| Mandalore76 said: 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. |
Amazing how "Trump Derangement Syndrome" comes up even about posts that aren't about Trump himself.
Most of those posts were about the response to an indictment. There was very little discussion about him actually going to jail, what charges he would receive, whether they would stick, whether those charges were legal.
It's also amazingly ironic how you're calling those posts deranged while you prove their point.
| Mandalore76 said: 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. |
As far as I'm aware, Trump has yet to actually be indicted of any specific crimes. In fact, I don't think any of the posts that you were quoting actually go into any specifics on what he would possibly be charged with.
Talking about specific statutes of limitations, specific bars of proof is meaningless to talk about, before a specific charge has been put out.
But on the topic of limitations, legally there might be some wiggle room. New York's statute of limitations has pauses if you leave the state, which Trump has done frequently.
Honestly though, I haven't been following the case. Because I don't care about Trump and I don't think he would ever get indicted or certainly arrested even if I knew that he did some illegal things. (And I'm looking forward to this comment being taken to mean something completely different.)
But I guess if not caring about Trump, is Trump Derangement Syndrome; then sure I'm Trump deranged. You go, guy, you sure got us by proving us right.
Honestly I wouldn't even have cared enough to respond to your post if it were not for your first sentence. I would have just said okay so that Trump indictment probably won't go anywhere. I can go back to spending several months not thinking about Trump again.
