6 ms·

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to av

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely asking. I really have no dog in this race/don't care, just find it interesting.

behringer 4y ago
Why did they only get capone on tax evasion?
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  Think about how much investigations through government agencies have changed since 1930?
  - behringer 4y ago
    Considering we still regularly still do lie detector tests, dog searches, entrapments, confessions under duress or even torture, I would say we haven't changed as much as you think.
- roenxi 4y ago
  That was also an outrageous and silly charge and representative a failure of the legal system to live up to its ideals of process and fairness. It wasn't especially political though, because by and large there is consensus that being a gangster should be illegal and that Capone was probably a gangster. Attempting to take a popular political figure out by blatant abuse of the legal abuse is a bit more concerning.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Popular political figures aren't above the law, they aren't special because they are popular. I don't believe that popularity should be in any way a consideration to put someone up for a trial after they break the law.
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      I'm reminded of a quote from Pirates of the Caribbean: "One good deed does not excuse a man for a lifetime of wickedness!" "But it seems enough to condemn him!"
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    What crime, or type of crime, would you consider it OK to prosecute a popular political figure for? I assume murder. What else?
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Bit of a tautology, isn't it? I thought a crime was anything that it was OK to prosecute someone for. The issue here is that people went looking for a crime for almost a decade, singling out Trump in a deranged crusade. Bush levelled entire countries. Obama put the foundations of the global spying apparatus in place. Biden might be on the verge of igniting WWIII with the policies of escalation that the US is employing. Then in that background, there is speculation that Trump is going to be arrested for something related to Stormy Daniels after the levels of effort put in to pinning something on him. The people who feel that is appropriate can't serious. Based on what we've seen of the Trump saga so far, this is probably abuse of process. If that level of effort was put into another politician, they'd be in jail too.
heartbreak 4y ago
Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again. Also, Al Capone was indicted for what?
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again I'm sorry, I'll try to reword it to come across differently. My whole question is: Why hasn't he been indicted of bigger/harsher crimes already?
  - heartbreak 4y ago
    Criminal investigations, especially when the subject is this high-profile, move very slowly.
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
      I guess my question is more like did he or did he not incite an insurrection on January 6th? there was an entire committee about it. he did, right? ok... so... not indicted, got it, moves slowly did he have classified documents when he shouldn't have? yes. not indicted did he do something wrong in regards to votes in georgia? yes. not indicted i guess i just don't get it shrug it's as if like... based on the fact that he hasn't been indicted, you can conclude... he didn't do anything illegal, because if he did, he'd be indicted, right?
      - philistine 4y ago
        The remedy to his insurrection on January 6th was impeachment. He was impeached, and his jury found him not guilty. The jury in this case being the United States Senate.
        craigching 4y ago
        Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. EDIT: To back this up, from Wikipedia: In the United States, impeachment is a remedial rather than penal process,[13][14]: 8 intended to "effectively 'maintain constitutional government' by removing individuals unfit for office";[14]: 8 persons subject to impeachment and removal remain "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
kemotep 4y ago
This is one of several cases against Trump that has advanced beyond the Grand Jury stage. Potentially we could see several other indictments. Such as the Federal cases for the classified documents and the Georgia case for interfering with an election. This is just the first one. Doesn’t have to be the last nor does it mean he is instantly ruled guilty and is going to prison or paying a fine. He will have his chance in court to make a case for his innocence in the face of these specific charges.
stanleydrew 4y ago
There are other investigations ongoing in other jurisdictions, including an investigation related to inciting the insurrection. Those investigations may likely lead to indictments from grand juries as well. The United States has many local prosecutors that operate independently within their jurisdictions and are not bound to hold their charges in deference to some other charges that may be more serious coming later.
pessimizer 4y ago
I get the impression that there's no explanation required for how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims of a vast array of crimes that a slightly stupid wrestling valet game show host who largely lived off branding agreements with real estate developers committed with the aid of a small network of self-serving d-list dipshits.
- junofan 4y ago
  You’re talking about the 76-year-old WWE hall-of-famer who posted upwards of 200 tweets a day despite famously eschewing technology for paper and pencil. There’s nothing fake about this political figure. Or any others, for that matter.
- danans 4y ago
  > how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims It's not the job of all those intelligence agencies to do that. This is a law and order question, which must be handled by the legal system, not the NSA and CIA.
- mariojv 4y ago
  I don't think the Manhattan DA has direct access to the full capacity of US intelligence agencies to use against citizens or former presidents.
- dboreham 4y ago
  Gold.
- trafficante 4y ago
  Yeah it’s hard to look at something like the Rod Blagojevich saga and then look back at Trump and not immediately wonder what the hell is going on here. They very clearly have the capability to coordinate the entire media apparatus, law enforcement, etc to cuff a sitting Governor and quickly send him to a federal pit and down the memory hole for essentially the exact same sort of quid pro quo that was underpinning the first Trump impeachment. Trump isn’t Phoenix Wright, he’s only still a free man because the Blob either can’t come to a consensus on “Blago’ing” him - or else the constant “The walls are closing in on Drumpf THIS time” drama is serving a larger purpose.
stuckinhell 4y ago
Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.
- jshen 4y ago
  The democratic nominee for President has won the popular vote in something like 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. A majority of Americans do have progressive principles, but America is a minority rule country at the moment.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    When you consider population clusters in the big urban areas, your point is diluted a bit. There's a reason we don't do popular vote; California and New York would pretty much pick the president every election. Take a look at the geographic distribution of red v blue by county in the 2020 presidential election [1]. Relying on only the popular vote could devolve the country into a hunger games type dystopian hellscape where 90% of the country is controlled by a few dense urban clusters. [1] https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/ https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/
    - vmladenov 4y ago
      Land doesn’t vote, people do. Your argument justifies federalism, not unequal voting power.
      - Izkata 4y ago
        The US is a republic of states, not a democracy. We vote by electoral college, and not directly by the population, for a reason. The electoral college is weighted using both the House (population-weighted representation) and Senate (equal state representation) so the small states don't get ignored and controlled by the large states.
yafbum 4y ago
Time, juridiction, and witness cooperation lined up for this one. The alleged crime happened 8 years ago by now. Some more recent misdeeds might still yield more indictments. The jurisdiction is New York state, where Trump's status as former president is irrelevant (unlike insurrection related issues, which I guess are federal, and therefore for which his status as sitting president would've made impeachment the remedy rather than criminal prosecution). There is a cooperating witness spilling the beans on this one. On his mini coup attempt, maybe they were a bit better at containing associates.
trafficante 4y ago
The most interesting aspect to this indictment is that, until now, there’s been a clear reluctance to go all the way on nailing Trump for the sort of extremely common crimes that many of our wonderful politicians/wealthy engage in on a regular basis. It’s why they didn’t stick him on emoluments, nepotism, tax dodging - even “improperly storing classified documents” somehow turned out to be a brush too broad. So now Alvin Bragg is (supposedly) indicting him for campaign finance violations. Okay. He’s probably guilty. But both Obama and Hillary paid fines for the exact same crime. So did John Edwards, for a VERY similar situation to the Stormy Daniels thing iirc. This isn’t whataboutism - my point is that, if this indictment goes forward with the rumored rationale, every single politician will now have to watch their ass on campaign funds for the foreseeable future lest the opposing party find out. That’s a good thing for America and a very obnoxious thing for the entire political class. I suspect Alvin Bragg is getting many angry phone calls tonight from folks who would otherwise like to fire Trump into the sun.
- bobsil1 4y ago
  Yes. Dems were never going to, for example, indict Trump on selling US policy to the Saudis, that’s a key political-racket revenue source.
- AdamN 4y ago
  The Obama comparison doesn't hold water. Those were civil penalties for time to report donations. Trump is being charged criminally with felonies for intentionally hiding hush money payments in legal payments from the campaign (although we don't know what all the charges are yet). https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violations-compared-obama-2008-vs-trump-2016/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violatio...
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  Bragg campaigned on arresting Trump.
bobsil1 4y ago
Criminal impunity for political elites backstops their entire racket: laundering hard bribes into soft, insider trading and so on. They've blocked T•••• prosecution for things like the coup because federal law enforcement report to them, and they're wedded to the immunity. Only the most egregious get prosecuted, e.g. the Congressman insider-trading on the phone in the background of a public T•••• event.
AdamN 4y ago
The most malevolent things he did were political and while in office. As anti-Trump as I am though, the clock ran out on that and the remedy (conviction of impeachment) was never completed. In that sense, that chapter is closed and now we move to all the other stuff. Prosecutors in their respective jurisdictions should look for crimes and prosecute if they see malfeasance. In the case of NY, these are the charges that were at the top of the priority list for that one prosecutor. Multiple other prosecutors are looking at crimes in other jurisdictions and I would expect Trump to be facing charges in at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 courtrooms on entirely independent indictments.
th17row 4y ago
You nailed it. There's nothing on him so they have to grasp at straws. Or, like other commenters mentioned, it's an intentional move by dems to increase his popularity (in the hopes that he'll be easier to beat in 2024)

behringer 4y ago

Why did they only get capone on tax evasion?

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
Think about how much investigations through government agencies have changed since 1930?
- behringer 4y ago
  Considering we still regularly still do lie detector tests, dog searches, entrapments, confessions under duress or even torture, I would say we haven't changed as much as you think.
roenxi 4y ago
That was also an outrageous and silly charge and representative a failure of the legal system to live up to its ideals of process and fairness. It wasn't especially political though, because by and large there is consensus that being a gangster should be illegal and that Capone was probably a gangster. Attempting to take a popular political figure out by blatant abuse of the legal abuse is a bit more concerning.
- piva00 4y ago
  Popular political figures aren't above the law, they aren't special because they are popular. I don't believe that popularity should be in any way a consideration to put someone up for a trial after they break the law.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    I'm reminded of a quote from Pirates of the Caribbean: "One good deed does not excuse a man for a lifetime of wickedness!" "But it seems enough to condemn him!"
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  What crime, or type of crime, would you consider it OK to prosecute a popular political figure for? I assume murder. What else?
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Bit of a tautology, isn't it? I thought a crime was anything that it was OK to prosecute someone for. The issue here is that people went looking for a crime for almost a decade, singling out Trump in a deranged crusade. Bush levelled entire countries. Obama put the foundations of the global spying apparatus in place. Biden might be on the verge of igniting WWIII with the policies of escalation that the US is employing. Then in that background, there is speculation that Trump is going to be arrested for something related to Stormy Daniels after the levels of effort put in to pinning something on him. The people who feel that is appropriate can't serious. Based on what we've seen of the Trump saga so far, this is probably abuse of process. If that level of effort was put into another politician, they'd be in jail too.

heartbreak 4y ago

Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again. Also, Al Capone was indicted for what?

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again I'm sorry, I'll try to reword it to come across differently. My whole question is: Why hasn't he been indicted of bigger/harsher crimes already?
- heartbreak 4y ago
  Criminal investigations, especially when the subject is this high-profile, move very slowly.
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    I guess my question is more like did he or did he not incite an insurrection on January 6th? there was an entire committee about it. he did, right? ok... so... not indicted, got it, moves slowly did he have classified documents when he shouldn't have? yes. not indicted did he do something wrong in regards to votes in georgia? yes. not indicted i guess i just don't get it shrug it's as if like... based on the fact that he hasn't been indicted, you can conclude... he didn't do anything illegal, because if he did, he'd be indicted, right?
    - philistine 4y ago
      The remedy to his insurrection on January 6th was impeachment. He was impeached, and his jury found him not guilty. The jury in this case being the United States Senate.
      - craigching 4y ago
        Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. EDIT: To back this up, from Wikipedia: In the United States, impeachment is a remedial rather than penal process,[13][14]: 8 intended to "effectively 'maintain constitutional government' by removing individuals unfit for office";[14]: 8 persons subject to impeachment and removal remain "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law

kemotep 4y ago

This is one of several cases against Trump that has advanced beyond the Grand Jury stage. Potentially we could see several other indictments. Such as the Federal cases for the classified documents and the Georgia case for interfering with an election. This is just the first one. Doesn’t have to be the last nor does it mean he is instantly ruled guilty and is going to prison or paying a fine. He will have his chance in court to make a case for his innocence in the face of these specific charges.

stanleydrew 4y ago

There are other investigations ongoing in other jurisdictions, including an investigation related to inciting the insurrection. Those investigations may likely lead to indictments from grand juries as well. The United States has many local prosecutors that operate independently within their jurisdictions and are not bound to hold their charges in deference to some other charges that may be more serious coming later.

pessimizer 4y ago

I get the impression that there's no explanation required for how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims of a vast array of crimes that a slightly stupid wrestling valet game show host who largely lived off branding agreements with real estate developers committed with the aid of a small network of self-serving d-list dipshits.

junofan 4y ago
You’re talking about the 76-year-old WWE hall-of-famer who posted upwards of 200 tweets a day despite famously eschewing technology for paper and pencil. There’s nothing fake about this political figure. Or any others, for that matter.
danans 4y ago
> how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims It's not the job of all those intelligence agencies to do that. This is a law and order question, which must be handled by the legal system, not the NSA and CIA.
mariojv 4y ago
I don't think the Manhattan DA has direct access to the full capacity of US intelligence agencies to use against citizens or former presidents.
dboreham 4y ago
Gold.
trafficante 4y ago
Yeah it’s hard to look at something like the Rod Blagojevich saga and then look back at Trump and not immediately wonder what the hell is going on here. They very clearly have the capability to coordinate the entire media apparatus, law enforcement, etc to cuff a sitting Governor and quickly send him to a federal pit and down the memory hole for essentially the exact same sort of quid pro quo that was underpinning the first Trump impeachment. Trump isn’t Phoenix Wright, he’s only still a free man because the Blob either can’t come to a consensus on “Blago’ing” him - or else the constant “The walls are closing in on Drumpf THIS time” drama is serving a larger purpose.

stuckinhell 4y ago

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

jshen 4y ago
The democratic nominee for President has won the popular vote in something like 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. A majority of Americans do have progressive principles, but America is a minority rule country at the moment.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  When you consider population clusters in the big urban areas, your point is diluted a bit. There's a reason we don't do popular vote; California and New York would pretty much pick the president every election. Take a look at the geographic distribution of red v blue by county in the 2020 presidential election [1]. Relying on only the popular vote could devolve the country into a hunger games type dystopian hellscape where 90% of the country is controlled by a few dense urban clusters. [1] https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/ https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/
  - vmladenov 4y ago
    Land doesn’t vote, people do. Your argument justifies federalism, not unequal voting power.
    - Izkata 4y ago
      The US is a republic of states, not a democracy. We vote by electoral college, and not directly by the population, for a reason. The electoral college is weighted using both the House (population-weighted representation) and Senate (equal state representation) so the small states don't get ignored and controlled by the large states.

yafbum 4y ago

Time, juridiction, and witness cooperation lined up for this one. The alleged crime happened 8 years ago by now. Some more recent misdeeds might still yield more indictments. The jurisdiction is New York state, where Trump's status as former president is irrelevant (unlike insurrection related issues, which I guess are federal, and therefore for which his status as sitting president would've made impeachment the remedy rather than criminal prosecution). There is a cooperating witness spilling the beans on this one. On his mini coup attempt, maybe they were a bit better at containing associates.

trafficante 4y ago

The most interesting aspect to this indictment is that, until now, there’s been a clear reluctance to go all the way on nailing Trump for the sort of extremely common crimes that many of our wonderful politicians/wealthy engage in on a regular basis. It’s why they didn’t stick him on emoluments, nepotism, tax dodging - even “improperly storing classified documents” somehow turned out to be a brush too broad. So now Alvin Bragg is (supposedly) indicting him for campaign finance violations. Okay. He’s probably guilty. But both Obama and Hillary paid fines for the exact same crime. So did John Edwards, for a VERY similar situation to the Stormy Daniels thing iirc. This isn’t whataboutism - my point is that, if this indictment goes forward with the rumored rationale, every single politician will now have to watch their ass on campaign funds for the foreseeable future lest the opposing party find out. That’s a good thing for America and a very obnoxious thing for the entire political class. I suspect Alvin Bragg is getting many angry phone calls tonight from folks who would otherwise like to fire Trump into the sun.

bobsil1 4y ago
Yes. Dems were never going to, for example, indict Trump on selling US policy to the Saudis, that’s a key political-racket revenue source.
AdamN 4y ago
The Obama comparison doesn't hold water. Those were civil penalties for time to report donations. Trump is being charged criminally with felonies for intentionally hiding hush money payments in legal payments from the campaign (although we don't know what all the charges are yet). https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violations-compared-obama-2008-vs-trump-2016/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violatio...
norwalkbear 4y ago
Bragg campaigned on arresting Trump.

bobsil1 4y ago

Criminal impunity for political elites backstops their entire racket: laundering hard bribes into soft, insider trading and so on. They've blocked T•••• prosecution for things like the coup because federal law enforcement report to them, and they're wedded to the immunity. Only the most egregious get prosecuted, e.g. the Congressman insider-trading on the phone in the background of a public T•••• event.

AdamN 4y ago

The most malevolent things he did were political and while in office. As anti-Trump as I am though, the clock ran out on that and the remedy (conviction of impeachment) was never completed. In that sense, that chapter is closed and now we move to all the other stuff. Prosecutors in their respective jurisdictions should look for crimes and prosecute if they see malfeasance. In the case of NY, these are the charges that were at the top of the priority list for that one prosecutor. Multiple other prosecutors are looking at crimes in other jurisdictions and I would expect Trump to be facing charges in at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 courtrooms on entirely independent indictments.

th17row 4y ago

You nailed it. There's nothing on him so they have to grasp at straws. Or, like other commenters mentioned, it's an intentional move by dems to increase his popularity (in the hopes that he'll be easier to beat in 2024)