X Close

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign just got started

Donald Trump is back on the campaign trail. Credit: Getty

March 31, 2023 - 10:11am

Donald Trump is nothing if not a trailblazer. The recent Manhattan indictment obtained by New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg, relating to hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, marks the first time a former US president has faced criminal charges. However, much like the interminable Russiagate investigation and Trump’s record-setting two impeachment trials, this latest turn of events is significant.

DA Bragg is now completing the work that began a half-decade ago under his predecessor Cy Vance when he charged Trump with more than 30 counts related to business fraud. Although most acknowledge that there was a violation that occurred in relation to attorney Michael Cohen’s payment to Daniels and the Trump Organization’s reimbursement of him, the indictment itself is a mess. The statute of limitations for offences related to the payment to Daniels expired in 2021, the legal theory of jurisdictional authority is untested, and the charges themselves may be difficult to elevate from misdemeanours to felonies. Given Bragg’s stated disdain for “overcharging” defendants, it’s fascinating that the meat of his case against Trump rests on precisely that.

Nevertheless, all is fair in politics and war, and Democrats will surely welcome the fact that one of several investigations into Trump or his business operations has borne fruit. At the time of this writing, New York Attorney General Letitia James continues to investigate the Trump Organization, Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis is looking into allegations of election fraud, special counsel Jack Smith is trying to make a case against Trump for 18 months of obstructing efforts to retrieve government documents from his mansion in Florida. If that wasn’t enough, the Jan. 6 committee that was investigating Trump’s role in the Capitol riot is itself now being investigated by House Republicans. 

Trump, as he never tires of pointing out via lines like “I’m a PhD at litigation”, has been under investigation or involved in litigation for decades. This is the normal state of operations for the “very stable genius” who, throughout his life, has relied on “mental stability” and “being, like, really smart” to spin seemingly negative wall-to-wall coverage into free-media gold.

The New York trial, which could drag on for months and perhaps even years, might not do Trump any favours with Democrats and independent voters, but it could prove a boon during the primaries. With Bragg threatening him with trumped-up charges, most mainstream Republicans will once again have to circle the wagons in support of the former president. 

Even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who lags behind Trump in every significant primary poll despite growing institutional support and ongoing signs of irritation about Trump, found himself tweeting his distaste for the prosecutorial overreach of the “the Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney” who “has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct”. While DeSantis might have a point with regard to the seeming hypocrisy of Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, backing the former president here doesn’t do much to differentiate his own political brand from that of his more controversial and popular opponent. 

Trump, meanwhile, can ride the tiger all the way back to the Republican nomination. He’ll get a chance to bask in weeks — perhaps even months — of uninterrupted spotlight, fulminating about Bragg (a “racist,” an “animal,” a “radical Left prosecutor”). It won’t be an easy ride, but it’s worth remembering that the underlying incident here was Trump’s attempt to silence Stormy Daniels, just one of many gaffes, crises, and contretemps that he survived en route to defeating Hillary Clinton. 

For anyone with an interest in Trump’s future — a vast group that includes Joe Biden, congressional Democrats, DeSantis, congressional Republicans and the news networks — it would be wise to remember that this isn’t even the beginning of the end for Trump’s political aspirations. When the smoke finally clears, it might not even be the end of the beginning.


Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work

MoustacheClubUS

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Guy Haynes
Guy Haynes
1 year ago

I have no doubt that this will drive many Republican primary voters back to Trump. Should he become the nominee it may drive some independent voters towards Trump. This might even be part of some elaborate plan by the Democrats to ensure that Trump gets on the ticket, because they perceive him as easier to beat.

Whatever. All of the above pales into insignificance in comparison to the bigger issue at stake here – which is that, for the first time in history, a judge affiliated to the governing party, quite probably at the behest of the governing party (otherwise why has no democrat voiced their concern?), has indicted a political opponent. This alone is hugely significant. Add to this that the indictment is on the most flimsy of pretexts, a state indictment on what might, at worst be federal misdemeanour, for which the statute of limitations has expired anyway. When there are numerous parallel examples with politicians that have never been treated in the same way.

This genie cannot be put back into the bottle, and America as a country is an immeasurably poorer place as a result. Who knows where this will lead but it’s difficult to imagine it’s anywhere good.

And yes, I know there are a lot of people who think that Trump is the worst kind of d…head imaginable, who suspect him as being dodgy as a 9 bob note, maybe who feel he is a danger. I’m sorry, that doesn’t come close to justifying what has happened.

This was a test of the impartiality of the US justice system, and I’m sorry to say that test has been failed miserably.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

Persecution? Maybe. But as always, the people who backed Kennet Starr and the Clinton impeachment trial are not in a position to complain.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Starr was initially hired to investigate the suicide of Vince Foster.
I wonder if Trump will commit suicide if he is put in prison, like Jeffrey Epstein did.

D Walsh
D Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Jeffrey is on a beach in Israel laughing at you

Last edited 1 year ago by D Walsh
D Walsh
D Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Jeffrey is on a beach in Israel laughing at you

Last edited 1 year ago by D Walsh
Guy Haynes
Guy Haynes
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

This is a whole new level Rasmus, surely you see that? Yes it is now common practice to impeach presidents, often on the flimsiest of contexts (witness the two sham attempts to impeach Trump, one of which actually demonstrated Biden’s corruption more than Trump’s) – and yes, the Republican’s appalling conduct that you illustrate has a lot to do with this.

But taking it to a whole new level and attempting to jail your political opponents – not least for something that might well not even be a crime – is surely not the way to resolve this. Unless you see this differently?

Also noteworthy that many of the republicans who were actively pursuing Clinton will likely be more than happy to see this happen to Trump.

Trump is not your old fashioned GOPer, as you well know.

Paul M
Paul M
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

Save your keystrokes, Rasmus likes to pretend the vaccines were and continue to be safe and effective for all, and refuses to accept that Trump has been a lifelong Democrat before deciding to make some money running for office.

Paul M
Paul M
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

Save your keystrokes, Rasmus likes to pretend the vaccines were and continue to be safe and effective for all, and refuses to accept that Trump has been a lifelong Democrat before deciding to make some money running for office.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

This is correct. Pres. Clinton committed no crime. He gave in to a temptation many of us would have given into just as readily. We were in no position to throw stones. And yet we threw them. I disagree only with the suggestion that we’re in no position to complain. We should never stop complaining about it; the stone throwing I mean.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Starr was initially hired to investigate the suicide of Vince Foster.
I wonder if Trump will commit suicide if he is put in prison, like Jeffrey Epstein did.

Guy Haynes
Guy Haynes
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

This is a whole new level Rasmus, surely you see that? Yes it is now common practice to impeach presidents, often on the flimsiest of contexts (witness the two sham attempts to impeach Trump, one of which actually demonstrated Biden’s corruption more than Trump’s) – and yes, the Republican’s appalling conduct that you illustrate has a lot to do with this.

But taking it to a whole new level and attempting to jail your political opponents – not least for something that might well not even be a crime – is surely not the way to resolve this. Unless you see this differently?

Also noteworthy that many of the republicans who were actively pursuing Clinton will likely be more than happy to see this happen to Trump.

Trump is not your old fashioned GOPer, as you well know.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

This is correct. Pres. Clinton committed no crime. He gave in to a temptation many of us would have given into just as readily. We were in no position to throw stones. And yet we threw them. I disagree only with the suggestion that we’re in no position to complain. We should never stop complaining about it; the stone throwing I mean.

Andy O'Gorman
Andy O'Gorman
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

That this emboldens Trump is disheartening. I was hoping he would take a backseat in 2024 and help select someone who will beat Biden or whoever is the Democrats nomination. As you say this is possible done on purpose to have become a loser in ’24.
Had lunch yesterday (in sunny Southbroom, Southern Natal) with two expat South Africans who have lived their entire working life as Canadians. Our conversation turned to Trump and as usual, he was demonised (rightly or wrongly, as one is presumed innocent until convicted). Btw, I am not a fan of his.
They love Biden, don’t believe that the laptop is real and are completely brainwashed by the MSM, which she said it is all she watched. How do you convince supposedly worldly people they are so off the mark that it is hard to believe that they have one functioning brain cell. They went back today. Thank goodness. Next time they come, I will be away.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

Persecution? Maybe. But as always, the people who backed Kennet Starr and the Clinton impeachment trial are not in a position to complain.

Andy O'Gorman
Andy O'Gorman
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Haynes

That this emboldens Trump is disheartening. I was hoping he would take a backseat in 2024 and help select someone who will beat Biden or whoever is the Democrats nomination. As you say this is possible done on purpose to have become a loser in ’24.
Had lunch yesterday (in sunny Southbroom, Southern Natal) with two expat South Africans who have lived their entire working life as Canadians. Our conversation turned to Trump and as usual, he was demonised (rightly or wrongly, as one is presumed innocent until convicted). Btw, I am not a fan of his.
They love Biden, don’t believe that the laptop is real and are completely brainwashed by the MSM, which she said it is all she watched. How do you convince supposedly worldly people they are so off the mark that it is hard to believe that they have one functioning brain cell. They went back today. Thank goodness. Next time they come, I will be away.

Guy Haynes
Guy Haynes
1 year ago

I have no doubt that this will drive many Republican primary voters back to Trump. Should he become the nominee it may drive some independent voters towards Trump. This might even be part of some elaborate plan by the Democrats to ensure that Trump gets on the ticket, because they perceive him as easier to beat.

Whatever. All of the above pales into insignificance in comparison to the bigger issue at stake here – which is that, for the first time in history, a judge affiliated to the governing party, quite probably at the behest of the governing party (otherwise why has no democrat voiced their concern?), has indicted a political opponent. This alone is hugely significant. Add to this that the indictment is on the most flimsy of pretexts, a state indictment on what might, at worst be federal misdemeanour, for which the statute of limitations has expired anyway. When there are numerous parallel examples with politicians that have never been treated in the same way.

This genie cannot be put back into the bottle, and America as a country is an immeasurably poorer place as a result. Who knows where this will lead but it’s difficult to imagine it’s anywhere good.

And yes, I know there are a lot of people who think that Trump is the worst kind of d…head imaginable, who suspect him as being dodgy as a 9 bob note, maybe who feel he is a danger. I’m sorry, that doesn’t come close to justifying what has happened.

This was a test of the impartiality of the US justice system, and I’m sorry to say that test has been failed miserably.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

If there is one thing New York DAs are about, it is about cracking down on crime and arresting people.
Trump paid Stormy 130,000 dollars.
Clinton handed over 850,000 to Paula Jones so that papers would always have to refer to incidents as ‘alleged’, rather than ‘proven’
Trump’s only real crime was not to pay 10% to the Big Guy.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

If there is one thing New York DAs are about, it is about cracking down on crime and arresting people.
Trump paid Stormy 130,000 dollars.
Clinton handed over 850,000 to Paula Jones so that papers would always have to refer to incidents as ‘alleged’, rather than ‘proven’
Trump’s only real crime was not to pay 10% to the Big Guy.

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
1 year ago

Hillary Clinton faked Russiagate, and Hunter Biden’s laptop has turned out to have been real, so when are they going to be indicted, and when is any client of Jeffrey Epstein’s going to be? The judge who authorised the initial raid on Donald Trump, Bruce Reinhart, was a federal prosecutor until 1st January 2008. One day later, he became a defence attorney representing Epstein’s employees.

I am not saying that Trump is innocent. He does not even deny paying off the prostitute who calls herself Stormy Daniels. It is just that, like you, I can think of plenty of other people who are no less guilty. Likewise, we have recently seen the guilty of Iraq reverently asked for their reflections two decades on. None of them has ever suffered professionally. Quite the reverse, in fact. 90 per cent of the British population saw through the Iraq War from the start, but none of the 60 million of us has ever been deemed capable of assuming any of those wholly discredited individuals’ positions in public life.

Instead, that British Deep State defenestrated Jeremy Corbyn. It is subjecting Boris Johnson to a kangaroo court. It incited violence against Nigel Farage, and the attempted murder of George Galloway. It tried to imprison Alex Salmond for the rest of his life. And it persecutes the world-historical figure of Julian Assange. Each of those will always be much bigger than any of his enemies, but the point still stands.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

Precisely. If 10% of the scrutiny was paid to Hillary and Hunter’s dealings, indictments would flow like a river after the monsoon. The blatant hypocrisy is simply nauseating. And that’s what American’s see with 20/20 vision.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

Paying hush money to a prostitute isn’t what will be on the charge-sheet. That isn’t a crime.
It looks like it’ll be that he then used that payment as a tax deductible and also other bits of business fraud. The guy who administered the payment went to jail for it, so there is going to be something here if evidence his Boss gave all the instructions. But what exactly is on the charge sheet is going to be v interesting. Al Capone eventually went down for tax fraud not other misdemeanours didn’t he?
The other points you make are political mistakes with big consequences but aren’t actually crimes. There should be accountability for political decisions but there is a difference between that and a crime and there has to be.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

Precisely. If 10% of the scrutiny was paid to Hillary and Hunter’s dealings, indictments would flow like a river after the monsoon. The blatant hypocrisy is simply nauseating. And that’s what American’s see with 20/20 vision.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

Paying hush money to a prostitute isn’t what will be on the charge-sheet. That isn’t a crime.
It looks like it’ll be that he then used that payment as a tax deductible and also other bits of business fraud. The guy who administered the payment went to jail for it, so there is going to be something here if evidence his Boss gave all the instructions. But what exactly is on the charge sheet is going to be v interesting. Al Capone eventually went down for tax fraud not other misdemeanours didn’t he?
The other points you make are political mistakes with big consequences but aren’t actually crimes. There should be accountability for political decisions but there is a difference between that and a crime and there has to be.

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
1 year ago

Hillary Clinton faked Russiagate, and Hunter Biden’s laptop has turned out to have been real, so when are they going to be indicted, and when is any client of Jeffrey Epstein’s going to be? The judge who authorised the initial raid on Donald Trump, Bruce Reinhart, was a federal prosecutor until 1st January 2008. One day later, he became a defence attorney representing Epstein’s employees.

I am not saying that Trump is innocent. He does not even deny paying off the prostitute who calls herself Stormy Daniels. It is just that, like you, I can think of plenty of other people who are no less guilty. Likewise, we have recently seen the guilty of Iraq reverently asked for their reflections two decades on. None of them has ever suffered professionally. Quite the reverse, in fact. 90 per cent of the British population saw through the Iraq War from the start, but none of the 60 million of us has ever been deemed capable of assuming any of those wholly discredited individuals’ positions in public life.

Instead, that British Deep State defenestrated Jeremy Corbyn. It is subjecting Boris Johnson to a kangaroo court. It incited violence against Nigel Farage, and the attempted murder of George Galloway. It tried to imprison Alex Salmond for the rest of his life. And it persecutes the world-historical figure of Julian Assange. Each of those will always be much bigger than any of his enemies, but the point still stands.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago

The Democrats are playing a dangerous game here. Firstly, in terms of the precedent being set. If I were any Clinton I’d be concerned should the Republicans sweep the board in ’24. Secondly, assuming this is part of some great plan to ensure Trump gains the nomination as he is easier to beat… well, yes, he was beaten in 2020 while Joe hid in his basement. This time around Biden is unpopular and generally seen as incompetent as his cognitive impairments become harder and harder to hide. Joes’s own side aren’t keen on him running again and now people are more familiar with Harris, guess what? They don’t like her either. I don’t think, despite everything that Trump has done, said or threatened to do, it is off the table that Trump is able to do a Grover Cleveland here.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

I agree with the possibility of Trump as once and future president, if only because many Americans are ruefully considering their position, in regards to both economic and international security, with the status quo ante 1/2020. Where is the life that late we led? Definitely not going to get it back with Biden & Co. Watching the Russian, Chinese and Iranian rats dancing, we must admit the cat is not at home. Some consider bringing back that battle-scarred ginger tom.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

I agree with the possibility of Trump as once and future president, if only because many Americans are ruefully considering their position, in regards to both economic and international security, with the status quo ante 1/2020. Where is the life that late we led? Definitely not going to get it back with Biden & Co. Watching the Russian, Chinese and Iranian rats dancing, we must admit the cat is not at home. Some consider bringing back that battle-scarred ginger tom.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago

The Democrats are playing a dangerous game here. Firstly, in terms of the precedent being set. If I were any Clinton I’d be concerned should the Republicans sweep the board in ’24. Secondly, assuming this is part of some great plan to ensure Trump gains the nomination as he is easier to beat… well, yes, he was beaten in 2020 while Joe hid in his basement. This time around Biden is unpopular and generally seen as incompetent as his cognitive impairments become harder and harder to hide. Joes’s own side aren’t keen on him running again and now people are more familiar with Harris, guess what? They don’t like her either. I don’t think, despite everything that Trump has done, said or threatened to do, it is off the table that Trump is able to do a Grover Cleveland here.

Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
1 year ago

I assume the Democrats’ strategy here is to outrage the Republican base and so boost Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination, thinking they have a better chance against him in the actual election than against any other contender. It may even work, but it is clearly a high-risk strategy. I recall the attempt by the diehard Remainers in the UK House of Commons between 2017 and 2019 to to block May’s compromise deal in the hope of stopping Brexit altogether, by voting with Brexiteer ultras. The result was that the Remainers got what was from their perspective the worst possible outcome (though the ultras, pursuing their own high-risk strategy, got wwftp a good one).

Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
1 year ago

I assume the Democrats’ strategy here is to outrage the Republican base and so boost Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination, thinking they have a better chance against him in the actual election than against any other contender. It may even work, but it is clearly a high-risk strategy. I recall the attempt by the diehard Remainers in the UK House of Commons between 2017 and 2019 to to block May’s compromise deal in the hope of stopping Brexit altogether, by voting with Brexiteer ultras. The result was that the Remainers got what was from their perspective the worst possible outcome (though the ultras, pursuing their own high-risk strategy, got wwftp a good one).

joe hardy
joe hardy
1 year ago

I am not a Trump supporter but I have witnessed nothing but an asymmetrical system of justice applied since the feckless Biden administration took over. If a nation does not have the rule of law, there will no longer be a republic.

joe hardy
joe hardy
1 year ago

I am not a Trump supporter but I have witnessed nothing but an asymmetrical system of justice applied since the feckless Biden administration took over. If a nation does not have the rule of law, there will no longer be a republic.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

I genuinely don’t get this tide of disgust that Trump is indicted. It seems that he paid off someone for a personal problem but claimed that payment as a business expense. So he STOLE c.$20,000 (or whatever the tax on that was) from the US taxpayer. If that’s a crime in the US why should he not be prosecuted for it? You can be put in prison in the US for way, way less than that, so why let him off. And don’t give me any whataboutery re other politicians – if they have done the crime they should do the time!

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The case is beyond its statute of limitations. It is a misdemeanor rather than a criminal offence, in NY state. As an issue of campaign finance it falls under Federal law and outwith Bragg’s jurisdiction. Bragg himself is famous (see the recent Hochul vs Zeldin campaign) for his lack of prosecution of crime as part of his ideological beliefs.

The outrage comes from two groups, Trumpists who are outraged for obvious reasons and those (mainly independents and other Republicans) who see this a highly politically motivated, sham prosecution. It has no precedent in American political history and has opened a bit of a Pandora’s box.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

Here is good article from Andy McCarthy at NRO explaining in more detail
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/bragg-crosses-the-rubicon-indicting-trump-on-stormy-daniels-nonsense/

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

What I don’t understand is why you want to defend someone (who has obviously committed some sort of crime here, whatever the legal situation) who has lied, cheated, defrauded and stolen throughout his life, a man with no obvious redeeming qualities. Why?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Even criminals need defending and a right to a fair trial. While Trump may be all that you describe it is pretty obvious that this prosecution has targeted him for political, rather than legal, reasons. The underlying message here implies that Trump is not being indicted for his misdeeds but for his political leanings. Basically, this could potentially create a precedent that anyone who opposes Democrat rule will be under investigation. It would be like if you opposed me politically and I tried to dig up your tax and criminal records in order to discredit you. That in itself would be kind of underhanded particularly if you were an all-round decent bloke, but what would make it worse is if the law also ‘took’ my side politically rather than remain impartial.
Once the law system becomes weaponized in this way it becomes undemocratic and people begin to lose faith in it

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Even criminals need defending and a right to a fair trial. While Trump may be all that you describe it is pretty obvious that this prosecution has targeted him for political, rather than legal, reasons. The underlying message here implies that Trump is not being indicted for his misdeeds but for his political leanings. Basically, this could potentially create a precedent that anyone who opposes Democrat rule will be under investigation. It would be like if you opposed me politically and I tried to dig up your tax and criminal records in order to discredit you. That in itself would be kind of underhanded particularly if you were an all-round decent bloke, but what would make it worse is if the law also ‘took’ my side politically rather than remain impartial.
Once the law system becomes weaponized in this way it becomes undemocratic and people begin to lose faith in it

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

Here is good article from Andy McCarthy at NRO explaining in more detail
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/bragg-crosses-the-rubicon-indicting-trump-on-stormy-daniels-nonsense/

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

What I don’t understand is why you want to defend someone (who has obviously committed some sort of crime here, whatever the legal situation) who has lied, cheated, defrauded and stolen throughout his life, a man with no obvious redeeming qualities. Why?

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The case is beyond its statute of limitations. It is a misdemeanor rather than a criminal offence, in NY state. As an issue of campaign finance it falls under Federal law and outwith Bragg’s jurisdiction. Bragg himself is famous (see the recent Hochul vs Zeldin campaign) for his lack of prosecution of crime as part of his ideological beliefs.

The outrage comes from two groups, Trumpists who are outraged for obvious reasons and those (mainly independents and other Republicans) who see this a highly politically motivated, sham prosecution. It has no precedent in American political history and has opened a bit of a Pandora’s box.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

I genuinely don’t get this tide of disgust that Trump is indicted. It seems that he paid off someone for a personal problem but claimed that payment as a business expense. So he STOLE c.$20,000 (or whatever the tax on that was) from the US taxpayer. If that’s a crime in the US why should he not be prosecuted for it? You can be put in prison in the US for way, way less than that, so why let him off. And don’t give me any whataboutery re other politicians – if they have done the crime they should do the time!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

‘Fiat justitia ruat caelum’
No surprise this story stirred up all the Trump crazies. The dog whistle has been sounded.
So let’s see what a trial Jury concludes. The Grand Jury obviously thought a case to be heard, but rare they reject a Prosecutor case – in part because Prosecutor wouldn’t put it to them unless pretty strong.
If Trump thinks he’s innocent he won’t claim a statute of limitation defence. Let’s see what the real defence is if looking for a morale high ground. He won’t go to prison for this, although others would. Any sentence will be moderated as he is ex POTUS. Now the other potential indictments might have a custodial coming depending on conclusions. Just poss something much more malign we’ve not had shared yet. But let justice work it’s process and then we can all see.
This all aside, internationally the fact an ex POTUS not above the law, whatever the political calculations, a strong message about difference between the West and the Totalitarians. And yes they should fear that eventually justice catches up with them too.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

‘If Trump thinks he’s innocent he won’t claim a statute of limitation defence.’

Good one – a signal that we can all stop reading there.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

‘If Trump thinks he’s innocent he won’t claim a statute of limitation defence.’

Good one – a signal that we can all stop reading there.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

‘Fiat justitia ruat caelum’
No surprise this story stirred up all the Trump crazies. The dog whistle has been sounded.
So let’s see what a trial Jury concludes. The Grand Jury obviously thought a case to be heard, but rare they reject a Prosecutor case – in part because Prosecutor wouldn’t put it to them unless pretty strong.
If Trump thinks he’s innocent he won’t claim a statute of limitation defence. Let’s see what the real defence is if looking for a morale high ground. He won’t go to prison for this, although others would. Any sentence will be moderated as he is ex POTUS. Now the other potential indictments might have a custodial coming depending on conclusions. Just poss something much more malign we’ve not had shared yet. But let justice work it’s process and then we can all see.
This all aside, internationally the fact an ex POTUS not above the law, whatever the political calculations, a strong message about difference between the West and the Totalitarians. And yes they should fear that eventually justice catches up with them too.

Simon Bonini
Simon Bonini
1 year ago

This is firstly a matter of law. I feel pretty certain Bragg thinks that he has a very strong legal case. I’ve seen Trump’s lawyers on Fox prattling about statutes of limitations etc. If it were that easy there’d be no ‘indication’ to quote the stable genius.
Having said all that, this case might be legally strong. His lawyer has already done time & Trump is named as a coconspirator. However, I believe many will see it as a technicality. Of course men will pay off sex workers. The step to a campaign finance crime might well be legally solid but not in many people’s eyes. In any case, $130,000 is completely immaterial on a Presidential campaign. Trying to cover up your sordid sex life is not a crime.
Slam him for Georgia, lying about top secret documents & starting a riot

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Bonini
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

‘Slam him for Georgia, lying about top secret documents & starting a riot’

How many top secret documents did Biden keep in his open garage?

Ray Epps was totally innocent of starting a riot, despite telling people to enter the Capitol and then lying to the Jan 6th. committee about his whereabouts.

Why is Epps innocent?
A) He never entered the Capitol building
B) He is not an FBI agent.

So Trump is innocent as well. After all, he is also not an FBI agent.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

It is plainly a matter of political maneuvering.

If by “slam him” you mean introduce a partisan committee and various investigations; maintain an all-out media propaganda campaign; conduct a raid using armed federal agents; and describe him using only the most hysterical, inflammatory language–well, it’s already being done.

Not that Trump actually “tried to steal the election”;”lied about top secret documents,” whatever these were supposed to be; or “started a riot.” (I will say the use of the word “riot” to describe Jan 6 presumably is a welcome improvement on “insurrection” or “attack on democracy.”)

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

And “mostly peaceful”, non-masked protests of the summer of ’21, which caused billions in damage to Federal property. Lying is now considered truth.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

And “mostly peaceful”, non-masked protests of the summer of ’21, which caused billions in damage to Federal property. Lying is now considered truth.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

Wow. How does it feel to be so utterly wrong on every assertion you just made?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

Bragg has such a strong case that the Dept of Justice decide not to prosecute it. Yes indeed. This is a nonsense case.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

No, it’s firstly a matter of bias. The prosecutor does not need “that facts” on his side, if he knows the jurors will convict the moment they hear the accused’s name.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

‘Slam him for Georgia, lying about top secret documents & starting a riot’

How many top secret documents did Biden keep in his open garage?

Ray Epps was totally innocent of starting a riot, despite telling people to enter the Capitol and then lying to the Jan 6th. committee about his whereabouts.

Why is Epps innocent?
A) He never entered the Capitol building
B) He is not an FBI agent.

So Trump is innocent as well. After all, he is also not an FBI agent.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

It is plainly a matter of political maneuvering.

If by “slam him” you mean introduce a partisan committee and various investigations; maintain an all-out media propaganda campaign; conduct a raid using armed federal agents; and describe him using only the most hysterical, inflammatory language–well, it’s already being done.

Not that Trump actually “tried to steal the election”;”lied about top secret documents,” whatever these were supposed to be; or “started a riot.” (I will say the use of the word “riot” to describe Jan 6 presumably is a welcome improvement on “insurrection” or “attack on democracy.”)

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

Wow. How does it feel to be so utterly wrong on every assertion you just made?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

Bragg has such a strong case that the Dept of Justice decide not to prosecute it. Yes indeed. This is a nonsense case.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Bonini

No, it’s firstly a matter of bias. The prosecutor does not need “that facts” on his side, if he knows the jurors will convict the moment they hear the accused’s name.

Simon Bonini
Simon Bonini
1 year ago

This is firstly a matter of law. I feel pretty certain Bragg thinks that he has a very strong legal case. I’ve seen Trump’s lawyers on Fox prattling about statutes of limitations etc. If it were that easy there’d be no ‘indication’ to quote the stable genius.
Having said all that, this case might be legally strong. His lawyer has already done time & Trump is named as a coconspirator. However, I believe many will see it as a technicality. Of course men will pay off sex workers. The step to a campaign finance crime might well be legally solid but not in many people’s eyes. In any case, $130,000 is completely immaterial on a Presidential campaign. Trying to cover up your sordid sex life is not a crime.
Slam him for Georgia, lying about top secret documents & starting a riot

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Bonini