Trump Says He Will Be Arrested On Tuesday

45,541 Views | 612 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by Im Gipper
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Soooooo. Since Trump is the only person reporting this, and even his advisors are saying they don't know where this is coming from, might it, just maybe, be a campaign fundraising attempt?
Robert L. Peters
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

It looks like this board is, in general, opposed to the Rule of Law.


I think you mean, the board is opposed to the rule of law for the other team. Lots of scary comments on these boards from both sides, which further cements my opinion that this nation is heading for authoritarianism. The only question is which is it, left or right.
What you say, Paper Champion? I'm gonna beat you like a dog, a dog, you hear me!
FJB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwp02ag said:

Liberal playbook 101. **** on rule of law at every turn and tell us we don't support rule of law.
right up there with "threat to OUR democracy "
Who is John Galt?

2026
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I sincerely hope it is…

Arresting a former POTUS is Lexington and Concord, it's Fort Sumter, it's Dealey Plaza…

We should NOT be doing things like this, on either side, unless we are prepared to live in a banana republic…

DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwp02ag said:

Liberal playbook 101. **** on rule of law at every turn and tell us we don't support rule of law.


There has never been a truer statement made on this board
agent-maroon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwp02ag said:

Liberal playbook 101. **** on rule of law at every turn and tell us we don't support rule of law.
Yep. Projection in all things dem. Violating the Rule of Law at every turn? Make up some BS and then accuse your opposition of the very same thing. It's what they do.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know a lot of retailers in major cities across this country, including NYC, would love to hear more about this rule of law thing that eric is talking about
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FireAg said:

I sincerely hope it is…

Arresting a former POTUS is Lexington and Concord, it's Fort Sumter, it's Dealey Plaza…

We should NOT be doing things like this, on either side, unless we are prepared to live in a banana republic…




A former president should not be above arrest.

Issue here is that it's a trivial charge and 100% political.

I'm Gipper
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
amercer said:

Soooooo. Since Trump is the only person reporting this, and even his advisors are saying they don't know where this is coming from, might it, just maybe, be a campaign fundraising attempt?
of course it is!!

which is why clearly Trump thinks it benefits him to be indicted

kind of hoping he isn't just so he has to eat yet another lie
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Green Dragon said:

eric76 said:

It looks like this board is, in general, opposed to the Rule of Law.


I think you mean, the board is opposed to the rule of law for the other team. Lots of scary comments on these boards from both sides, which further cements my opinion that this nation is heading for authoritarianism. The only question is which is it, left or right.
it's going to be left wing authoritarianism

see, Obama, B. and Biden, J.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Green Dragon said:

eric76 said:

It looks like this board is, in general, opposed to the Rule of Law.


I think you mean, the board is opposed to the rule of law for the other team. Lots of scary comments on these boards from both sides, which further cements my opinion that this nation is heading for authoritarianism. The only question is which is it, left or right.


It will be the left. That is not in question. You know, the side that was just forcing people to get an injection or lose their livelihood.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

FireAg said:

I sincerely hope it is…

Arresting a former POTUS is Lexington and Concord, it's Fort Sumter, it's Dealey Plaza…

We should NOT be doing things like this, on either side, unless we are prepared to live in a banana republic…




A former president should not be above arrest.

Issue here is that it's a trivial charge and 100% political.

Short of murder, rape, or true crimes of absolute treason, yes, yes they should be…

And there better be rock solid, indisputable PROOF of one of those crimes having been committed…
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of "hush money" to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws.

Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity's reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.

In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney's office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.

Prosecutors working under Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.

More importantly, Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office. The two lead prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned in protest. Pomerantz launched a very public campaign against Bragg's decision, including commenting on a still-pending investigation. He made it clear that Trump was guilty in his mind, even though his former office was still undecided and the grand jury investigation was ongoing.
Turley's take.
LINK
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So let's say a former president starts a Ponzi scheme or defrauds investors. You think he should not be arrested? Interesting, have never heard that kind of thing before.

I'm Gipper
TheTruthsLastHope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

FireAg said:

I sincerely hope it is…

Arresting a former POTUS is Lexington and Concord, it's Fort Sumter, it's Dealey Plaza…

We should NOT be doing things like this, on either side, unless we are prepared to live in a banana republic…




A former president should not be above arrest.

Issue here is that it's a trivial charge and 100% political.


This is what it comes down to. His supporters truly believe some laws simply shouldn't apply to him. That's next level delusion that causes for huge let downs.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for posting

Fits what I've been posting. Misdemeanor part is easy to show if true, trying to push h that as covering up election law crime is BS.

I'm Gipper
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

so let's discuss the POLITICS of this

1. Trump is indicted: the Always Trumpers go ballistic, some additional soft Trump supporters rally around him because it's an unjust prosecution

2. Trump is indicted: over time, even Republicans realize that nominating this guy is not going to help him with his endless court cases and personal issues. enough of a majority of Republicans determine the best bet is to take the Trump poicies (minus COVID) and support DeSantis to stop this insane soap opera

which is more likely?
So you're one of those "republicans" who think the best strategy is to appease democrats. It's ok for the dems and the unelected deep state to take full control, implement marxist and woke BS as long as everything goes smoothly right? As far as the right goes, you are the problem.

And no, I'm not an always-Trumper. I'll vote for whichever republican gets the nomination. I am 100% behind letting Americans choose who our president is though without dems coming after them "6-ways to Sunday".
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

So let's say a former president starts a Ponzi scheme or defrauds investors. You think he should not be arrested? Interesting, have never heard that kind of thing before.

Yes, let's play strawman until the cows come home…

Please list anyone who has been elected as President who has done this…

Let's get something straight so there is no ambiguity here…

I'm quite confident the Biden's, including President Joe himself, have personally profited from illegal
Dealings with foreign nations, including (but not limited to) China…

Should he go to prison? No…

Impeached? You bet…

I wouldn't even be in favor of going after Bill Clinton and his Lolita Express escapades…

No good will ever come from this nation starting a precedent where we go after a former POTUS to put him in prison…

Dan Scott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lol at grifters who profited from Trump and his followers last few years now basically telling him to STFU

TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

It looks like this board is, in general, opposed to the Rule of Law.
Wait.... after the BS dossier stuff, Russia collusion, the feds going NAZI on Trump associates, 3 BS impeachments while nothing is done to corrupt dems like Hillary, Brennan, Schiff, Comey, Lynch, and the Bidens, you STILL THINK these charges are legitimate?

I identify as Ultra-MAGA
ttu_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whistle Pig said:

Trump got more votes than Obama. I was told when this happens it means there was "fraud".

Fraud nobody can find or even assemble a coherent theory of. Trump himself doesn't even believe it, he's just raising money off it.


I remember 5 years ago or so you were the biggest "Make it in China" so called free trader on Texags. Even then I thought you were a Chinese Bot. You've done nothing to change my mind.
Joseydog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The underlying alleged crime for the falsification of records is violations of the campaign finance laws. It is incredibly weak, but the DA needs this allegation for the matter to rise to a felony.

https://www.serioustrouble.show/podcast

This is a podcast by a former federal prosecutor that discusses this case and the other ongoing Trump cases.
ShotOver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dan Scott said:

Lol at grifters who profited from Trump and his followers last few years now basically telling him to STFU




So, who on Texags is going to coordinate the protests? C'mon, someone wants to step up….!!!
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwp02ag said:

Liberal playbook 101. **** on rule of law at every turn and tell us we don't support rule of law.
That's projection, which is a more general strategy of the libs.

And btw, you can't watch the mass riots of 2020 when republicans had the power to do something about it and didn't and tell us republicans support the rule of law.
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
aggie93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggie93 said:


Check mate. They've paralyzed us with fear.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
Irish 2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can't. It's league bowling night
Irish 2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I could honestly see a judge, even a liberal one, dismiss the charges with prejudice rather quickly.
Build It
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's manhattan
Irish 2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Build It said:

It's manhattan

Given the number of prosecutors including the feds themselves that wouldn't go after this, I think it is too flimsy and Trumps lawyers can get it tossed quick
Build It
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You way over estimate the NY judicial system
I think. They don't give *****
aggie93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexAgs91 said:

aggie93 said:


Check mate. They've paralyzed us with fear.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"


It's sarcastic humor not fear.
Actual Talking Thermos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[Personal attacks are out of bounds -- Staff]

[OK but it was a good one -- Thermos]
torrid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggie93 said:


undercover_fbi_jorts.jpg
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of "hush money" to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws.

Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity's reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.

In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney's office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.

Prosecutors working under Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.

More importantly, Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office. The two lead prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned in protest. Pomerantz launched a very public campaign against Bragg's decision, including commenting on a still-pending investigation. He made it clear that Trump was guilty in his mind, even though his former office was still undecided and the grand jury investigation was ongoing.
Turley's take.
LINK
Thanks for the link. Very information from a liberal lawyer that does believe in the rule of law, civil liberties and the Constitution.
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W. C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820

And all this time I thought the destruction of evidence under subpoena was illegal.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.