The grand jury voted to indict TFG this evening

[Beebs52]

You're missing my point. There's no reason for me to do that because their reasons are none of my business and none of your business. The only thing that matters is that the woman chooses not to spend nine months of her life pregnant and it's her body that's going through the pregnancy. Feel free to make a different choice with your own body. --Bob

I understand you have no moral compass about this. But, hey, you're a different guy.

That's awfully damned arrogant of you, assuming that because my sense of morality differs from yours that it means I have no sense of morality about the issue.

But that's what I've come to expect of the Republican Party in general, and in particular of the religious right. The group hasn't changed from the days when my neighbor across the street told me (as a kid) that I was going to go to hell when I died because, as a Jew, I don't believe in Jesus. Tell me, do you figure he learned that doctrine from Sunday school, church, his parents, or all three?

The difference is, nowadays your group is trying to make the entire country live according to your own cramped sense of morality. Fortunately, the American people are rejecting that attempt at every opportunity, probably because they are rejecting the arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

You. Are. Deluded. You have no idea what I do or don't support. My group? You are fucking nuts and still pissed off about childhood victimization. Hmmm. Explains a lot.
And, morality is somewhat concrete, separate from religiousity. Some things ARE right and some things ARE wrong.
Grow up.

[Bob78164]

I understand you have no moral compass about this. But, hey, you're a different guy.

That's awfully damned arrogant of you, assuming that because my sense of morality differs from yours that it means I have no sense of morality about the issue.

But that's what I've come to expect of the Republican Party in general, and in particular of the religious right. The group hasn't changed from the days when my neighbor across the street told me (as a kid) that I was going to go to hell when I died because, as a Jew, I don't believe in Jesus. Tell me, do you figure he learned that doctrine from Sunday school, church, his parents, or all three?

The difference is, nowadays your group is trying to make the entire country live according to your own cramped sense of morality. Fortunately, the American people are rejecting that attempt at every opportunity, probably because they are rejecting the arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

You. Are. Deluded. You have no idea what I do or don't support. My group? You are fucking nuts and still pissed off about childhood victimization. Hmmm. Explains a lot.
And, morality is somewhat concrete, separate from religiousity. Some things ARE right and some things ARE wrong.
Grow up.

I didn't say anything about victimization. That was just an early experience with the extreme and uncompromising arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

[Beebs52]

That's awfully damned arrogant of you, assuming that because my sense of morality differs from yours that it means I have no sense of morality about the issue.

But that's what I've come to expect of the Republican Party in general, and in particular of the religious right. The group hasn't changed from the days when my neighbor across the street told me (as a kid) that I was going to go to hell when I died because, as a Jew, I don't believe in Jesus. Tell me, do you figure he learned that doctrine from Sunday school, church, his parents, or all three?

The difference is, nowadays your group is trying to make the entire country live according to your own cramped sense of morality. Fortunately, the American people are rejecting that attempt at every opportunity, probably because they are rejecting the arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

You. Are. Deluded. You have no idea what I do or don't support. My group? You are fucking nuts and still pissed off about childhood victimization. Hmmm. Explains a lot.
And, morality is somewhat concrete, separate from religiousity. Some things ARE right and some things ARE wrong.
Grow up.

I didn't say anything about victimization. That was just an early experience with the extreme and uncompromising arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

Oh, sigh. And your definition of the uncompromising arrogance of the religious right is what? Someone who happens to be Christian? Or non atheist? Or Hasidic Jew?

[Bob78164]

You. Are. Deluded. You have no idea what I do or don't support. My group? You are fucking nuts and still pissed off about childhood victimization. Hmmm. Explains a lot.
And, morality is somewhat concrete, separate from religiousity. Some things ARE right and some things ARE wrong.
Grow up.

I didn't say anything about victimization. That was just an early experience with the extreme and uncompromising arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

Oh, sigh. And your definition of the uncompromising arrogance of the religious right is what? Someone who happens to be Christian? Or non atheist? Or Hasidic Jew?

For present purposes, I'm referring to the efforts, well illustrated here, to use the power of government to force the rest of us to live by the right's specific views as to morality. Views that, in the case of reproductive rights, appear to have their origin in specifically Christian theology -- the traditional Jewish position is that a fetus does not have rights and is not recognized as a person until after it has been born. Views that, in the case of hostility to the transgender population, appear to have their roots in simple prejudice. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I didn't say anything about victimization. That was just an early experience with the extreme and uncompromising arrogance of the religious right. --Bob

Oh, sigh. And your definition of the uncompromising arrogance of the religious right is what? Someone who happens to be Christian? Or non atheist? Or Hasidic Jew?

For present purposes, I'm referring to the efforts, well illustrated here, to use the power of government to force the rest of us to live by the right's specific views as to morality. Views that, in the case of reproductive rights, appear to have their origin in specifically Christian theology -- the traditional Jewish position is that a fetus does not have rights and is not recognized as a person until after it has been born. Views that, in the case of hostility to the transgender population, appear to have their roots in simple prejudice. --Bob

But you're atheist, not Jewish in religion.

[kroxquo]

Getting back to the indictment, I have a legal question.

From what I am hearing from legal experts, Alvin Bragg's case for felony charges is rather shaky. As I understand it, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor unless it involves the cover up of another crime. Bragg's argument for the felony charges is that the Daniels payments which were labeled as "legal retainers" were used to cover up violation of federal election law crimes. Unless I misunderstood what they were saying (entirely possible), NPR reported that is a largely untested legal theory of crossing jurisdictional lines. Is Bragg overstepping? Bob? Any other lawyers out there?

Bragg damn well better know what he's doing, because if the 45th is acquitted, he will claim total vindication and the path to becoming 47th becomes a hell of a lot easier.

[jarnon]

Getting back to the indictment, I have a legal question.

From what I am hearing from legal experts, Alvin Bragg's case for felony charges is rather shaky. As I understand it, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor unless it involves the cover up of another crime. Bragg's argument for the felony charges is that the Daniels payments which were labeled as "legal retainers" were used to cover up violation of federal election law crimes. Unless I misunderstood what they were saying (entirely possible), NPR reported that is a largely untested legal theory of crossing jurisdictional lines. Is Bragg overstepping? Bob? Any other lawyers out there?

Bragg damn well better know what he's doing, because if the 45th is acquitted, he will claim total vindication and the path to becoming 47th becomes a hell of a lot easier.

Perhaps Bragg is charging Trump with the worst conceivable offense, even though it's on shaky grounds, in order to pressure him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

I was wondering why Trump is being indicted now, but the trial will be months later. Apparently there are complicated statute of limitations issues involved. In the meantime, he could be indicted for more serious and clearer crimes elsewhere.

[Bob78164]

Getting back to the indictment, I have a legal question.

From what I am hearing from legal experts, Alvin Bragg's case for felony charges is rather shaky. As I understand it, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor unless it involves the cover up of another crime. Bragg's argument for the felony charges is that the Daniels payments which were labeled as "legal retainers" were used to cover up violation of federal election law crimes. Unless I misunderstood what they were saying (entirely possible), NPR reported that is a largely untested legal theory of crossing jurisdictional lines. Is Bragg overstepping? Bob? Any other lawyers out there?

Bragg damn well better know what he's doing, because if the 45th is acquitted, he will claim total vindication and the path to becoming 47th becomes a hell of a lot easier.

I know neither New York law nor criminal law, so I'm not in a position to weigh in on this issue, other than to note that the indictment's supporting Statement of Facts also adverts to mischaracterizing the payments for tax purposes, which would appear to be on legally solid ground no matter how the other issues shake out. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I was wondering why Trump is being indicted now, but the trial will be months later.

Unlike TV shows, in which you see the crime and a trial within one hour, actual trials usually take place months if not years after an arrest or indictment. It's going to take a month or more for the prosecution to turn over to the defense all the evidence to which they are entitled. The judge set an August 8 date for Trump to file all motions in this case. These motions will undoubtedly include motions to dismiss along the lines of what some have argued about the underlying felonies in the case, and could include statute of limitations arguments. The question in that case is to what extent the statute of limitations was tolled (delayed) by Trump being president and/or being out of state for extended periods of time. The defense could also move for a change of venue, which would not automatically be Staten Island as Trump has requested if granted. They could also include a motion to knock the charges down to misdemeanors. The prosecution will have until September 19 to respond. The next hearing date is set for December 4. At that time, the judge will probably rule on the motions and set a trial date. The prosecution wants a January trial date, while Trump wants one later, in the spring. If the judge does set a spring date, look for Trump to ask for further delays because of his presidential campaign.

[Bob Juch]

[Weyoun]

It sounds like a flimsy case.

Unfortunately, it will make Trump stronger, not weaker, while making our justice system look biased against him. That’s important because they are other cases still pending.

Since we’re talking abortion, I would bet a rib that Trump has paid for an abortion at some point in his life. I wonder what his defenders would think about that?

Oh, wait, we already know. They will justify anything he does because of that one end. The funny thing is, Bush the Third could’ve banned abortion, and they would not fall in the road in front of a car for him, ever.

It’s always been something more than that. it’s about rooting for the bad guy. The bad guy paying for an abortion would actually make them happy. their support as always been psychological, not rational.

Which he gets back to my initial point. Prosecuting this dude just makes him all the more of a bad guy which makes all these wacko losers root for him all the harder.

[silverscreenselect]

Prosecuting this dude just makes him all the more of a bad guy which makes all these wacko losers root for him all the harder.

What worries me about any prosecution of Trump, no matter how strong the case, is that it only takes one MAGA juror to hang the jury. I know the prosecution will be looking for signs of bias, and the judges in any case involving Trump aren't stupid, but there are dozens of people in the jury pool whose greatest accomplishment in life in their view would be lying their way onto a jury and getting Trump off the hook.