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".

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.

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.

Book ban lawmaker “very sad” that a parent is using his law to ban the “sex-ridden” Bible

Don't you guys hate it when your own law gets used against you? 

Reminds me of a documentary about American satanists that I watched sometime last year. Contrary to initial assumption, they don't worship satan, but are merely anti-religious. They pulled all kinds of stunts where they used the law to make Christians look incredibly stupid. It was totally hilarious.

“Get this PORN out of our schools,” they continued. “If the books that have been banned so far are any indication for way lesser offenses, this should be a slam dunk.”

This has the making of a gift that can keep on giving, because hardly any Christians have actually read the Bible, so they wouldn't even know what kind of drivel they are defending if they are against this book ban.

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.  

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.  

Is this like the whole "Lock her up" where people who support Trump use such terms like "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to blindly not read any particular post or even understand the context of what is being discussed.

So I will just address my statement which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the GOP party in general.  It doesn't matter if it Trump, Regan or some fictional character in the future, as a party, its not in the party best interest to allow a GOP president to go to jail for whatever reason, unless that person can be made a maryter.

You do know there are 3 cases against Trump, the one you listed is probably the least of them since its about using campaign money that he did not report to pay someone to keep their mouth shut.  If anything it, would be some fine so no one is looking at that case as something that would put him in jail. Its like the whole federal documents case, it was Trump who pretty much put himself in this legal pradicament and it appears people like you are more willing to ignore his own stupidiy and gloss over it then accept that he is in the situation he is in from bad decisions. Now whether there is enough evidence to put in him jail is a totally different subject which we are not close to discussing because we don't know enough yet.

Even your whole speculation post doesn't mean jack until we actually see charges

I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, but it blows my mind that you think discussion about Trump's supporters and how they'll react to this is criticism towards Trump.

Normally I'd give a polite correction, but since you're also confidently dishing out insults to boot with pejorative terms like "Trump Derangement Syndrome", how about we add another Trump supporter reaction to the list, inpired by your post?

- They won't read.

I'm always curious about who writes these opinion pieces that are regularly pumped out of the supposed liberal media, so lets see what we can find on "Jonathan Turley". 

So, it seems like politically, he has largely been in the libertarian camp for a while, particularly in the '00's (though, he was essentially playing the role of a dissavowed liberal for years). He has spoken against many of the US' military entanglements, special treatment for the church and the death penalty, and come out in favor of the legalization of polygamy and broad interpretations of the Second Amendment. Libertarian weirdo Gary Johnson was also a big fan and said that Turley would be one of his picks for the Supreme Court. 

Seems like he gained a decent amount of traction on the right during Obama's term when he spoke against the constitutionality of Obamacare and generally criticized most of the power wielded by the administration at the time. More and more over time he got in bed with the Republican party, from representing John Boehner and the Republican party in aforementioned Obamacare fights to defending Trump against impeachment in front of Congress.

At this point, there's little separating him from your typical Fox contributor (and unsurprisingly, he does go on Fox now and again). Following the 2020 election, he commented that the election machines in Michigan switched thousands of votes from Trump to Biden, a claim that even the Fox hosts pushed back on at the time. Since then, he has mainly been relegated to opinion contributor/Twitter user (he is also a big Elon fan).

Interestingly, this path of his from fairly respected libertarian legal scholar to bland conservative talking head apparently didn't go unnoticed by those with more of an ear towards the legal world, with a Slate article titled "What happened to Jonathan Turley, really?" claiming that this lament "eventually became a kind of trope". 

That is all to say, Turley is a mess, and I wouldn't trust his "legal analysis" any more than the takes I could get from the opinion contributors on Fox News. 

Yes, of course I am aware of the other cases against Trump.  That's why I specifically stated "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" in the very first sentence of my post.  Fantastic that my post "doesn't mean jack" until the charges, but everyone here is free to bash the imagined mentality of not just Trump supporters, but Republican voters and conservatives in general.  I made very specific points about the likelihood of conviction in a very specific case.  Not sure how that gets twisted into my somehow being a Trump apologist.  Yep, attack and completely disregard the source regardless of whether the points made in the article, or the fact that cite recent historical precedent, have any merit to the discussion.  

The post that initiated the discussion was centered on the perceived impending indictment charges coming from the Manhattan DA.  The comments that followed proceeded to pre-suppose what the reactions of not just Trump supporters, but all Republican voters would be to an arrest of Trump on those charges.  Those imagined reactions included labeling not just Trump supporters, but all Republican voters as brain-washed hypocritcs who would need to do mental gymnastics to figure Trump a way out of such "airtight" charges.  I centered my response around the difficulty of getting a conviction on such charges that we have already seen play out before. 

Yep, attack and completely disregard the source regardless of whether the points made in the article, or the fact that cite recent historical precedent, have any merit to the discussion.  

I've heard that Trump might actually be arrested by early next week.
I wonder how the Trumpist "Lock her up!" "Joe Biden Crime Family" reactionaries will respond to this? What kind of hypocrisy and virtue signaling will we see?

 so look for a hell of a lot of push back no matter how tight the charges are.