7 ms·

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with someth

by koolba 4y ago

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something, it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.

ncallaway 4y ago
It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Apparently 34 charges.
  - koolba 4y ago
    The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.
        ncallaway 4y ago
        I’m not saying we can’t speculate about the charges. Was there anything in my question that indicated I thought people here should be prohibited from speculation? I’m asking how someone can be absolutely certain in their speculation about those charges. Is the NYT saying the charges are particularly strong, or are they saying the charges are particularly weak? I haven’t seen that from them, but if they are then I have the same questions. I’m not holding anyone here to a higher level of scrutiny than the NYT. I merely asked where someone’s confidence came from.
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        Cmon, you are 100% saying we shouldn't. don't deny it. The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
        ncallaway 4y ago
        I deny it. I said it was crazy to me, and I said it was wild. There are lots of things that are baffling to me, or inscrutable to me, that I don’t think should be prohibited. But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me. You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation. It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before. So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though. > The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake. “Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”? Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law. So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Well, the Grand Jury looked at them and the evidence and seemed to think there is a crime worthy of prosecution here. That's why we have grand juries, to make sure a crime is truly serious before revealing in public the alleged crime. In all due time, the charge will be public and we will see the evidence ourselves. The news event is that the prosecutors have crossed one of the major hurdles of a typical criminal court case and have convinced a grand jury to proceed.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        While a Grand Jury should theoretically be a high bar to cross, it certainly seems like (in practice) they’re not so much of a challenge. I’m also generally much more skeptical of state level pre-indictment processes which generally aren’t quite as buttoned down as federal pre-indictment processes (though, that’s a pretty broad generalization). But, the indictments will come out soon, and the evidence supporting them eventually, so time will certainly tell.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted. It’s funny, Republicans used to often wax in about the sanctity of the rule of law. For some reason, the entrancing powers of Mr. Trump led many to throw that away to stand behind the demagogue. We should demand better. I live in New York. 2/4 most recent governors left office as part of a deal to avoid prosecution. Prominent legislative leaders were convicted and removed from office. Regardless of party, there needs to be a standard. Breaking the law and laundering money to buy the silence of a sexual dalliance is a serious crime. Former NY Governor Spitzer was facing federal charges for money transfer violations of his own money to solicit an escort. Mr Trump seeks to make this a political matter because that distracts from the heart of the matter — his actions. The people who in good faith donated to his campaign wanted to “make America great again”, not pay hush money to porn actresses.
      - giardini 4y ago
        Spooky23 says >"A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted."< As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” Explanation at https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a-ham-sandwich/ https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...
        Spooky23 4y ago
        That actually came from a case called ABSCAM in the 70s and 80s. ABSCAM was a case where the FBI ran a sting (or entrapment depending on your POV) that ensnared and convicted of bribery about 30 people, including a dozen politicians... a half dozen members of the house and a US Senator.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    Has the indictment been released, or is that a leak from someone with knowledge?
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      Source: CNN reporter Jim Sciutto.
sanderjd 4y ago
> Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worth of charging here? ... because there is a law on the books that says "it's a crime to do this thing" and this person pretty clearly did that thing. Like, from a political perspective, I'm in the boat of "uggggh, I wish it wasn't this thing that is the first thing he is charged for". But from a legal perspective ... this is a thing you're not allowed to do ... which he did ... so ...
plandis 4y ago
Do you have access to the case including evidence? The jury did and voted to indict, how can you be sure that this is legal gymnastics?
- flutas 4y ago
  > The jury did and voted to indict I honestly wouldn't put any faith in a jury choosing to indict. As famously once said, you can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich. I'm waiting to see what the charges actually are and the evidence for them. (1985 quote) > In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments. > Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”
  - dharmab 4y ago
    I served on a grand jury. There were cases where we heard evidence and it became clear that the charged crimes didn't occur. Those cases were not voted on and the public never heard about them. The vote is a formal procedure _after_ the evidence has built a case.
  - Kye 4y ago
    He later went on to serve prison time after a trial, after a grand jury indictment. Maybe we shouldn't take the ham sandwich's word on its innocence.
- speakfreely 4y ago
  The grand jury system is a bit of a joke. You've seen how badly prosecutors twist facts and inaccurately frame things during cases. The grand jury is basically that except without anyone disputing anything they say. Only the most inept prosecutors don't get the indictments they want.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rco8786 4y ago
How can you know this? The indictment hasn’t even been unsealed.
- revscat 4y ago
  It has a negative political impact upon his chosen party. The truth of the crimes are irrelevant. If Trump were to plead guilty — and given his notoriously stupid outbursts he may — it wouldn’t matter. Only party matters, not guilt or innocence.
alsaaro 4y ago
Remember John Edwards, former Democratic nominee for vice-President, was essentially indicted for the same thing Trump is now, that is using political contributions as hush money. Edwards was facing 30 years for all the charges arraigned against him. We still don't know the specifics or the extent of Trump's legal issues, as the Grand jury is still ongoing for this case and others.
- koolba 4y ago
  Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted and the Biden justice department, the previous NY district attorney, and even Bragg himself previously, has already rejected going after Trump for FEC violations that are apparently at the heart of how he’s constructed a felony charge.
  - wwweston 4y ago
    > Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted Perhaps he had some sort of defense. I hear that's how courts work. Along with dealing in findings of fact and law, rather than speculation about whether it's vaguely fair or vaguely unfair. I'd imagine a billionaire who is also a former President of the United States also has the resources to muster a defense as effective as a non-billionaire former Senator, if there's an effective defense to be made.
- tootie 4y ago
  It's the opposite, using personal funds is the crime because it should have been a disclosed campaign contribution. Trump also went through several extra steps of having his lawyer and CFO create shell companies and then funnel payments and kickbacks through them falsifying documents all along the way. I'm assuming the DA of a city can't bring FEC violation charges. The charges will be about all the lying and possibly tax evasion. Things his lawyer and CFO have already been convicted of.
CottonMcKnight 4y ago
His personal lawyer went to prison for 2 years on charges related to this crime, and was the primary witness against Trump in this Grand Jury investigation. Whatever he told them, along with whatever other evidence was presented, it was sufficient for them to indict. The Grand Jury indicted Trump, not Alvin Bragg.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  They had better have some pretty solid evidence aside from his testimony. Building a case around the word of a man convicted of perjury, especially one with a public hatred of the defendant, seems like a profoundly stupid thing to do. I'll be waiting with my popcorn, because one way or another, this is gonna be good.
  - mjmsmith 4y ago
    To be fair, he's only hated the defendant since he went to prison on behalf of the defendant.
- anon291 4y ago
  A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I've been on a grand jury, and the indictment rate is >95% in most cases.
  - laidoffamazon 4y ago
    This just means there’s a high standard to empaneling a grand jury. They got Michael Cohen for this, and Trump was mentioned in his proceedings as “individual one”.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      The relevant phrase in the Michael Cohen indictment referring to Trump was "unindicted co-conspirator". Individual one is how they referred to him. Trump was supposed to be featured much more prominently in the indictment, but the Barr's DOJ intervened on Trump's behalf to minimize his presence in the proceedings, and they went out of their way not to mention him.
jmull 4y ago
Keep in mind we don’t know the charges yet, or details of the case, like what evidence there is. If you pronounce it a joke or predict the disbarment of Bragg now, you aren’t doing it based on the merits of the case.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    A political prosecution isn't wrong per se. Many, many prosecutions are political at heart (as seen in "tough on crime", or even "reform a corrupt system" DA offices).
    - norwalkbear 4y ago
      It's not wrong just insanely stupid to hand Trump 2024 on a silver platter.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        I don't see this as necessarily doing that. I think it could even make it less likely for him to win. To avoid reposting content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381855
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        The New York Times disagrees with you.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        They disagreed that Trump would win in 2016, too.
dmix 4y ago
Even if it’s a conviction I hope the sentencing is appropriate. Wealthy men making sex workers wealthier in order to not disrupt their ostensibly conservative social values is pretty low on my own criminal punishment tier list (especially compared to something that happened during the presidency like the burglary of election-connected properties by Nixon, or more favourable to Clinton’s consensual acts vs his credibility destroying behaviour after). The social/civil consequences of the reveal are often good enough and mostly a pure self-own. If it really is about a misappropriation of some campaign funds/laws then sure I hope there’s an adequate punishment scaled to the crime. It’s often difficult to disconnect the actual crimes from wanting Justice generally for a person’s net life behaviour… which isn’t how this works IRL nor how it should work. Whether other crimes and social taboos should be better enforced is another matter entirely.
- anon291 4y ago
  I don't think anyone has ever accused donald trump of 'ostensibly conservative' social values. Everyone who voted for him knew his behavior in these areas and voted for him despite it, not because of it.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    That sounds... wrong. I think many who voted for him appreciate and laud his social values.
- zaroth 4y ago
  There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. They are targeting the record keeping.
  - dmix 4y ago
    34 charges for just record keeping must be a pretty serious lack of accounting. I’m looking forward to reading the full indictment to understand the details better.
djfobbz 4y ago
I’m pretty sure that George Bush Jr. qualifies for way more charges solely based on the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. But no, hush payments to porn stars is a lot more important. Welcome to clown world!
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Is it illegal for the president to lie to Congress and the American people? Other than that, the military adventures were authorized, and Bush was within his Constitutional power to prosecute those military adventures.
- laidoffamazon 4y ago
  I prefer my presidents not pay hush money to porn stars
  - n0tahacker 4y ago
    [dead]
- esafak 4y ago
  Stick them in the same cell?
- rco8786 4y ago
  Wild what-aboutism. Some other guy probably did crimes, so this guy should be able to also. That would be the clown world.

by koolba 4y ago

ncallaway 4y ago

It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?

nickthegreek 4y ago
Apparently 34 charges.
- koolba 4y ago
  The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        I’m not saying we can’t speculate about the charges. Was there anything in my question that indicated I thought people here should be prohibited from speculation? I’m asking how someone can be absolutely certain in their speculation about those charges. Is the NYT saying the charges are particularly strong, or are they saying the charges are particularly weak? I haven’t seen that from them, but if they are then I have the same questions. I’m not holding anyone here to a higher level of scrutiny than the NYT. I merely asked where someone’s confidence came from.
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        Cmon, you are 100% saying we shouldn't. don't deny it. The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
        ncallaway 4y ago
        I deny it. I said it was crazy to me, and I said it was wild. There are lots of things that are baffling to me, or inscrutable to me, that I don’t think should be prohibited. But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me. You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation. It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before. So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though. > The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake. “Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”? Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law. So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Well, the Grand Jury looked at them and the evidence and seemed to think there is a crime worthy of prosecution here. That's why we have grand juries, to make sure a crime is truly serious before revealing in public the alleged crime. In all due time, the charge will be public and we will see the evidence ourselves. The news event is that the prosecutors have crossed one of the major hurdles of a typical criminal court case and have convinced a grand jury to proceed.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      While a Grand Jury should theoretically be a high bar to cross, it certainly seems like (in practice) they’re not so much of a challenge. I’m also generally much more skeptical of state level pre-indictment processes which generally aren’t quite as buttoned down as federal pre-indictment processes (though, that’s a pretty broad generalization). But, the indictments will come out soon, and the evidence supporting them eventually, so time will certainly tell.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted. It’s funny, Republicans used to often wax in about the sanctity of the rule of law. For some reason, the entrancing powers of Mr. Trump led many to throw that away to stand behind the demagogue. We should demand better. I live in New York. 2/4 most recent governors left office as part of a deal to avoid prosecution. Prominent legislative leaders were convicted and removed from office. Regardless of party, there needs to be a standard. Breaking the law and laundering money to buy the silence of a sexual dalliance is a serious crime. Former NY Governor Spitzer was facing federal charges for money transfer violations of his own money to solicit an escort. Mr Trump seeks to make this a political matter because that distracts from the heart of the matter — his actions. The people who in good faith donated to his campaign wanted to “make America great again”, not pay hush money to porn actresses.
    - giardini 4y ago
      Spooky23 says >"A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted."< As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” Explanation at https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a-ham-sandwich/ https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...
      - Spooky23 4y ago
        That actually came from a case called ABSCAM in the 70s and 80s. ABSCAM was a case where the FBI ran a sting (or entrapment depending on your POV) that ensnared and convicted of bribery about 30 people, including a dozen politicians... a half dozen members of the house and a US Senator.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Has the indictment been released, or is that a leak from someone with knowledge?
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Source: CNN reporter Jim Sciutto.

sanderjd 4y ago

> Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worth of charging here? ... because there is a law on the books that says "it's a crime to do this thing" and this person pretty clearly did that thing. Like, from a political perspective, I'm in the boat of "uggggh, I wish it wasn't this thing that is the first thing he is charged for". But from a legal perspective ... this is a thing you're not allowed to do ... which he did ... so ...

plandis 4y ago

Do you have access to the case including evidence? The jury did and voted to indict, how can you be sure that this is legal gymnastics?

flutas 4y ago
> The jury did and voted to indict I honestly wouldn't put any faith in a jury choosing to indict. As famously once said, you can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich. I'm waiting to see what the charges actually are and the evidence for them. (1985 quote) > In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments. > Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”
- dharmab 4y ago
  I served on a grand jury. There were cases where we heard evidence and it became clear that the charged crimes didn't occur. Those cases were not voted on and the public never heard about them. The vote is a formal procedure _after_ the evidence has built a case.
- Kye 4y ago
  He later went on to serve prison time after a trial, after a grand jury indictment. Maybe we shouldn't take the ham sandwich's word on its innocence.
speakfreely 4y ago
The grand jury system is a bit of a joke. You've seen how badly prosecutors twist facts and inaccurately frame things during cases. The grand jury is basically that except without anyone disputing anything they say. Only the most inept prosecutors don't get the indictments they want.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rco8786 4y ago

How can you know this? The indictment hasn’t even been unsealed.

revscat 4y ago
It has a negative political impact upon his chosen party. The truth of the crimes are irrelevant. If Trump were to plead guilty — and given his notoriously stupid outbursts he may — it wouldn’t matter. Only party matters, not guilt or innocence.

alsaaro 4y ago

Remember John Edwards, former Democratic nominee for vice-President, was essentially indicted for the same thing Trump is now, that is using political contributions as hush money. Edwards was facing 30 years for all the charges arraigned against him. We still don't know the specifics or the extent of Trump's legal issues, as the Grand jury is still ongoing for this case and others.

koolba 4y ago
Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted and the Biden justice department, the previous NY district attorney, and even Bragg himself previously, has already rejected going after Trump for FEC violations that are apparently at the heart of how he’s constructed a felony charge.
- wwweston 4y ago
  > Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted Perhaps he had some sort of defense. I hear that's how courts work. Along with dealing in findings of fact and law, rather than speculation about whether it's vaguely fair or vaguely unfair. I'd imagine a billionaire who is also a former President of the United States also has the resources to muster a defense as effective as a non-billionaire former Senator, if there's an effective defense to be made.
tootie 4y ago
It's the opposite, using personal funds is the crime because it should have been a disclosed campaign contribution. Trump also went through several extra steps of having his lawyer and CFO create shell companies and then funnel payments and kickbacks through them falsifying documents all along the way. I'm assuming the DA of a city can't bring FEC violation charges. The charges will be about all the lying and possibly tax evasion. Things his lawyer and CFO have already been convicted of.

CottonMcKnight 4y ago

His personal lawyer went to prison for 2 years on charges related to this crime, and was the primary witness against Trump in this Grand Jury investigation. Whatever he told them, along with whatever other evidence was presented, it was sufficient for them to indict. The Grand Jury indicted Trump, not Alvin Bragg.

zdragnar 4y ago
They had better have some pretty solid evidence aside from his testimony. Building a case around the word of a man convicted of perjury, especially one with a public hatred of the defendant, seems like a profoundly stupid thing to do. I'll be waiting with my popcorn, because one way or another, this is gonna be good.
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  To be fair, he's only hated the defendant since he went to prison on behalf of the defendant.
anon291 4y ago
A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I've been on a grand jury, and the indictment rate is >95% in most cases.
- laidoffamazon 4y ago
  This just means there’s a high standard to empaneling a grand jury. They got Michael Cohen for this, and Trump was mentioned in his proceedings as “individual one”.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The relevant phrase in the Michael Cohen indictment referring to Trump was "unindicted co-conspirator". Individual one is how they referred to him. Trump was supposed to be featured much more prominently in the indictment, but the Barr's DOJ intervened on Trump's behalf to minimize his presence in the proceedings, and they went out of their way not to mention him.

jmull 4y ago

Keep in mind we don’t know the charges yet, or details of the case, like what evidence there is. If you pronounce it a joke or predict the disbarment of Bragg now, you aren’t doing it based on the merits of the case.

norwalkbear 4y ago
[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  A political prosecution isn't wrong per se. Many, many prosecutions are political at heart (as seen in "tough on crime", or even "reform a corrupt system" DA offices).
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    It's not wrong just insanely stupid to hand Trump 2024 on a silver platter.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      I don't see this as necessarily doing that. I think it could even make it less likely for him to win. To avoid reposting content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381855
      - stuckinhell 4y ago
        The New York Times disagrees with you.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        They disagreed that Trump would win in 2016, too.

dmix 4y ago

Even if it’s a conviction I hope the sentencing is appropriate. Wealthy men making sex workers wealthier in order to not disrupt their ostensibly conservative social values is pretty low on my own criminal punishment tier list (especially compared to something that happened during the presidency like the burglary of election-connected properties by Nixon, or more favourable to Clinton’s consensual acts vs his credibility destroying behaviour after). The social/civil consequences of the reveal are often good enough and mostly a pure self-own. If it really is about a misappropriation of some campaign funds/laws then sure I hope there’s an adequate punishment scaled to the crime. It’s often difficult to disconnect the actual crimes from wanting Justice generally for a person’s net life behaviour… which isn’t how this works IRL nor how it should work. Whether other crimes and social taboos should be better enforced is another matter entirely.

anon291 4y ago
I don't think anyone has ever accused donald trump of 'ostensibly conservative' social values. Everyone who voted for him knew his behavior in these areas and voted for him despite it, not because of it.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  That sounds... wrong. I think many who voted for him appreciate and laud his social values.
zaroth 4y ago
There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. They are targeting the record keeping.
- dmix 4y ago
  34 charges for just record keeping must be a pretty serious lack of accounting. I’m looking forward to reading the full indictment to understand the details better.

djfobbz 4y ago

I’m pretty sure that George Bush Jr. qualifies for way more charges solely based on the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. But no, hush payments to porn stars is a lot more important. Welcome to clown world!

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Is it illegal for the president to lie to Congress and the American people? Other than that, the military adventures were authorized, and Bush was within his Constitutional power to prosecute those military adventures.
laidoffamazon 4y ago
I prefer my presidents not pay hush money to porn stars
- n0tahacker 4y ago
  [dead]
esafak 4y ago
Stick them in the same cell?
rco8786 4y ago
Wild what-aboutism. Some other guy probably did crimes, so this guy should be able to also. That would be the clown world.