Trump Just Committed These 'New Crimes' in New York

[natina]

Trump Just Committed These 'New Crimes' in New York


Legal analyst Glenn Kirschner on Sunday claimed that former President Donald Trump has committed new crimes violating the law in New York State, warranting new charges.

Trump is already under potential criminal probes in numerous jurisdictions, including New York City, where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been investigating allegations that he led a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film actress in 2016. Recently, certain moves that Bragg has made have led legal experts to believe that he is closing in on a criminal indictment against Trump, which would be the first in American history for a former president.

In reaction to these rumors, Trump has become increasingly more confrontational on his social media platform, Truth Social. One post threatened that there would be "death & destruction" if he is criminally charged in New York, with another tarring Bragg as a "Soros-funded animal."

Trump Just Committed These 'New Crimes' in New York: Kirschner

Kirschner, a veteran federal prosecutor who is now known for his many appearances as a legal analyst on cable news programs, discussed these heated posts during the latest video in his ongoing YouTube series covering the various legal battles surrounding Trump. In it, he claims that Trump's comments constitute crimes in New York, specifically threatening the district attorney "with the intent to intimidate Alvin Bragg in the performance of his official duties," further referencing a New York law, Section 195.05, "obstructing governmental administration in the second degree."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-just-committed-these-new-crimes-in-new-york-kirschner/ar-AA196Eg7?li=BBnbfcL

[Fitzcarraldo]

Now he's been indicted:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/manhattan-grand-jury-voted-whether-indict-trump-rcna73588

[Stavros]

Now he's been indicted:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/manhattan-grand-jury-voted-whether-indict-trump-rcna73588

The man himself says he has been 'Indicated'. 'Nuff said!

Trump misspells ‘indicted’ in Truth Social post blasting ‘thugs and radical left monsters’ (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-misspells-indicted-truth-social-230428758.html)

[filghy2]

I know the argument for applying the law without fear or favour, but it does seem a bit unsatisfactory that he's been indicted for something that will look to many people like a technical violation, rather than a more serious matter like pressuring electoral officials. There's a risk that he could get off and it plays into his hands.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/31/23579526/trump-indictment-grand-jury-stormy-daniels-felony

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Now he's been indicted:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/manhattan-grand-jury-voted-whether-indict-trump-rcna73588 The MAGA King is going to use being indicted to his advantage by playing the victim card,dragging the process the courts and riling up his base. Enablers such as JD Vance,Ron DeSantis aka Mussolini and the MAGA Caucus in Congress are already coming to his defense.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

The man himself says he has been 'Indicated'. 'Nuff said!

Trump misspells ‘indicted’ in Truth Social post blasting ‘thugs and radical left monsters’ (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-misspells-indicted-truth-social-230428758.html) Not surprised at all by his reaction on his fledgling social media platform,with him throwing another temper tantrum because he knows he can't control the narrative.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I know the argument for applying the law without fear or favour, but it does seem a bit unsatisfactory that he's been indicted for something that will look to many people like a technical violation, rather than a more serious matter like pressuring electoral officials. There's a risk that he could get off and it plays into his hands.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/31/23579526/trump-indictment-grand-jury-stormy-daniels-felonyThere's a very high risk of him getting off. And more than likely will play into his hands.

[natina]

Insighting an insurrection and New York law, Section 195.05, "obstructing governmental administration in the second degree." is showing trump has a pattern of this unacceptable behavior and it's going to Bite him in the ass!

Will they do a orifice search on trump when he is booked like they do others,you know when they make you cough? Trump might be hiding classified documents up there.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I know the argument for applying the law without fear or favour, but it does seem a bit unsatisfactory that he's been indicted for something that will look to many people like a technical violation, rather than a more serious matter like pressuring electoral officials. There's a risk that he could get off and it plays into his hands.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/31/23579526/trump-indictment-grand-jury-stormy-daniels-felony

This is only one of four criminal investigations into him. He could still be indicted by the state of Georgia for election interference and by the Department of Justice for his role in the January 6th insurrection and for his mishandling of classified documents. The other investigations are still continuing.

[Stavros]

Can a man so famous get a fair trial? I think he is the most famous person to be indicted on a criminal offence since OJ Simpson, and after all, most Americans I think knew who Simpson was.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Can a man so famous get a fair trial? I think he is the most famous person to be indicted on a criminal offence since OJ Simpson, and after all, most Americans I think knew who Simpson was.

Does fame exempt one from justice?

[Stavros]

This from the Governor of the 'Free State of Florida'-

"He accused prosecutor Alvin Bragg of being backed by left-wing billionaire George Soros."
Donald Trump's rival Ron DeSantis vows to block former president's extradition (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-vows-block-extradition-013338841.html)

a) is it not the case that Attorneys General in the US are elected, and run, for the most part, as either Democrats or Republicans?

b) are there no Republican AG's funded by, say, the Koch Bros or some other 'Right wing' foundation?

c) is it true that George Soros is a citizen of the USA?

Maybe someone should have a quiet word with some of these outraged Republicans complaining about the rule of law being a political weapon, and just ask -did Trump break the law? For that is the key to this process.

[Fitzcarraldo]

This from the Governor of the 'Free State of Florida'-

"He accused prosecutor Alvin Bragg of being backed by left-wing billionaire George Soros."
Donald Trump's rival Ron DeSantis vows to block former president's extradition (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-vows-block-extradition-013338841.html)

a) is it not the case that Attorneys General in the US are elected, and run, for the most part, as either Democrats or Republicans?

b) are there no Republican AG's funded by, say, the Koch Bros or some other 'Right wing' foundation?

c) is it true that George Soros is a citizen of the USA?

Maybe someone should have a quiet word with some of these outraged Republicans complaining about the rule of law being a political weapon, and just ask -did Trump break the law? For that is the key to this process.

Everything the Republicans accuse the Democrats of doing is projection for what the Republicans are doing and plan to do.

The Soros stuff is an antisemitic dog whistle to blow along with the racist dog whistling about Alvin Bragg (calling him an animal).

Of course Republican AGs are funded by such groups. Hypocrisy is the life blood of politics.

[Stavros]

Hypocrisy is the life blood of politics.


Though you are right with regard to so much in US politics, I wonder why it is that there seems to be no attempt to reform your electoral process, to remove the political biases that exist. An independent electoral commission, for example, could draw the boundaries of Congressional Districts, just as the Boundary Commission does in the UK, taking into consideration any changes that have taken place to a constituency in terms of its social and economic geography. Thus, too, law officers ought not be appointed on the basis of their politics but their legal experience and abilities.

I understand that the system was created when people of different parties were committed to the same Constitutional values that are supposed to bind Americans into one Union, but once sectarian divisions become so bitter that 'standard practice' is set aside for the kind of things we have seen over the years, in effect there is no Union.

Have said it before -can Americans step back from the brink and realize there are alternative ways of refurbishing the ideals of the Revolution through reasonable means? Otherwise it is a form of civil war, and nobody benefits from that.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Though you are right with regard to so much in US politics, I wonder why it is that there seems to be no attempt to reform your electoral process, to remove the political biases that exist. An independent electoral commission, for example, could draw the boundaries of Congressional Districts, just as the Boundary Commission does in the UK, taking into consideration any changes that have taken place to a constituency in terms of its social and economic geography. Thus, too, law officers ought not be appointed on the basis of their politics but their legal experience and abilities.

I understand that the system was created when people of different parties were committed to the same Constitutional values that are supposed to bind Americans into one Union, but once sectarian divisions become so bitter that 'standard practice' is set aside for the kind of things we have seen over the years, in effect there is no Union.

Have said it before -can Americans step back from the brink and realize there are alternative ways of refurbishing the ideals of the Revolution through reasonable means? Otherwise it is a form of civil war, and nobody benefits from that.

There have been many attempts to reform. The Republicans have killed the most recent ones in Congress.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voting-rights-bill-blocked-by-republican-filibuster

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/road-not-taken-gerrymandering

The Constitution is set up so it can be modified without revolution. The extremes ignore that, and they get all the airtime, apparently overseas as well. Plenty Americans (myself included) belong to no political party, have no interest in joining one, and do not desire a civil war.

[natina]

Can a man so famous get a fair trial? I think he is the most famous person to be indicted on a criminal offence since OJ Simpson, and after all, most Americans I think knew who Simpson was.

Robert Blake (Barretta tv show series) got indicated and found innocent but just before his death bed he admitted the crime saying she deserved it.
Don't do the Crime if you can't do the Time
And keep your eye on the Sparrow

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This from the Governor of the 'Free State of Florida'-

"He accused prosecutor Alvin Bragg of being backed by left-wing billionaire George Soros."
Donald Trump's rival Ron DeSantis vows to block former president's extradition (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-vows-block-extradition-013338841.html)

a) is it not the case that Attorneys General in the US are elected, and run, for the most part, as either Democrats or Republicans?

b) are there no Republican AG's funded by, say, the Koch Bros or some other 'Right wing' foundation?

c) is it true that George Soros is a citizen of the USA?

Maybe someone should have a quiet word with some of these outraged Republicans complaining about the rule of law being a political weapon, and just ask -did Trump break the law? For that is the key to this process.More hypocrisy and projection from the MAGA Party,who claimed to be the party of law and order and were completely silent during Trump's Presidency when their leader Donald Trump was weaponizing the Department Of Justice to after his political enemies,and enabled his behavior. And now are all of a sudden outrage because their leader is in legal trouble with the law. Ron-Mussolini-DeSantis is playing with fire if he's going to interfere and block Donald Trump's extradition to the City Of New York.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Here's a video of reactions of Donald Trump's Indictment from his enablers. And all of their reactions reeks of hypocrisy and projection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMRxo_LV7K0

[blackchubby38]

Can a man so famous get a fair trial? I think he is the most famous person to be indicted on a criminal offence since OJ Simpson, and after all, most Americans I think knew who Simpson was.

I could see his lawyers filing a motion for a change of venue to either Long Island or Staten Island, both areas are filled with Trump voters/supporters.

Having said that, I think he could get a fair trial in New York. There were people in NYC who voted for him in 2016 and if I could find the article that I posted on here, I think that number increased in 2020. That's surprising when you consider New Yorkers have been putting up with his bullshit since the 1980s'. So I'm sure his legal team could fill a jury with some people who might acquit him.

There is also the credibility factor of the main witness, who surely will be Michael Cohen. All it takes is one person to question his motives to cause a hung jury.

[Fitzcarraldo]

There is also the credibility factor of the main witness, who surely will be Michael Cohen. All it takes is one person to question his motives to cause a hung jury.

The guy who was Trump's long-time fixer (how many legitimate people need fixers?!) and went to prison for him?

[blackchubby38]

The guy who was Trump's long-time fixer (how many legitimate people need fixers?!) and went to prison for him?

Yeah, that's him.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Yeah, that's him.

What would he gain by lying? He already did time for Trump.

[natina]

trump-indicted-in-manhattan-heres-what-will-happen-next-yes-hell-probably-get-a-mugshot


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/31/trump-indicted-in-manhattan-heres-what-will-happen-next-yes-hell-probably-get-a-mugshot

[Stavros]

There have been many attempts to reform. The Republicans have killed the most recent ones in Congress.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/road-not-taken-gerrymandering

The Constitution is set up so it can be modified without revolution. The extremes ignore that, and they get all the airtime, apparently overseas as well. Plenty Americans (myself included) belong to no political party, have no interest in joining one, and do not desire a civil war.

Thanks for the Brennan Center link, though it makes depressing reading. I now vaguely recall the debate though it was mostly about the Filibuster. I think the key is to take these decisions on District Boundaries out of the State control and create a completely Independent Commission, because neither of the two major parties can be trusted, and trust in institutions is vital in a democracy.

[Stavros]

I could see his lawyers filing a motion for a change of venue to either Long Island or Staten Island, both areas are filled with Trump voters/supporters.

Having said that, I think he could get a fair trial in New York. There were people in NYC who voted for him in 2016 and if I could find the article that I posted on here, I think that number increased in 2020. That's surprising when you consider New Yorkers have been putting up with his bullshit since the 1980s'. So I'm sure his legal team could fill a jury with some people who might acquit him.

There is also the credibility factor of the main witness, who surely will be Michael Cohen. All it takes is one person to question his motives to cause a hung jury.

Thank you for your insight, it is too easy to assume New Yorkers are all on one camp. I seem to recall a chapter/station (?) of the NYPD Union or whatever its called, came out for Trump in 2020.

Curious thing though: if Cohen has been found guilty of the crime(s) Trump is accused of, does this mean the Court must find that Trump knowingly participated? Can he just say he didn't know, that the money paid for Cohen was 'legal expenses' he made no further enquiries about?

[Fitzcarraldo]

I think the key is to take these decisions on District Boundaries out of the State control and create a completely Independent Commission, because neither of the two major parties can be trusted, and trust in institutions is vital in a democracy.

Courts order this sort of thing. Republicans subvert the orders.

[Stavros]

I used to take the view that the US generally, and in its politics, was more flexible, and open to change than the UK system, I wonder if you agree with this. It seems to me that your politics has lost its imagination, is no longer bold or making an appeal to the voters at large. And if true, is this just a phase the US is going through, and will it end with a re-discovery of policies that work, and more generally, an increase in the standard of living so that people feel -what, 'comfortable'? If that is the right word.

One probably irrelevant comparison -the USA with 50 States has 435 members in its House of Representatives; the UK House of Commons has 650, with proposed Boundary Commission changes reducing this to 600 (will be voted on next July). I don't understand the discrepancy and wonder who has the more effective representation at District/Constituency level.

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

[Fitzcarraldo]

I used to take the view that the US generally, and in its politics, was more flexible, and open to change than the UK system, I wonder if you agree with this. It seems to me that your politics has lost its imagination, is no longer bold or making an appeal to the voters at large. And if true, is this just a phase the US is going through, and will it end with a re-discovery of policies that work, and more generally, an increase in the standard of living so that people feel -what, 'comfortable'? If that is the right word.

One probably irrelevant comparison -the USA with 50 States has 435 members in its House of Representatives; the UK House of Commons has 650, with proposed Boundary Commission changes reducing this to 600 (will be voted on next July). I don't understand the discrepancy and wonder who has the more effective representation at District/Constituency level.

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

It is set up to be flexible, but it has definitely become more rigid in my lifetime. Party machines used to run cities, but now they run states and they're trying to take over the federal government.

Republicans have abdicated on policy and now simply try to grab power. They gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting at the state level. They have also prioritized appointing judges (worked out great for Trump), and this is one of the most dangerous things they've done. Look at what happened in Germany when the Party took over the courts. They also are getting very active in school board elections, which are typically nonpartisan offices. They are trying to make them partisan. Control the courts and what students are taught and you can lock down ideology. (In my state, they have passed laws with "rights" in the formal name, but if you read the text, it is full of the word "prohibit.")

Republicans are trying to weaken federal authority and throw control back to the states. They've already achieved this on abortion law. They will try to do the same thing with gay marriage. A senator from my state wants to "sunset" all federal laws every 5 years, and then if they're found to be desirable, they will renew the law. It's ridiculous, and it would destroy Social Security and Medicare. He claims it won't, but he's lying. He's been trying to privatize Social Security already.

When Republicans control Congress, they don't pass legislation, aside from culture war stuff. Trump kept bragging about "infrastructure week," but nothing ever happened (Biden got a massive infrastructure bill passed). They wanted to do away with Obamacare, but had no replacement for it.

I've never been a fan of the Democrats, but they're currently our only hope if we want to preserve a constitutional republic.

Regarding Israel, have you looked at the news about Israel lately?

One chamber for a country with over 300 million people would not work. The beauty of our system is separation of powers, and also that there are mechanisms built into the Constitution to allow change to the government without a revolution. These things have a great dampening effect on wild swings. The system was tested as severely as it ever has been with Trump's presidency and especially his exit, and it held. It is still in great danger, but there is hope.

This is a slightly different topic, but lots of people (especially Democrats) want to do away with the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. The electoral college is one of those dampers I mentioned. If we switch to popular vote, the residents of the most populous states will be guaranteed to elect the president. Population density varies greatly throughout our country, and citizens in different areas have different priorities. Presidents elected by urban residents only will pander to urban voters to get elected. Rural voters have already felt ignored for decades. This is one reason they rejected Hillary Clinton, who did not bother to visit midwestern states during her campaign, and embraced Donald Trump, who did visit and pretended to love them and speak for them.

[filghy2]

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

It's not a good idea to reduce checks and balances too much. I would have thought your own recent experience in the UK would have taught you the dangers of allowing a temporary majority to make very fundamental changes. Just look at countries like Hungary and now Israel to see where this can end up.

That said, it's not good if change becomes too hard. The biggest barrier to legislative change in the US seems to be the Senate filibuster rule, which isn't in the Constitution and should be easiest to change.

There are two chambers in Australia, as well as states. The system was designed to be a blend of the best features of the US and UK systems. I think it works pretty well in allowing change while also maintaining checks and balances. The Federal government almost never has a majority in the Senate, so it has to negotiate with the minor parties and independents, which is probably a good thing in general.

[Stavros]

One chamber for a country with over 300 million people would not work. The beauty of our system is separation of powers, and also that there are mechanisms built into the Constitution to allow change to the government without a revolution. These things have a great dampening effect on wild swings. The system was tested as severely as it ever has been with Trump's presidency and especially his exit, and it held. It is still in great danger, but there is hope.

This is a slightly different topic, but lots of people (especially Democrats) want to do away with the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. The electoral college is one of those dampers I mentioned. If we switch to popular vote, the residents of the most populous states will be guaranteed to elect the president. Population density varies greatly throughout our country, and citizens in different areas have different priorities. Presidents elected by urban residents only will pander to urban voters to get elected. Rural voters have already felt ignored for decades. This is one reason they rejected Hillary Clinton, who did not bother to visit midwestern states during her campaign, and embraced Donald Trump, who did visit and pretended to love them and speak for them.

Although the Trump phenomenon has tested the checks and balances inherent in the US system, I think it was the Nixon Presidency that established itself as the test -because Nixon was abandoned by his own Party, who considered the Presidency more important than one man -and because it was so obvious that he had lied as well as being part of a complex operation to cover up the truth. Ford's pardon spared Nixon the trial some wanted, and some felt would have been a step too far given how broken Nixon was, whereas the system remained intact.

One watches with dismay the Republican tactic now, given that Trump was never fit for public office -Nixon, after all had years of public service before becoming President- with a language that would have been inconceivable in 1974 -the lies, the threats of violence, the insults and abuse of Americans, and the appeals for money. It seems quite incredible that Lindsay Graham can ask people to donate money to a cause when the person concerned, Trump, claims to be a Billionaire. But this is now 'normal' politics.

I think you are right about the Electoral College, though I assume it can either be reformed in some way, or something be done to prevent the creation of 'fake electors' as happened in 2020. And if the States retain control of the process that draws District Boundaries, is there no scope for changing the way candidates are selected, to prevent someone like Trump from even being considered?

It may be part of the American Dream, that anyone can aspire to be President, but as we have seen it is not always a good idea if that someone has such a murky past with proven links to organized crime. I don't see any changes in this process, but then I see little to hope for in US politics 'going forward'.

I think again, you are right about a bi-cameral legislature, though I am not sure how it would work in the UK where the abolition of the House of Lords was, I think for the first time in the Labour Party manifesto in 1945, but about which nothing has been done.

As for Israel, ponder the fact that so many Israeli politicians -Presidents, Prime Ministers, Knesset members- have been sent to prison, there is a wikipedia page on it. So far, Israel hasn't collapsed because of its criminal politicians...one even wonders, who's next?

List of Israeli public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_public_officials_convicted_of_crim es_or_misdemeanors)

[Stavros]

It's not a good idea to reduce checks and balances too much. I would have thought your own recent experience in the UK would have taught you the dangers of allowing a temporary majority to make very fundamental changes. Just look at countries like Hungary and now Israel to see where this can end up.

That said, it's not good if change becomes too hard. The biggest barrier to legislative change in the US seems to be the Senate filibuster rule, which isn't in the Constitution and should be easiest to change.

There are two chambers in Australia, as well as states. The system was designed to be a blend of the best features of the US and UK systems. I think it works pretty well in allowing change while also maintaining checks and balances. The Federal government almost never has a majority in the Senate, so it has to negotiate with the minor parties and independents, which is probably a good thing in general.

The most important structural change has not been between Commons and Lords, but the creation of devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, though in the case of the latter there was a Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921 since re-named the Northern Ireland Assembly. It remains to be seen if Devolved Government paves the way for the fracture of the UK, given the problems the SNP currently has and doubts about Independence there, a strong issue for some in Wales, but not enough to set it on that path, while the DUP in Northern Ireland has prevented the Assembly there from convening and doesn't look like it will do so in the near future.

I was not opposed to devolution, but it has splintered debate as well as politics, most obviously with the majority in Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to Remain in the European Union, but that is a debate for another thread.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Not directly related to Trump, but this gives some details on gerrymandering and court involvement at the state level:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-2-2023-sunday

[Stavros]

Not directly related to Trump, but this gives some details on gerrymandering and court involvement at the state level:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-2-2023-sunday

What a depressing read! But surely, when someone can say "“Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor."" what this amounts to is Wisconsin becoming a One-Party State. How Un-American is that? And doesn't the Constitution offer the means to prevent the emergence of tyrannical government?

And in other times I assume this would be a national scandal that even Republicans would be ashamed of, but not today.

As Boris Johnson might put it -'Fuck Democracy!'.

[Fitzcarraldo]

What a depressing read! But surely, when someone can say "“Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor."" what this amounts to is Wisconsin becoming a One-Party State. How Un-American is that? And doesn't the Constitution offer the means to prevent the emergence of tyrannical government?

And in other times I assume this would be a national scandal that even Republicans would be ashamed of, but not today.

As Boris Johnson might put it -'Fuck Democracy!'.

It's being done in the open. The court can stop it. Courts used to be nonpartisan. The Republicans (who have complained about "activist judges" for at least 50 years) have been working to make judges into Republicans.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Not directly related to Trump, but this gives some details on gerrymandering and court involvement at the state level:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-2-2023-sundayNot surprised at at all that the MAGA Party will to obtain power,even if it means destroying democracy,the rule of law and making it harder for minorities to vote.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Not surprised at at all that the MAGA Party will to obtain power,even if it means destroying democracy,the rule of law and making it harder for minorities to vote.

This kind of thing was in work before Trump even became a candidate.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This kind of thing was in work before Trump even became a candidate.Completely agree it was.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

If the MAGA King Donald Trump thinks that things are bad for him now,things are going to get alot worse for him. When the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicts him for meddling in the Georgia Elections,when he asked Georgia Secretary Of State Brad Raffsensperger to find him 11,780 votes,because claims he won the state,which he didn't. And also Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has 2 ongoing investigations into him,one for the January 6th insurrection and for taking classified documents to Mar-a-largo. And if the MAGA Party wants to continue to defend their leader?,they're going to end up paying the price in next year's election.

[Stavros]

The Judge may not have imposed a formal 'gag order' on Trump, and nobody is surprised that back in Florida Trump insulted and abused the Judge and the DA, after all, he has been insulting and abusing Americans since 2015 -but isn't this contempt of court?

And if the politics is going to be the issue, then stop electing DA's and AG's who run as Republicans, Democrats, Independents or for some other party, because it is inevitable when someone feels aggrieved they have been charged, that they will accuse their accusers of political bias.

The case may not look convincing to some, but the devil is either in the detail, or can be exorcised by clever lawyers. But why wait until December for this proceeding to begin? I don't understand the delay.

[rodinuk]

...But why wait until December for this proceeding to begin? I don't understand the delay.

45 days minimum as the process allows his lawyers to attempt to get it chucked out.

However it's not unusual in prosecutions in this country to have to wait such a period whilst legal teams do their background casework and for court dates to become available.

[Stavros]

45 days minimum as the process allows his lawyers to attempt to get it chucked out.

However it's not unusual in prosecutions in this country to have to wait such a period whilst legal teams do their background casework and for court dates to become available.

Thanks, was not aware of the 45 day process. And Trump is famous for using as many methods as can be to delay proceedings.

But here, in the UK, isn't it the backlog of cases that causes delays of more than a year, or even two years in some instances? I guess a lot must depend on the complexity of the case so I am not sure if the trial would happen sooner here.

[natina]

Trump Jr. shares article with photo of judge’s daughter — who allegedly worked on Biden campaign

https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/donald-trump-jr-shares-photo-of-judges-daughter-online/


Trump targets NY judge’s wife and daughter, hours after warning not to threaten safety

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2023/04/trump-targets-ny-judges-wife-and-daughter-hours-after-warning-not-to-threaten-safety.html


The Judge may not have imposed a formal 'gag order' on Trump, and nobody is surprised that back in Florida Trump insulted and abused the Judge and the DA, after all, he has been insulting and abusing Americans since 2015 -but isn't this contempt of court?

And if the politics is going to be the issue, then stop electing DA's and AG's who run as Republicans, Democrats, Independents or for some other party, because it is inevitable when someone feels aggrieved they have been charged, that they will accuse their accusers of political bias.

The case may not look convincing to some, but the devil is either in the detail, or can be exorcised by clever lawyers. But why wait until December for this proceeding to begin? I don't understand the delay.

[Ben]

A Few Other Modern US Presidents Who Deserve Indictment:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-indictment-other-us-presidents

[filghy2]

There's also parallels with another leader who has been charged with a crime in another very divided country.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/06/trump-netanyahu-playbook-00090445

[Stavros]

There's also parallels with another leader who has been charged with a crime in another very divided country.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/06/trump-netanyahu-playbook-00090445

The comparison works with the personalities of the two men, both of whom believe they own the system, and both of whom use existential threats to justify their anti-democratic agendas.

The obvious differences, are that Israel has a multi-party system which elects members of the Knesset through PR and which gives parties with tiny vote percentages seats in the Parliament, but also through the deals that follow hung elections, the opportunity to enter Govt. Compare that form of PR with Germany where a party must obtain at least 5% of the vote before being allowed Parliamentary representation. Israel's PR gives power to the most outrageous extremists, and if they succeed in corrupting the Govt, then Israel is doomed as a country that democratically elects its Govt.

But the other obvious difference is that the US does not occupy parts of either Canada or Mexico, and deny 4 million people a right to participate in the elections. It cannot, because legally neither the West Bank nor the Gaza District are part of Israel, yet Knesset parties from the West Bank are allowed, where 4 Million Arabs are not. Israel might be a representative democracy in the Israel of 1948, for the rest it is a military dictatorship -of the kind one assumes Trump wishes he had in the US, where he has called for the de-funding of the FBI, and will probably call for the de-funding and abolition of any indeed all US Institutions that do not worship him.

But I agree that Democracy is under threat in both countries, though it remains to be seen if the people want to swap it for a Monarchy in which one person has all the power.