another crime, but no other crime was referenced or alledged.  Three, the idea that writing a check, the check stub, the book entry and the receipt each are counted as a different count is abuse.   In 47 states, these charges would be thrown out, but this is a corrupt district in New York, so this dumb thing will probably go to trial.  

This is pathetic.  Abuses of the judicial system should be punishable by very lengthy prison sentences.  But leftist sickos cherish abusing people they disagree with.  There is not a day which goes by, where it does not sicken me what you bastards are doing to this country.  

[Engorgeous George 1,182]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

The indictment is idiotic.  For one, it is beyond the 5-year statue of limitations.  For two, the falsification of business records is only a felony in connection with another crime, but no other crime was referenced or alledged.  Three, the idea that writing a check, the check stub, the book entry and the receipt each are counted as a different count is abuse.   In 47 states, these charges would be thrown out, but this is a corrupt district in New York, so this dumb thing will probably go to trial.  

This is pathetic.  Abuses of the judicial system should be punishable by very lengthy prison sentences.  But leftist sickos cherish abusing people they disagree with.  There is not a day which goes by, where it does not sicken me what you bastards are doing to this country.  

I have been labeled by some a raving extreme MAGA conservative, and by others a far liberal.  I presume that is the gist of your "you bastards" comment.  That i do not support Trump blindly does not mean I tend to the left.  when I criticise the D.A. in this matter it does not mean i trend to the right or hard right.  Labels are comforting.  The are also dismissive.  If you read me in my entirety in this thread you would see a constitutionalist who is critical of this indictment.  Do with that what you will.

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

3 minutes ago, jonmx said:

The indictment is idiotic.  For one, it is beyond the 5-year statue of limitations.  For two, the falsification of business records is only a felony in connection with another crime, but no other crime was referenced or alledged.  Three, the idea that writing a check, the check stub, the book entry and the receipt each are counted as a different count is abuse.   In 47 states, these charges would be thrown out, but this is a corrupt district in New York, so this dumb thing will probably go to trial.  

This is pathetic.  Abuses of the judicial system should be punishable by very lengthy prison sentences.  But leftist sickos cherish abusing people they disagree with.  There is not a day which goes by, where it does not sicken me what you bastards are doing to this country.  

You’re repeating several overnight talking points here and most of it is, frankly, false: 

1. The 5 year statute of limitations doesn’t apply because for most of that time Trump was President. 
 

2. Bragg is not required to name the underlying crime at this time, though he rather heavily implies in his Statement of Information that it’s tampering with the 2016 election. 
 

3. Having a different count for each criminal act committed (in this case, each check that Trump wrote to reimburse Cohen) is not only not abuse, it’s typical and standard practice in this sort of white collar prosecution. 
 

So much for your points. I also love how you correctly predict none of them will matter by claiming that NY is corrupt so they won’t throw the whole thing out. I know you claim to be no fan of Donald Trump, but you certainly imitate him in your willingness to prejudge and condemn. 

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

I want to the add to my above comments: having now read the indictments and listened to Bragg explain them, there is plenty to be skeptical about this case IMO. Bragg’s inability to explain why he waited and changed his mind (he said he received “new evidence” but refused to say what that was) bothers me. It also bothers me that, despite his implications, he wouldn’t come out and state the underlying charge. Why keep that a secret? It only adds fuel to those who believe this is politically motivated. 

Most of all, Im not sure about the process of turning misdemeanors into felonies and based what I’m reading this will be a difficult bridge for the prosecution to cross. 
 

If this was Donald Trump’s only legal problem I would feel pretty good about his chances of escaping any real trouble. Unfortunately for him he faces indictment in a couple of other pending cases which appear to be both far more serious and much easier to prosecute. 

[jonmx 1,594]

21 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re repeating several overnight talking points here and most of it is, frankly, false: 

1. The 5 year statute of limitations doesn’t apply because for most of that time Trump was President. 
 

2. Bragg is not required to name the underlying crime at this time, though he rather heavily implies in his Statement of Information that it’s tampering with the 2016 election. 
 

3. Having a different count for each criminal act committed (in this case, each check that Trump wrote to reimburse Cohen) is not only not abuse, it’s typical and standard practice in this sort of white collar prosecution. 
 

So much for your points. I also love how you correctly predict none of them will matter by claiming that NY is corrupt so they won’t throw the whole thing out. I know you claim to be no fan of Donald Trump, but you certainly imitate him in your willingness to prejudge and condemn. 

Lol...talking points?   Tim, there is nothing legally which stops the clock.  Statue of Limitations is not a talking point.  Making dubious claims about the clock stopping is. 

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

3 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Lol...talking points?   Tim, there is nothing legally which stops the clock.  Statute of Limitations is not a talking point.  Making dubious claims about the clock stopping is. 

No. This issue has already been raised in previous court cases. New York courts have ruled on it. Trump will lose in court if he tries to have it dismissed based on this argument. 
 

Besides that, it makes no logical sense. While President, Trump’s attorneys successfully delayed turning over information to NY investigators based on the fact that he was President. The argument was also made, by William Barr, Trump’s attorney general, that a sitting President could not be prosecuted for a crime; that would have to wait until he was no longer President. This was Barr’s main reason for not prosecuting Trump for the obstruction of justice charges made in the Mueller report. I actually agreed with that argument at the time. But you can’t have it both ways. If Trump as President is immune from either prosecution or giving evidence, you can’t them claim the statute of limitations has expired once he is no longer President. 

[jonmx 1,594]

33 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

 

2. Bragg is not required to name the underlying crime at this time, though he rather heavily implies in his Statement of Information that it’s tampering with the 2016 election. 
 

 

How can a candidate tamper with his own election?  That is called campaigning.  There is not any underlying crime. 

[Patented Phil 824]

It just dawned on me.  This whole damn mess is because Donald just had to bang a porn star - and a goofy looking one at that. Trump is such a germaphobe he probably wore 3 rubbers - not good when you are “driving through the Lincoln Tunnel” if you know what I mean.  Quite possibly the worst decision ever made.

[The Real timschochet 2,948]

Just now, jonmx said:

How can a candidate tamper with his own election?  That is called campaigning.  There is not any underlying crime. 

That would have to be proven in court. I agree that it may be difficult to do so. But it’s not the same as stating that there is no underlying crime.