To be clear I don’t know what exactly he will be charged with or when but I would bet very large sums of money that he is indicted at least once and more likely, many times.
I would and I believe the forum overlords do not like such things.You two should place a wager.
Like 50 dollars or more.
Yeah betting for money is not allowed here.I would and I believe the forum overlords do not like such things.
We would also need an agreed upon arbitrator to decide what “significant” charges are.
No, dickhead you send him a PM and make the bet via email.I would and I believe the forum overlords do not like such things.
We would also need an agreed upon arbitrator to decide what “significant” charges are.
The only reason why I’d make a bet regarding this is to brag about winning.No, dickhead you send him a PM and make the bet via email.
Seriously if you actually think this you can make close to 10-1. That’s a good money-making opportunity.The only reason why I’d make a bet regarding this is to brag about winning.
This is on brand for Trump... Self awareness is not his strong suite!
I thought you were embellishing. Complete irony.This is on brand for Trump... Self awareness is not his strong suite!
I love the text at the bottom of the lower banner, lol.This is on brand for Trump... Self awareness is not his strong suite!
In regards to Stormy Daniel’s, what felonies? Again, it isn’t illegal to pay off someone for their silence.
I have to note you have now gone from ‘it’s very unlikely he will be charged’ to now it’s 50/50. The odds of him being charged have always been over 90%.
The felony charge there won’t be hard to come up with because we already have the underlying campaign finance crimes.
Also this is only the beginning of the indictments. I’m genuinely confused how this has not been obvious to everyone from the beginning.
Very good interview with Jon Stewart speaking with moral clarity in a humorous way on Trump and politics today!
Funny quote from the interview:
"The idea that the rich and powerful could face accountability for their actions is outrageous."
All I know is that the Democrats keep asking me for money and I keep asking if the DOJ has indicted Trump yet like I told you already no indictment no money. I just hope I don't cause the cosmos to spin off into outer space or something. I may be a bit confused about where we could spin off to."People say the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, but it doesn't bend with gravity, you have to bend it, because there are people trying to bend it back."
My understanding is this: It's a misdemeanor if it's own its own, if it was done to aid in another crime, then it's a felony charge. So in this case, he falsified business record in aid of breaking campaign finance laws. It was covered in Pod Save America.Again, noted legal expert (cited here previously) is expecting a misdemeanor in NY. A misdemeanor on the level of a moving violation or out of date registration.
My understanding is this: It's a misdemeanor if it's own its own, if it was done to aid in another crime, then it's a felony charge. So in this case, he falsified business record in aid of breaking campaign finance laws. It was covered in Pod Save America.
This is not accurate. The other crime mentioned in Mariotti’s thread would be a violation of New York State election law, not federal election law. Also, the vast, vast majority of moving violations and out of date registrations are processed as civil infractions, they are not crimes. Even a misdemeanor conviction is way more serious than either of those.While likely true that it was done in furtherance of a campaign, it's difficult to go that route for a few reasons. First, that other crime would be a federal charge which apparently is virgin territory as far as NY law goes. Second, that federal crime was never proven, nor was it even charged.
Lots and lots of mobsters are in jail due to testimony from non-ideal witnesses. The question is if his testimony is credible, consistent, and corroborated.These are part of the reasons for Mariotti's opinion. The rest is that your key witness is not exactly what you'd consider "ideal". Too much uncertainty for someone to stake their career on. Lack of precedent, questionable testimony, and novel legal theory isn't what you want to depend on in a scenario like this.
This is not accurate. The other crime mentioned in Mariotti’s thread would be a violation of New York State election law, not federal election law. Also, the vast, vast majority of moving violations and out of date registrations are processed as civil infractions, they are not crimes. Even a misdemeanor conviction is way more serious than either of those.
Lots and lots of mobsters are in jail due to testimony from non-ideal witnesses. The question is if his testimony is credible, consistent, and corroborated.
I do not think Cohen’s testimony will be an issue as most of what he’s saying Trump is on tape agreeing with.
The exact Twitter thread you are referencing discusses New York State law as the second charge.The references I have seen have pointed to the only possible second offense being a violation of Fed. election law, which is the reason for the "unprecedented under NY law" part. Either way, it's still an unproven charge.
While it is true that SOME moving violations are misdemeanors, the overwhelming majority are treated as civil infractions. More importantly even the misdemeanor falsifying charge is a class A misdemeanor (the most serious) while reckless driving is an unclassified misdemeanor (generally the least serious) so they are clearly not similar. Expired registration comes under the violations that are essentially always treated as civil infractions so that doesn’t even come close.As to the misdemeanor ... if it stays that way, it is in fact in line with NY charges like a reckless driving or out of date registration as far as class/punishment.
Bragg knows if he is corroborated or not. Like I said he’s already corroborated by publicly available information.And Cohen is absolutely a problematic witness. The DA has interviewed him over something like 20 sessions. Far more than anyone else. That screams that he's the key to the case. If he's corroborated, great. But that's just one more "if" to add to the pile.
Again, is the DA going to risk his career on all that uncertainty? I guess anything is possible ...
The exact Twitter thread you are referencing discusses New York State law as the second charge.
While it is true that SOME moving violations are misdemeanors, the overwhelming majority are treated as civil infractions. More importantly even the misdemeanor falsifying charge is a class A misdemeanor (the most serious) while reckless driving is an unclassified misdemeanor (generally the least serious) so they are clearly not similar. Expired registration comes under the violations that are essentially always treated as civil infractions so that doesn’t even come close.
I once had my sticker scraped and got an expired registration ticket. To put it mildly I was not in equivalent legal jeopardy to Trump here.
Bragg knows if he is corroborated or not. Like I said he’s already corroborated by publicly available information.
The crimes would be charged together. Still, I think it’s clear this does not rest on a federal charge.Yes, he said the NY law "could" be used in the thread. In interviews he also said it's a stretch, and not the most fitting. That would be the same thing that John Edwards was charged with, a federal crime. And also, still not charged/convicted. All the reason why he states up front that it's most likely the misdemeanor.
I personally doubt only that misdemeanor charge will be brought.So like Renato said, a likely misdemeanor (if at all). But you're right about the classes ... much more serious here with up to 364 days in jail and a $1000 fine. The first absolutely will not happen, and the second will be sure to teach him a valuable lesson.