The more that is coming out of the procedure happening in NYDA's case, and the grand jury, the less likely I believe that Trump is telling the truth. They are still seeing witnesses, and have witnesses scheduled this week. Will they indict... seems likely given that they asked if Trump wanted to come in and that Trump is sending in a surrogate to try and discredit Cohen. But on Tuesday... that would seem very very rushed. The law enforcement planning meetings aren't even happening till this week. Friday would seem to be the very earliest I could see this happening. What's going to happen though is a Tuesday right wing media blitz I'm sure. The narrative will be something like "The Grand Jury must have an issue!! The case must be weak!!" and stir a narrative that an indictment that comes at a later date will be Bragg trying to save face, and that the jury was tainted, and threated by the Biden Regime hellbent on rigging the election by taking out Trump on false charges, etc. etc. So that way when Friday or next week happens, the entire FoxNews right wing propaganda hive mind has had the chance to acclimate to the narrative, and it gives them talking points to argue with their non-right wing cult friends with conspiracy theories about the jury, etc. I'll bet you 100 bucks now that on Tuesday when that doesn't happen we'll see those theories floated here immediately, and a certain someone will be sure to post a Jonathan Turley blog or two or twenty.
The Narrative here (That these are light charges) only applies to the fact that we know Trump has done far worse... among attempting to overturn democracy via a coup. The fact is had any other politician faced the p*rn star hush money allegations, that alone would have sunk their political careers and definitely put them in jail at least for a few weeks. The John Edwards example is even lighter than this one, and he faced a pretty harsh penalty. This is a guy who was in line to be the next big Democrat figurehead with White House aspirations. The issue is we are so numb to Trump's denigration of our politics into a full blown abyss of corruption, and criminality that if this is what he ultimately goes down for it'll be viewed under this narrative umbrella which is wrong to do IMO. What Trump did here in 2016 was a crime anyone else would have been ruined over. Especially someone who was openly getting ordained by the most prominent evangelical leaders in the country, and the hard right wing of the Catholic church in the south.
This speaks to my general point about shamelessness. I don't think that the DA is making a legal mistake, only a slight political one since the intensity of this crime was less than the others. It's the GOP's continued embrace of Trump - and their implicit promise to continue supporting him no matter what because any pursuit of justice against him must be purely political in their minds - that makes me hope it's an airtight case. The Democratic Party rightfully dropped John Edwards like a hot potato because what he did was crass, disgusting and illegal. He made himself persona non grata. The GOP base continues to prop up Trump because they have no policy preferences other than owning the libs and nobody does that better than him. It's like a snake eating its own tail. He can do wrong in their eyes but they've communicated to everyone else that they like that about him and don't care as long as he continues to set fire to everything and everyone they think doesn't serve them.
When Bragg got the role he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't politically. If he didn't indict soon, the statute would run out, and they'd have to dismiss the grand jury soon. He would then be viewed as someone who openly refused to indict someone who made a mockery of our system of justice on his watch. He'd be viewed as weak, and a hypocrite. If he indicts though, because of the timing of this happening when it did, he'll have to go first, and then there's the optics of "Trump did all that he did and THIS is it???" The fact is, so many people the past 6 years have cowered to Trump and put Bragg in this position, and to a certain extent Willis in GA, and the Special Counsel. Congress should have impeached him when this came out first and foremost. Then he's removed from power, and the legal system can take it's course on the appropriate timelines. But because a Republican Congress shilled for Trump, they put the justice system in peril with having to be forced to either let an open criminal off the hook in plain sight, or indict in a rushed manner to avoid the public response of perceived politization either way. The people to blame here are the Republicans in Congress. That's the original sin, and EVERYTHING should always be mentioned alongside their partnership of crime.
The MAGA position is that a Democrat prosecuting him is political, but a Republican prosecuting him is a traitor. They've provided literally no room for any accountability for a president. To my mind, it's prosecutors' fear to prosecute and in some cases the orders from DOJ leadership to not pursue investigation of Individual 1 that has been political. So it would be a refreshing bit of apolitical breeze if a prosecutor would simply forget all that stuff and bring an indictment that he thinks he can win. If you have the evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt plus a healthy disregard for your own career attainment, just go win. To your point though, an indictment on the Stormy Daniels case would be a complete political disaster if they didn't get a conviction. An acquittal in a case with more gravitas, like the Georgia election tampering allegation, would be harmful but survivable. But losing on Stormy Daniels would be a field day for partisan prosecutorial witch hunt enthusiasts.
I think any politician being prosecuted on either side will result in the opposing side calling it political. That can't be helped. I agree that not getting a conviction would be problematic and cause much more grief on the Stormy Daniels case.
The NY case is the least "worst" of the 3 cases, I hope this case is airtight, this will set up the next 2 and if gets out of this on some technicality it will set the playbook for the next 2 cases.........if any case is a slam dunk the NY case needs to be.
Trump may differ from Obama in style, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind; I'm not sure boorishness trumps smugness on the didactic scale.
Yeah... I don't blame you. These people are not very bright and they are impulsive, who knows that ****ery they will do.
