A Manhattan grand jury voted Thursday to indict former President Donald Trump over an alleged hush money payment to silence porn star Stormy Daniels, according to multiple reports , marking the first time in American history a former president has been criminally charged.
The indictment remains under seal and it is not clear what crimes the grand jury decided to charge him with, the New York Times reported, citing four unnamed sources.
This is not the end it is the beginning. If this is the weakest case then surely the stronger cases ( Jan 6, Georgia,) will follow. The taboo or logjam has been broken, which is the importance of today.
For the me there is no desired outcome. I already know the outcome. I learned that when I waited for the facts in the mulit years Russia/collusion case.
If you don't want to answer my question, we can walk away from our little discussion.
For the me there is no desired outcome. I already know the outcome. I learned that when I waited for the facts in the mulit years Russia/collusion case.
What kind of "critical thinker" would make a comment like that?
No, Vic, I do not know the outcome of the State of GA or the DoJ cases against Trump.
I do not know the crimes of which he will be charged. I do not know the quality of the case the will be brought, the expertise of the prosecution and I certainly do not know the complex dynamics of the jury.
I, like everyone else on the planet, have far too little information to know what the outcome of either of these trials will be.
And in spite of your claim, you do not know either.
It has been more than 6 years since trump/Daniels, How is Bragg getting around this I wonder?
I'm waiting to see the actual charges and indictment. I know that NY did extend it's statute of limitations by a year due to Covid and there was some noise that Bragg was using the exception that Trump was not in New York so that adds another five years on (but that's normally when the suspect cannot be found and I'm fairly sure they knew where Trump was from 2016 to 2020).
I have doubts that this will actually go anywhere and that a judge won't just toss it out. But like I said I want to see the actual indictment.
Can Bragg prosecute for NY State law or is he restricted to only in Manhattan and New York county law? With that many counts there has to be something to tie in with NY tax code. Like I said I'm still waiting for the indictment to be unsealed in order to see the particulars. This case always seemed as a stretch to me, not sure if it will even make it into the courtroom.
Mr. Trump will be the first former president to face criminal charges. The precise charges are not yet known, but the case is focused on a hush-money payment to a porn star during his 2016 campaign.
A Manhattan grand jury voted to indict Donald J. Trump on Thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to five people with knowledge of the matter, a historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and forever mark him as the nation’s first former president to face criminal charges.
An indictment will likely be announced in the coming days. By then, prosecutors working for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will have asked Mr. Trump to surrender and to face arraignment on charges that remain unknown for now.
Mr. Trump has for decades avoided criminal charges despite persistent scrutiny and repeated investigations, creating an aura of legal invincibility that the vote to indict now threatens to puncture.
His actions surrounding his 2020 electoral defeat are now the focus of a separate federal investigation, and a Georgia prosecutor is in the final stages of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse the election results in that state.
But unlike the investigations that arose from his time in the White House, this case is built around a tawdry episode that predates Mr. Trump’s presidency. The reality star turned presidential candidate who shocked the political establishment by winning the White House now faces a reckoning for a hush money payment that buried a sex scandal in the final days of the 2016 campaign.
On Thursday, the three lead prosecutors on the Trump investigation walked into the building where the grand jury was sitting in the minutes before the panel was scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. One of them carried a copy of the penal law — with Post-it notes visible — which was likely used to read the criminal statutes to the grand jurors before they voted. About three hours later, the prosecutors walked into the court clerk’s office through a back door to begin the process of filing the indictment.
Mr. Trump has consistently denied all wrongdoing and attacked Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, accusing him of leading a politically motivated prosecution. He has also denied any affair with the porn star, Stormy Daniels, who had been looking to sell her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump during the campaign.
Here’s what else you need to know:
Mr. Bragg and his lawyers will likely attempt to negotiate Mr. Trump’s surrender. If he agrees, it will raise the prospect of a former president, with the Secret Service in tow, being photographed and fingerprinted in the bowels of a New York State courthouse.
The prosecution’s star witness is Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who paid the $130,000 to keep Ms. Daniels quiet. Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump directed him to buy Ms. Daniels’s silence, and that Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, helped cover the whole thing up. The company’s internal records falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses, which helped conceal the purpose of the payments.
Although the specific charges remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have zeroed in on that hush money payment and the false records created by Mr. Trump’s company. A conviction is not a sure thing: An attempt to combine a charge relating to the false records with an election violation relating to the payment to Ms. Daniels would be based on a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges, raising the possibility that a court could throw out or limit the charges.
The vote to indict, the product of a nearly five-year investigation, kicks off a new and volatile phase in Mr. Trump’s post-presidential life as he makes a third run for the White House. And it could throw the race for the Republican nomination — which he leads in most polls — into uncharted territory.
Mr. Bragg is the first prosecutor to lead an indictment of Mr. Trump. He is now likely to become a national figure enduring a harsh political spotlight.
Kate Christobek, Nate Schweber and Sean Piccoli contributed reporting.
Conservative news networks are brimming with conversations about the mechanics of the indictment and what it means for the presidential campaign. Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard Law professor appearing by phone on Sean Spicer’s show on Newsmax, speculated that a mugshot of Donald Trump could serve as a campaign poster for the former president’s campaign. “He will be mug shot and fingerprinted. There’s really no way around that,” he said.
Charlie Savage
As reaction began pouring in from across the political spectrum, one theme among Trump's critics was that this may be only the beginning. He remains the subject of three other, separate criminal investigations. A prosecutor in Atlanta is scrutinizing his efforts to overturn Biden’s narrow win of Georgia in the 2020 election. A federal special counsel is scrutinizing both his larger efforts to cling to power that culminated in the Jan. 6 riot, and also examining his hoarding of classified documents after leaving office. Noah Bookbinder, the president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that Trump “spent his entire political career dodging accountability for his wanton disregard for the law. It is finally catching up to him. The charges in New York are the first ever brought against him, but they will not be the last.”
William Rashbaum
The three lead prosecutors on the Trump investigation walked into the building where the grand jury was sitting minutes before the panel was scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. One carried a copy of the penal law — with sticky notes visible — that would have been needed to read the criminal statutes to the grand jurors before they voted. About three hours later, the prosecutors walked into the court clerk’s office through a back door to begin the process of filing the indictment.
Jonah Bromwich
While the charges remain a mystery, Mr. Trump is the first former or current president to be indicted. Nearly two weeks ago, he inaccurately predicted his own arrest. It is likely that the district attorney’s office will now seek to arrange his surrender.
Jonah Bromwich
It is unclear precisely when the grand jury vote criminally charging the former president was taken. Prosecutors walked into the office of the clerk in the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where the paperwork for an indictment was filed only minutes before the office closed for the day. For weeks, the atmosphere outside the district attorney’s office had resembled a circus. But the fervor had cooled in recent days, and the environs of the office were emptier on Thursday than they had been in weeks.
He will be fingerprinted. He will be photographed. He may even be handcuffed.
In the days ahead, Donald J. Trump is expected to walk through the routine steps of felony arrest processing in New York, now that a grand jury has voted to indict him in connection with his role in a hush-money payment to a porn star. But the unprecedented arrest of a former commander in chief will be anything but routine.
Accommodations may be made for Mr. Trump. While it is standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed, it is unclear whether an exception will be made for the former president because of his status. Most defendants have their hands cuffed behind their backs, but some white-collar defendants who are deemed to pose less of a danger have their hands secured in front of them.
Mr. Trump will almost certainly be accompanied at every step of the process — from the moment he is taken into custody until his appearance before a judge in Lower Manhattan’s imposing Criminal Courts Building — by armed agents of the United States Secret Service, who are required by law to protect him at all times.
Security in the courthouse is provided by state court officers, with whom the Secret Service has worked in the past. But the chief spokesman for the agency, Anthony J. Guglielmi, said he could not comment on any specific measures that would be put in place for Mr. Trump.
It may take several days for Mr. Trump to appear at the courthouse. Now that the grand jury has voted to indict him, the indictment must be handed up. Then prosecutors would typically contact his defense lawyers to negotiate the terms of his surrender, a common practice in white-collar investigations when the district attorney’s office has been in touch with defense attorneys.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump, who is running for president a third time, have said he will surrender to face the charges and fly from his Florida estate to New York for the arraignment.
After he is arraigned, he is almost certain to be released on his own recognizance because the indictment will likely contain only nonviolent felony charges; under New York law, prosecutors cannot request bail in such cases.
Surrender, some might argue, is not in the confrontational former president’s DNA, and he often seems to relish antagonizing and attacking the prosecutors who have investigated him. He has called Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who secured the hush money indictment and who is Black, “a racist,” and said that his investigation was politically motivated.
In the unlikely event that the former president refuses to surrender, he would put Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, his leading but undeclared rival for the Republican nomination, in an awkward political position. Under law, Mr. DeSantis’s role would be essentially ministerial and he would have few legal options other than approving an extradition request from New York.
Still, if New York prosecutors sought Mr. Trump’s extradition, Mr. DeSantis would face an unenviable dilemma. He would be compelled to choose between authorizing an arrest warrant for Mr. Trump and inflaming his base, or attempting in some way to aid his Republican rival, and possibly face legal action as a result.
The investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office into Donald J. Trump’s hush-money payments to a pornographic film star, which led to the vote to indict the former president, has spanned nearly five years.
Mr. Cohen, previously a personal lawyer and fixer for Mr. Trump, pleaded guilty to federal crimes and told a court that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange hush-money payments to two women. The payments were made during the 2016 campaign to keep the women from speaking publicly about affairs they said they had conducted with Mr. Trump.
Soon after Mr. Cohen’s admission, the Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation to examine if the payments broke New York State laws. The office soon paused the inquiry at the request of federal prosecutors, who were still looking into the same conduct.
After federal prosecutors said that they had “effectively concluded” their investigation, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney at the time, revived his own inquiry. Late in the month, prosecutors in his office issued a subpoena to the Trump Organization and another subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, demanding eight years of Mr. Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns.
After appellate judges ruled against Mr. Trump, the lawsuit found its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that the presidency did not shield Mr. Trump from criminal inquiries and that he had no absolute right to block the release of his tax returns.
The ruling left Mr. Trump with the opportunity to raise different objections to Mr. Vance’s subpoena.
In the spring, Mr. Vance’s prosecutors set their sights on Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s long-serving chief financial officer, whom they hoped to pressure into cooperating with their investigation.
The prosecutors were particularly interested in whether the Trump Organization handed out valuable benefits to Mr. Weisselberg as a form of untaxed compensation.
When Mr. Weisselberg refused to testify against his boss, prosecutors announced charges against him and Mr. Trump’s company, saying that the company helped its executives evade taxes by compensating them with benefits such as free cars and apartments that were hidden from the authorities.
JAN. 1, 2022
A new Manhattan district attorney takes office.
Mr. Vance left office, and his successor, Alvin L. Bragg, took over the case. Both are Democrats.
Mr. Bragg, a former federal prosecutor, retained two of the investigation’s leaders, Mark F. Pomerantz, an experienced former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense lawyer, and Carey Dunne, Mr. Vance’s general counsel.
After Mr. Bragg expressed reservations about the case, Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne suspended the presentation of evidence about Mr. Trump to a grand jury. A month later, they resigned, prompting a public uproar over Mr. Bragg’s decision not to proceed with an indictment.
In his resignation letter, which was later obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Pomerantz said that Mr. Trump had been guilty of numerous felonies.
After staying mostly silent through weeks of criticism, the district attorney publicly discussed his office’s investigation of Mr. Trump for the first time. His fundamental message: The inquiry would continue.
Aug. 18, 2022
Allen Weisselberg pleads guilty and agrees to testify against the Trump Organization.
Though the chief financial officer declined to turn on Mr. Trump himself, he agreed to testify at the October trial against the company that he had served for nearly half a century.
After several months, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors returned to the long-running investigation’s original focus: a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film actress who said she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Trump.
Dec. 24, 2022
The Trump Organization is convicted, securing a significant victory for the district attorney.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors won a conviction of Mr. Trump’s family business, convincing a jury that the company was guilty of tax fraud and other crimes.
Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.
March 18, 2023
Mr. Trump predicts his arrest and calls for protests.
Without any direct knowledge, the former president posted on his Truth Social account that he would be arrested three days later and sought to rally supporters to his side. His prediction was soon walked back, and he was not arrested at that time.
March 30, 2023
Grand jury votes to indict Mr. Trump.
The charges, which are still unknown, will be the first against any president, current or former.
The history-making vote to indict Donald J. Trump on Thursday defied historical precedent, upended the former president’s reality and threw the race for the 2024 Republican nomination into highly uncertain territory.
Perhaps the biggest electoral question is whether Mr. Trump can continue to rally his supporters in the G.O.P. primary to his side.
In the past, he has used investigations into his business, personal and political activities to stir a defensive sentiment among his most die-hard supporters. His backers came to see investigations into whether his 2016 campaign conspired with Russians, as well as two impeachment inquiries, as part of what he often claimed was a partisan “witch hunt.”
Mr. Trump has done the same thing in the lead-up to the indictment vote in Manhattan, calling the investigation “a new way of cheating in elections” during an appearance on Monday on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.
The Rupert Murdoch-owned network, as well as other Murdoch news outlets, have heavily criticized Mr. Trump and promoted Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.
It is possible, however, that Mr. Trump’s legal problems, which extend past Manhattan into three other investigations, will erode his standing and lead Republican voters to seek out an alternative — perhaps Mr. DeSantis, his leading potential rival in early polls, or perhaps someone else.
Mr. Trump has moved quickly to try to head off Mr. DeSantis’s attempt to replace him as the party’s standard-bearer. In social media posts, the former president has attacked Mr. DeSantis over issues including Florida’s public health restrictions early in the pandemic and the governor’s perceived lack of loyalty to Mr. Trump, who gave Mr. DeSantis a key endorsement during his 2018 campaign.
“He’s dropping like a rock,” the former president said at his rally on Saturday in Waco, Texas , pointing to his increased advantage over the governor in recent surveys. While Mr. DeSantis places second in most public opinion polls of Republican primary voters, his numbers have slipped since the sugar high in his standing after his decisive re-election in November, even with extensive support from Mr. Murdoch’s empire.
In turn, Mr. DeSantis has taken subtler jabs at Mr. Trump, drawing attention to the personal conduct involved in the case the former president is facing — which centers on hush-money payments to a porn star just before the 2016 election — and seeking to draw a contrast with Mr. Trump by presenting himself as a low-drama “winner.”
“In terms of my approach to leadership, I get personnel in the government who have the agenda of the people and share our agenda,” Mr. DeSantis told the British media personality Piers Morgan recently. “You bring your own agenda in, you’re gone. We’re just not going to have that. So, the way we run the government, I think, is no daily drama, focus on the big picture and put points on the board, and I think that’s something that’s very important.”
Most of Mr. Trump’s allies had refused to believe that an indictment could come, making the actual event seem to them like an abstraction. How it will eventually play out for Mr. Trump — who in 2016 predicted he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any of his backers — is an open question.
As he has done in the face of other investigations, Mr. Trump has assailed the long-running Manhattan investigation as part of a campaign of persecution against him. He has called the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who is Black, an “animal” and has accused him of being “racist,” insisting that any prosecution was politically motivated.
“Every time the polls go up higher and higher, the prosecutors get crazier and crazier,” Mr. Trump said during a campaign speech in early March at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland.
Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and a possible 2024 Republican presidential contender, sounded a skeptical note about Mr. Trump’s claims that he would be bolstered by an indictment.
“What the hell else is he going to say?” Mr. Christie said on ABC News’s “This Week” in March. “If you get indicted, you know, you’ve got to say that, or else it’s a death knell, right?”
It is unclear how Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals will approach such a significant change in his circumstances, but they will face pressure from his die-hard backers to speak in support of him and against the prosecutors in the case. While Mr. DeSantis has tweaked Mr. Trump’s personal conduct, he has also criticized Mr. Bragg.
Still, it is not clear that whatever immediate support Mr. Trump can garner will be durable.
“When Trump speculated his voters would stick with him even if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, he probably didn’t expect to actually test their loyalty with a criminal indictment,” said Nelson Warfield, a Republican strategist. “But that’s the question he faces now: Will the base stay with him? The truth is: Nobody knows. I mean, this is something out of a John Grisham novel, not the Almanac of American Politics.”
It is the kind of case that emboldens prosecutors and mesmerizes juries: a celebrity defendant authorizing a secret payoff to cover up a tryst with a porn star.
With the Manhattan district attorney’s office now charging Donald J. Trump in just such a case, the former president is facing a daunting set of facts. His onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, will testify that Mr. Trump directed him to pay off the porn star, Stormy Daniels, and that the former president reimbursed Mr. Cohen and helped cover the whole thing up.
But salacious details alone do not make a case. Prosecutors must also work within the law. And the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, may have to pull off a difficult maneuver, connecting the hush-money cover-up — a potential violation of state law — to a federal election.
The indictment is sealed for now, meaning that its contents are not yet known, and Mr. Bragg could have charged any number of crimes. But there is a possibility that the case relies on a legal theory that has never been evaluated by a judge.
A New York Times review and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York state prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign. Bringing an untested case against anyone, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or narrow the case.
The case could hinge on the way Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, handled reimbursing Mr. Cohen for the payment of $130,000 to Ms. Daniels. Internal Trump Organization records falsely classified the reimbursements as legal expenses, which helped conceal the purpose of the payments, according to Mr. Cohen, who said Mr. Trump knew about the misleading records. (Mr. Trump’s lawyers deny that.)
In New York, falsifying business records can be a crime, and Mr. Bragg’s office may have built its case around that charge, according to outside legal experts and people with knowledge of the matter. The false business records charge is the bread and butter of the district attorney’s office white-collar practice: Since Mr. Bragg took office in 2022, prosecutors have filed 117 felony counts of the charge, against 29 individuals and companies, according to data kept by the office.
But for falsifying business records to be a felony, not a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. That crime could be a violation of election law, under the theory that the payout served as a donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, because it silenced Ms. Daniels and shut down a potential sex scandal in the final stretch of the campaign.
Although the district attorney’s office need not obtain a conviction on the election law violation, or even specify it in the indictment, that second crime ultimately might be the aspect of the legal theory that is most vulnerable to attack.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have said that the theory that the money amounted to a campaign donation is flawed. One of the lawyers recently argued in television interviews that Mr. Trump approved the payment to protect his family from false accusations, noting that Mr. Trump has long denied a sexual encounter with Ms. Daniels.
The lawyer, Joe Tacopina, portrayed the former president as a victim of her extortion.
“We are distorting laws to try and bag President Trump,” Mr. Tacopina said on “Good Morning America.” He added, “He had to pay money because there was going to be an allegation that was going to be publicly embarrassing to him, regardless of the campaign. There is no crime here.”
Whether hush money can amount to a campaign donation is not settled law. At the federal level, this issue arose with the prosecution of John Edwards, the former senator and presidential candidate, in a 2012 case that ended with jurors deadlocked over the majority of the charges. Prosecutors ultimately dropped them.
Another case came in 2018, when Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges involving the hush money. Because he pleaded guilty, the issue was never tested in the courts. But some campaign finance experts and conservative legal scholars have argued that the case was bogus.
“Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime,” was the headline in a National Review article at the time.
Yet the text of New York election law suggests otherwise. It defines a campaign contribution, in part, as “any thing of value, made in connection” with an election.
If Mr. Bragg does pursue an election violation as the second crime, there are several unanswered questions.
For starters, it is unclear whether he would cite a federal or state election law violation, or even both. And with either choice, there could be pitfalls.
If his office uses a federal election violation as the second crime, Mr. Trump’s lawyers could argue that federal law has no place in state court. And if he uses a New York election law violation, the defense could claim that a violation of state law does not apply to a federal election — in this case, the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Generally, someone can’t be prosecuted for violating a contribution limit in a federal election in a state court,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in election law.
Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., grappled with the same issue. Mr. Vance’s prosecutors considered the hush-money case several times — it floated around the office so long that it became known as the “zombie case,” an idea that just wouldn’t die — and examined several secondary crimes Mr. Trump might have been seeking to conceal.
They never ruled out a hush money case, but had concerns that it might be too risky to use a federal election law violation as the second crime. Mr. Vance’s prosecutors feared a judge might find that falsifying business records could be a felony only if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one.
Their apprehension stemmed partly from a lack of precedent — the only cases like this had ended in guilty pleas, meaning they were not tested in the courts — as well as from New York law, which suggests that federal crimes are out of bounds for New York prosecutors.
Several state election law provisions appear to fit Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump’s conduct, according to legal experts. One such provision, state election law 14-126 , makes it unlawful for someone (Mr. Trump, under this theory) to knowingly and willingly solicit another person (Mr. Cohen) to spend money in order to evade campaign contribution limits ($130,000 in hush money, well above the limits).
Any state election law that the district attorney might pair with the falsifying business records charge may have to make it through a gantlet: Federal campaign finance law explicitly states that it overrides — pre-empts, in legal terminology — state election law when it comes to campaign donation limits.
That could rule out the possibility that Mr. Bragg might use 14-126, the New York law that makes it illegal to solicit campaign spending that violates contribution limits.
But there are exceptions to federal pre-emption contained in regulations from the Federal Election Commission, known as the F.E.C. And it is possible that the other law, 17-152, which makes it illegal to conspire to promote the election of any candidate “by unlawful means,” may be able to avoid triggering federal pre-emption. That law does not deal explicitly with contribution limits.
In short, it may be the strongest option for Mr. Bragg.
“It appears that this provision, which prohibits unlawfully promoting an election, could fit into one of the F.E.C. exceptions,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and a recognized expert in New York state election law.
No matter what crimes Mr. Bragg charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to raise a number of other legal challenges, including arguing that Mr. Bragg missed the legal deadline to file the case. Normally, the felony falsifying business records charge expires after five years.
But Mr. Bragg’s office has ways to extend that statute of limitations to cover the events stemming from the 2016 payment. New York law extends its statute of limitations to cover periods when a defendant was continuously out of state — Mr. Trump has spent much of his time since 2016 in Washingtonand Florida — and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York extended the state’s statute of limitations by more than a year during the pandemic.
And there are a few additional advantages for the district attorney: His case will play out in state court, with a state judge — possibly Juan M. Merchan , the even-keeled jurist who oversaw the conviction of Mr. Trump’s family business — and a jury in deep blue Manhattan.
Those factors helped to convince Mr. Goldfeder, the state election law expert, that the case could be viable.
“You know, it’s not a slam-dunk,” he said. “But I think that survives a motion to dismiss, and then let the jury decide.”
Somebody might try to assassinate him. All you have to do is look at some of the comments here.
bfd. so station a trumpster at every window, but smart money is on some unhinged maga moron flipping out in the next 72 hours in the hopes of starting their long awaited unamerican revolution.
It will be fun to watch people argue "no man is above the law" support the work of Bragg, whose entire career is premised on not enforcing some laws that he doesn't personally like.
You dont know whether to be happy or sad. LOL. Half your comments are pleased he is indicted and half of them are attempted digs at the prosecution. Make up your mind !
Not so sure at this point. Given an indictment by a grand jury and the near certainty of high-level political discussions over this, there may indeed be a legitimate case. Proceeding does suggest belief that this is a winnable case. And the consequences of losing are rather harsh.
We will have to wait and see how it progresses. While doing so, attempt to follow the evidence instead of trying make any tidbit conform to your desired outcome.
Do you actually think that I have a problem opining on actual facts (as opposed to spin, exaggeration, conspiracy theories)?
For example, if it turns out that the statute of limitations is indeed in effect, my comment would be to criticize Bragg for a boneheaded screw-up.
If it turns out that Trump technically did nothing illegal, then I will deem Bragg a partisan abusing the law.
So there you go.
If Trump is found guilty, I will say that it is about time that this lying cheater is held legally accountable for a crime.
And in all cases, I will say that this case is about Trump as an individual and does absolutely nothing to fix the horrible precedent he set as PotUS in his Big Lie campaign. I want Trump as PotUS to be held accountable ... and if legit crimes were committed (not just wrongdoing) I have no problem with Trump being the first president to be found guilty of crimes during his office.
Yes, based on what is currently known, it might be a weak case. The fact that they are going through with it suggests it might be stronger than those of us out of the loop might think.
Indictments are a dime a dozen. Convictions are a lot harder to come by
Not sure your stats are even in the ballpark (see below ). But obviously there are (necessarily) fewer convictions than indictments.
In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992. [18] For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate. [19] In 2000, the conviction rate was also high in U.S. state courts. Coughlan, writing in 2000, stated, "In recent years, the conviction rate has averaged approximately 84% in Texas , 82% in California , 72% in New York , 67% in North Carolina , and 59% in Florida ." [20]
We know what Bragg is pushing. He has to prove that Trump paid money specifically out of campaign funds. Unless Bragg has some felony that we don't know about, he is about to make Trump look like a victim and it will be very damning for himself. You are right about one thing: the prosecution will probably drag out beyond the election. I bet you'll be thrilled to see the former President fingerprinted.
I expected Trump to fundraise off this just like he's done numerous times before even when he posted the phony news that he would be indicted on Tuesday. He is running true to form.
I am not thrilled that this is the first case against Trump.
IMO it was a sacrificial lamb, since nobody knows what the maga morons are capable of doing in this type of setting. compared to the rest of the legal BS trump is facing, this isn't much, but look at how his supporters are freaking out about it now.
The MAGA mentality holds that anything done by the government is necessarily wrong ("Big Brother" 1984 irrational exaggerations of reality). Thus any indictment of Trump will motivate them: "See, the government is going after Trump because he is fighting against Big Brother for us".
CNN reports that “Donald Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in an indictment from a Manhattan grand jury, according to two sources familiar with the case.”
Another thought on the ramifications of this that I've not yet seen.
How does this further the partisan divide of Congress? The US is on track to run out of money in a few months and any solution to raising the cap will require bi-partisan action but it seems to me that this could further inflame problems in Congress. We have a lot of serious issues that require congressional action yet due to the partisan split it's even more difficult to get anything done. Our leadership has not shown for several years now that they are the adults in the room.
Will this make any action out of Congress harder to get to and where will we all end up because of it?
More to follow.
Finally John!
Bragg couldn't resist!
Alright, we'll see who has who now!
About damn time!
TOPLINE
A Manhattan grand jury voted Thursday to indict former President Donald Trump over an alleged hush money payment to silence porn star Stormy Daniels, according to multiple reports , marking the first time in American history a former president has been criminally charged.
The indictment remains under seal and it is not clear what crimes the grand jury decided to charge him with, the New York Times reported, citing four unnamed sources.
Trump Indicted By Manhattan Grand Jury, Reports Say (forbes.com)
Great News!
Trump will tied up in court until hell freezes over, which will create an opening for DeSantis. This couldn't have come at a better time!
I'm sure DeSantis cheered the news with a larger font.
democrats once again called upon to bail out the gutless opposition by taking out their trash...
Who's shit have you actually cleaned up after?
Whose Whos? A Who's Whos? So, whose?
e You can replicate Dr Seuss nonsense well but is it PC?
Who's PC?
You're trolling and Badfish left the building several months ago.
Beats me, I don't know the liberal criteria,
Pretty sure that the liberal agenda is to hate fascist haters.
So liberals hate........liberals?
You need an agenda for that?
Oh dear, the mockery of Bragg over past weeks/months will need to change underwear.
Slash and burn. This will be anything but conventional…he will throw everyone under the bus.
In the end, as ugly as this promises to be, accountability and respect for the system will the winner.
So...what's the crime again. And....does anyone besides lefties give a shyt?
“…does anyone besides lefties…”
Left, right, or center…anyone who believes in the rule of law certainly cares. He will have his day in court.
If the extra large font in #2.1 is a clue, you do.
How so?
He just Fucked himself!
Your visual fantasies are getting the better of you.
We'll see what kind of comeback you have when Bragg tries to prosecute this pipe dream.
I haven't kept score since joining but my guess is that you are in the range of 1 for 12 when it comes to making predictions.
Lol, that's a fact !
Naw. He 'f....d Stormy and lied about it..
Do you really cover your mouth when you laugh, why?
I'm not sure it's that high
that took me a minute
Can't wait to see the charges, this is about to get interesting.
And on Opening Day no less!
This is not the end it is the beginning. If this is the weakest case then surely the stronger cases ( Jan 6, Georgia,) will follow. The taboo or logjam has been broken, which is the importance of today.
I hope you are correct. The weakest case could defuse (change the political calculation on) the stronger cases. Especially if the prosecution loses.
And it will!
I dont think so, for one thing , this case will not have finished , or even gone to trial yet, when he will be indicted for the other cases.
Secondly, the precedent that former presidents are not criminally indicted is gone. That will pave the way for the others.
Yes, another "never before has ..." moment for Trump.
Are you also rooting for the State of GA and the DoJ to fail (assuming they indict)?
I'm waiting for the FACTS to come in!
I'm a critical thinker!
You mean critical of thinking.
I know hate when I see it
Since you're so intelligent, please tell us what is in the indictment that you are gushing over.
Donald Trump is the most corrupt person to ever hold the presidency in the United States. This is only the beginning of justice coming for him.
So you've been saying. I'll be right here with you John to watch each case and how they go down.
Oh, so you do not have a desired outcome?
It is ironic that you think so.
For the me there is no desired outcome. I already know the outcome. I learned that when I waited for the facts in the mulit years Russia/collusion case.
If you don't want to answer my question, we can walk away from our little discussion.
LOL
oh ouch, tag team...
I'll wait until tomorrow
And there you go. Even before indictments, you know the outcome. You just proved that you do not think critically. Good grief Vic, get a clue.
What kind of "critical thinker" would make a comment like that?
Sounds more like a seriously closed mind.
[removed]
Do you ask inane questions of everyone who includes an emoji or do you only fixate on Tessylo for 'special' treatment"?
[✘]
Then put her on ignore and spare us your "inane and repetitive" hounding.
The only reason that you know hate when you see it is because it flows from your pen.
Stop reading my comments and save yourself.
And you know it too.
You know, the one that told you the Russia/collusion hoax was BS. Well John, this is more BS.
Sounds more like a seriously closed mind.
Says the guy who once said Trump probably didn't conspire with Russia, but I hope they get him on something.
[Deleted]
No, Vic, I do not know the outcome of the State of GA or the DoJ cases against Trump.
I do not know the crimes of which he will be charged. I do not know the quality of the case the will be brought, the expertise of the prosecution and I certainly do not know the complex dynamics of the jury.
I, like everyone else on the planet, have far too little information to know what the outcome of either of these trials will be.
And in spite of your claim, you do not know either.
Oops, it didn't.
Is it over already? Wow record time..........
Trump will be charged with a felony, according to reports.
It has been more than 6 years since trump/Daniels, How is Bragg getting around this I wonder?
Statute of Limitations chart | NY CourtHelp (nycourts.gov)
And before anyone says a Class A felony here it is.
Legislation | NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)
I'm waiting to see the actual charges and indictment. I know that NY did extend it's statute of limitations by a year due to Covid and there was some noise that Bragg was using the exception that Trump was not in New York so that adds another five years on (but that's normally when the suspect cannot be found and I'm fairly sure they knew where Trump was from 2016 to 2020).
I have doubts that this will actually go anywhere and that a judge won't just toss it out. But like I said I want to see the actual indictment.
A guest on MSNBC (former federal prosecutor in NY) says there are 34 counts, and with that number it must go beyond paying off Stormy Daniels.
It hard to imagine 34 counts all related to the payoff.
There is probably a count for every transaction.
Can Bragg prosecute for NY State law or is he restricted to only in Manhattan and New York county law? With that many counts there has to be something to tie in with NY tax code. Like I said I'm still waiting for the indictment to be unsealed in order to see the particulars. This case always seemed as a stretch to me, not sure if it will even make it into the courtroom.
Are you implying that there are 34 paid off women? Really? Damn.
You are so excited. Somebody just broke another norm!
Yep, the can of worms this will open.
yeah, the norm of letting criminal republican presidents off the hook without serving any time...
We'll see if the same holds true for democratic presidents.
Many felonies.
That are probably outside statute of limitations...
IF they are legitimate charges....and not simply a repaid debt to a handler that paid for your campaign to get you elected.
Way too long to read. You sure seem to be excited about this.
All I did was copy the story from the Times. Evidently the same linked produced all this material.
Feel free to skip over it though.
Ask for an executive summary.
Most sane people probably have.,
All the liars on the New York Times!
I think the charges are going to be more extensive than people think. The other woman and the National Enquirer payoff are in the mix now.
Do you think they are going to charge him with the Kennedy assassination as well?
Probably not, since JFK Jr. is in league with Trump to save the world. [deleted]
You said he is the devil himself!
Why the fuck not?
[deleted]
Someone's triggered.
Trump's father probably had a hand in that.
Were you always a freebee?
Additional security measures are being taken around the Manhattan courthouse.
I know, like they are expecting him to attempt to escape? Are his followers expected to riot and storm the courthouse??
Somebody might try to assassinate him. All you have to do is look at some of the comments here.
Assassinate who? Bragg who has already received death threats?
No the man on the moon
they already got that fellow
Yawn.
Why do you enjoy smacking yourself in the face?
bfd. so station a trumpster at every window, but smart money is on some unhinged maga moron flipping out in the next 72 hours in the hopes of starting their long awaited unamerican revolution.
That's where that went! I've looking for it for 40 years!
We should try to make it look like an accident.
A quarter pounder OD might work.
Do you like to freak?
It will be fun to watch people argue "no man is above the law" support the work of Bragg, whose entire career is premised on not enforcing some laws that he doesn't personally like.
Doesnt sound admissible in this case to me. Right wing media might find Bragg guilty though if that floats your boat.
I didn't say it was. It's just amusing that the "no man is above the law chorus" supports Bragg, who is the antithesis of that.
The left continues to be soft on crime, and continues to coddle criminals. I predict this will turn out to be yet another nothing burger.
You dont know whether to be happy or sad. LOL. Half your comments are pleased he is indicted and half of them are attempted digs at the prosecution. Make up your mind !
I think it will be a double win for the American people.
I don't want him to run again...I want him gone.
I don't think a reasonable jury will vote to convict on such flimsy grounds.
The grounds of Trump's life of crime are well documented.
Wow, NY really let him skate for years. Was it his Dem donations?
A lot of salivating going on.
Who let the dogs out?
FINALLY.
I have heard it was so easy to get an indictment in a NYC grand jury , one could be gotten on a Reuben sandwich , i was begining to wonder ....
We are witnessing history in the making. Alvin Bragg will be the first black DA to go down for malicious prosecution!
who? fug that what about my reuben ?
Not so sure at this point. Given an indictment by a grand jury and the near certainty of high-level political discussions over this, there may indeed be a legitimate case. Proceeding does suggest belief that this is a winnable case. And the consequences of losing are rather harsh.
We will have to wait and see how it progresses. While doing so, attempt to follow the evidence instead of trying make any tidbit conform to your desired outcome.
And when the facts come in, I will want to hear from you.
Do you actually think that I have a problem opining on actual facts (as opposed to spin, exaggeration, conspiracy theories)?
For example, if it turns out that the statute of limitations is indeed in effect, my comment would be to criticize Bragg for a boneheaded screw-up.
If it turns out that Trump technically did nothing illegal, then I will deem Bragg a partisan abusing the law.
So there you go.
If Trump is found guilty, I will say that it is about time that this lying cheater is held legally accountable for a crime.
And in all cases, I will say that this case is about Trump as an individual and does absolutely nothing to fix the horrible precedent he set as PotUS in his Big Lie campaign. I want Trump as PotUS to be held accountable ... and if legit crimes were committed (not just wrongdoing) I have no problem with Trump being the first president to be found guilty of crimes during his office.
The Big Lie cases are what matter to me.
I think you have a problem accepting facts.
I know you have a problem distinguishing what you wish to be true from what is actually shown to be true by the evidence.
You have shrugged off proof.
I'm sure you'll do it with this case. There is a lot of irony in this case. Can you see what it is?
Oh bullshit, Vic.
Further, I already gave you several scenarios @10.1.4 for how I would opine. So cut the crap.
I asked you a question.
I am not going to guess at what irony you see. If you want to express a notion then do so without the little games.
We can always speculate. The evidence appears flimsy. Indictments are a dime a dozen. Convictions are a lot harder to come by
Absolutely. No harm in speculating.
Yes, based on what is currently known, it might be a weak case. The fact that they are going through with it suggests it might be stronger than those of us out of the loop might think.
Not sure your stats are even in the ballpark (see below ). But obviously there are (necessarily) fewer convictions than indictments.
Is his skin color relevant to the case ?
it obviously is to trump supporters...
Trump is the first ex president to be indicted for a felony.
The dominoes are beginning to fall.
Trump will spend the rest of his life in court or in prison.
Many of his victoms want him to pay.
I wonder how many Republican officials will now have the balls to demand Trump drop out of the nomination race.
Over- under is 1/2.
Shouldn't they wait to see what happens?
By all means, lets wait until he is indicted in all 4 cases being investigated.
Would you like to wager on this first case?
I'll bet one month's self imposed suspension. You seem so sure of yourself. How about it?
I would never guess on conviction until I see the charges and the evidence.
Whats funny is you thinking a grand jury of 21 people voted for indictment without any evidence.
We know what Bragg is pushing. He has to prove that Trump paid money specifically out of campaign funds. Unless Bragg has some felony that we don't know about, he is about to make Trump look like a victim and it will be very damning for himself. You are right about one thing: the prosecution will probably drag out beyond the election. I bet you'll be thrilled to see the former President fingerprinted.
So far, Trump is up 30 points in the polls.
That is the Republicans problem and disgrace.
Sad how there are that many sub 100 IQ folk.
I’m sorry that you feel sad.
Good to see Bragg take some time away from letting violent thugs out of jail to go after a guy that paid a porn star to keep quiet.
Trump has already started fundraising, and the sheeple will donate.
Bragg made him a martyr
What did you expect?
True to a degree. Could be worsened if Bragg does not hit the ball out of the park.
I am not thrilled that this is the first case against Trump.
I expected Trump to fundraise off this just like he's done numerous times before even when he posted the phony news that he would be indicted on Tuesday. He is running true to form.
It does break the 'abnormal' ice and followed up with probable additional indictments, Hallmark might well issue cards to celebrate a new tradition.
Trump started making himself a martyr when he came down the escalator at Trump
Tower in the beginning, laying the groundwork for how if he lost the election, it was
rigged...
Remember when he hated the EC when Obama won, lol?
Trump has made being a martyr a grifter's art form.
IMO it was a sacrificial lamb, since nobody knows what the maga morons are capable of doing in this type of setting. compared to the rest of the legal BS trump is facing, this isn't much, but look at how his supporters are freaking out about it now.
The MAGA mentality holds that anything done by the government is necessarily wrong ("Big Brother" 1984 irrational exaggerations of reality). Thus any indictment of Trump will motivate them: "See, the government is going after Trump because he is fighting against Big Brother for us".
SMH
Exactly the reason we cant give in to these people.
So we will know them by their limping.
How many times has Trump said "witch hunt" today?
I give, how many?
That's a lot of counts and with Donnie's forte at dragging things out his coffin might be convicted first.
that will be one hilarious spectacle down pennsylvania avenue when it happens...
"Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! ... ". Aw fuck, wrong pronoun, I'm so screwed ...
The shameless fool Lindsey Graham went on Fox news tonight and told the audience, in no uncertain terms, to send Donald Trump money.
Is it really a surprise that both political parties are using this for fundraising?
Thieves steal. Above all else Trump is a thief.
Who doesn't enjoy spending other people's money.
Lindsey Graham posted a tweet today suggesting Trump should punch a cop in the face on his way to the courthouse on Tuesday
If true, LG makes no sense since Trump would likely be punching a supporter that had nothing to do with his indictment.
Well, he's not wrong...
Wow!
Lindsey Graham, just another easily triggered reactionary idiot.
Another thought on the ramifications of this that I've not yet seen.
How does this further the partisan divide of Congress? The US is on track to run out of money in a few months and any solution to raising the cap will require bi-partisan action but it seems to me that this could further inflame problems in Congress. We have a lot of serious issues that require congressional action yet due to the partisan split it's even more difficult to get anything done. Our leadership has not shown for several years now that they are the adults in the room.
Will this make any action out of Congress harder to get to and where will we all end up because of it?