| Jumpin said: I've heard that Trump might actually be arrested by early next week. |
| the-pi-guy said: I don't think it's a mystery: - proof of the deep state - Biden arrested him for no reason, DEEP STATE! |
| Runa216 said: Man, I wish. But no, we all know nothing will come of it. He's clearly terrible but there's always something keeping any action from happening. That or the repubs just can't allow it. Say what you will about conservatives, though, they are VERY good at mental gymnastics. |
| Machiavellian said: No matter how many Republican really think about Trump, having him go to jail or anything close is not an option so look for a hell of a lot of push back no matter how tight the charges are. |
| Hiku said: The "lock her up!" and "due process/accountability" people will do the same thing they did when Trump was raided by FBI after being reminded multiple times to return all classified documents and failing to do so each time. They will: |
I think the Trump Derangement Syndrome that pervades this thread requires being ignorant of the fact that this is actually the weakest case against Trump for him to be indicted on. Which may only ultimately strengthen his later defenses of being the victim of a political witch-hunt.
The DA would need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sole reason Trump allegedly paid "hush" money to Stormy Daniels was on the basis of protecting his 2016 presidential campaign. That would require throwing out all considerations of protecting his celebrity status, business image, family, etc. That is the only way possible to categorize said hush money specifically as an illegal campaign contribution. Without that, there is no case. Which is exactly what the Justice Department failed to prove against Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards in 2012, as cited in the below article. It doesn't require any "hypocrisy", "virtue signaling", "mental gymnastics", "brainwashing", or "conspiracy" theories to see these are not air-"tight charges".
"If former President Donald Trump is indicted, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would be prosecuting a case that has been widely criticized as long on politics and short on the law.
The courts would have to address a controversial case in which a city prosecutor attempts to prove a federal crime long ago declined by the U.S. Department of Justice. They also would have to deal with a charge brought seven years after the alleged offense, despite a two-year statute of limitations for the underlying misdemeanors (or a five-year period for a felony).
In John Edwards' prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also sired a child with her. Edwards denied the affair, and it was later revealed that Fred Baron, Edwards' campaign finance chairman, gave money to Hunter. Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, also obtained funds from heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon to pay to Hunter.
The Justice Department spent a king's ransom on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws, because the payments were designed to bury an election scandal. Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.
The jury clearly believed there were ample reasons to hush up the affair beyond the election itself.
Ironically, Trump also could come out ahead politically. Of all the possible charges he could face, this is the one he would likely invite. Bragg would give Trump strong evidence that Democrats have politically weaponized the criminal justice system against him."
Will Trump get arrested? Between sketchy witnesses and the law, case comes up short.
