Submitted by TheSausageKing t3_10q04h9 in news
Comments
RuleFancy t1_j6nc34d wrote
Wake me up when there’s consequences
[deleted] t1_j6ncazt wrote
[removed]
Karenomegas t1_j6ndhof wrote
Could have swore I saw a guy go to prison for this already. The lawyer?
LimitedSwimmer t1_j6ndo3j wrote
Seems like a bunch of these cases were waiting for Trump to not be covered by the RNC.
earhere t1_j6nfaar wrote
Wake me up when he's handcuffed
[deleted] t1_j6nfbgo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nfh8n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nis3w wrote
[removed]
NarrMaster t1_j6njgfj wrote
They can just change "Individual 1" to "Donald J. Trump" in Cohen's indictment, and bam!
billpalto t1_j6nkohs wrote
Just to be clear, Trump's lawyer went to prison for felonies that included this one. He did it at Trump's direction, and used Trump's money for the payoff. He went to prison for it.
When asked about it, Trump of course lied.
[deleted] t1_j6nlf43 wrote
[removed]
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6nmnd0 wrote
There's the rub, though (no pun intended)...they'll have to prove that he lied.
If the CFO or Pecker flipped, their testimony, in addition to Cohen's, could possibly be the evidence that the case needs.
jimtow28 t1_j6no2i0 wrote
Hey, that's unfair! We don't know for sure it's Trump.
"Individual-1" could be anyone who went on to become president in January of 2017!
[deleted] t1_j6npbxp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nphls wrote
[removed]
InsuranceToTheRescue t1_j6nq0b6 wrote
Also waiting for him to not have the protection of the DOJ & the US government. A lot of conservative legal theories basically believe that the President is immune to legal challenges, both personal and public, and that nothing the President does can be construed as illegal.
Use_this_1 t1_j6nq494 wrote
Wake me up when he's charged with something otherwise it is all performative BS.
Divio42 t1_j6nq5w1 wrote
Back to hibernation with ye!
Use_this_1 t1_j6nqa38 wrote
Unless he's a democrat then lock him up.
[deleted] t1_j6nquxt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6ntd2h wrote
[removed]
GalacticShoestring t1_j6nteql wrote
That is insane and irrational.
Darkframemaster43 t1_j6nty4r wrote
Except in this case, Biden's DOJ did try to re-open the issue and immediately concluded the case wasn't worth pursuing, probably because the last time such a case went to court, the defendant (John Edwards) won.
[deleted] t1_j6nurso wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nuybe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nvp97 wrote
[removed]
Beard_o_Bees t1_j6nxi1z wrote
Loyalty is a strictly one-way street with Velveeta Voldemort.
[deleted] t1_j6o06yq wrote
[removed]
billpalto t1_j6o1lbi wrote
It's on video. When asked about the check to the porn star, Trump claimed he knew nothing about it, and they should ask Cohen. Of course, then Cohen produced the check that had Trump;s signature on it.
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6o1ww4 wrote
As a lawyer, I suspect, would explain, that's not enough to show intent.
[deleted] t1_j6o3o57 wrote
[removed]
TheSausageKing OP t1_j6o3yje wrote
They already sent his lawyer to prison for 3 years.
DJT fought hard to not have to turn over evidence. Now that they have it, it’s important to use it if there’s a case there.
InsuranceToTheRescue t1_j6o5gfx wrote
Whether Drumpf was a Democrat or Republican, he should be locked up.
thatnameagain t1_j6o5o1e wrote
The president is Joe Biden.
There aren’t really any active theories at the DOJ that the president can’t do anything illegal, which is why there have been numerous criminal investigations into presidents like Clinton and Trump while they were in office. I think you were referring to the legal memo at DOJ that recommends against indicting a sitting president.
_AnecdotalEvidence_ t1_j6o68l4 wrote
That’s the GOP
TheManassaBaller t1_j6o7fwd wrote
I think writing a check would show intent.
[deleted] t1_j6o8gdm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6o9eki wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6oal7l wrote
[removed]
ReincarnatedInc t1_j6ob10e wrote
If he ever actually thinks he could see jail, he would instantly turn over his 'secret' files showing how everything, the collusion with Russia, the corruption and payoffs, the tax fraud, everything..was...... Melanias fault!
christhomasburns t1_j6ocnp6 wrote
They could argue that he signed blank checks.
quats5 t1_j6ocnwd wrote
…that’s the best name I’ve seen for him so far. I’d give you an award if I had one!
ItsAllegorical t1_j6odj58 wrote
There are definitely much larger crimes they should be going after him for, I agree with that.
demarr t1_j6odqfu wrote
Remember this when ever religions say he is our man. He did this while his 3rd wife who used to be a nude model was having his baby at the hospital.
[deleted] t1_j6oegjx wrote
[removed]
Art-Zuron t1_j6oeo9p wrote
For any other rube, yeah, but Trump is a demogogue with a cult following. They'd deny it if they literally watched him pay her off on film, had a hot mic, and had his personal confession.
St1834 t1_j6ogx97 wrote
It's that presidents can't be prosecuted while in office and it's not a conservative legal theory. It's a pretty cut and dry 101 thing. Federal prosecutions are conducted by the executive branch. The president is irrevocably at the head of the executive branch. While lower authorities like the Attorney General can recuse themselves because everyone is ultimately under the authority of the president, the president can't recuse themselves. There's no one to recuse to. And you can't be at the head of your own prosecution. That's a fundamental fact that applies to everyone.
The real question is, why do people think it's such a great idea for a President to be prosecuted by their own DOJ? This was always so weird to me, when people would lay out the case for Trump to go to jail. He's corrupt, he's a liar, he abuses power...so let's have the people under his authority prosecute him?
[deleted] t1_j6oiqs2 wrote
[deleted] t1_j6ojnaf wrote
[removed]
Colossus_Of_Coburns t1_j6ojzrs wrote
Then after those consequences occur, please protect me and my loved ones from the most dangerous members of society as they react, fearmonger and retaliate in public.
[deleted] t1_j6ok0tb wrote
[removed]
OGZ43 t1_j6okd41 wrote
The 'Evangelicals' will be gathering to forgive his sins even 'Harder & harder'
[deleted] t1_j6on49j wrote
[removed]
alien_from_Europa t1_j6onf80 wrote
Was it under oath or on TV? Because asking Russia for help defeating Hillary live on TV didn't work to bring charges.
GentlemanBastard2112 t1_j6opjdq wrote
I concur, and I thought I’d heard/seen them all. Kudos 👍🏻
Will definitely be using this in the future.
EvilDonald44 t1_j6oqjju wrote
I think it was Colin Mochrie who said that "Donald Trump" was an anagram of "Lord Dampnut".
Hundertwasserinsel t1_j6oqjq1 wrote
We have the entire process of impeachment for indictment of gov officials.
[deleted] t1_j6oqq92 wrote
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6or0us wrote
If you think so, make the argument. Show what the check pays for.
Alis451 t1_j6orikw wrote
The Cheddar Chump
The Swiss Swindler
The Gouda Ghoul
The Muenster Mobster
I'm not sure why i started spouting off cheese related villain names, but they seem to fit.
drewkungfu t1_j6orj63 wrote
Party of "Law & Order" comment right here...
[deleted] t1_j6os980 wrote
[deleted]
St1834 t1_j6osamy wrote
Exactly. Going back to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, you should impeach and remove the President from office before pursuing prosecution.
Ferregar t1_j6osgnm wrote
Seeing as Trump JUST tweeted that he, in fact, did have an affair with Stormy Daniels (a long time ago, well past the statute of limitations he says), I think many obstacles just got push-broomed out of the aisle.
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6ot24l wrote
The word "it" does a lot of lifting in your interpretation of his tweet. Convince a jury that "it" means what you say that it means, and not what The Count of Mostly Crisco says it'll mean.
HiImDan t1_j6ota94 wrote
Well he did say to take away the guns first and ask questions later. He also "created" the vaccine and is pushing it which isn't very republican.
Ferregar t1_j6otauu wrote
If you haven't seen the tweet itself, do recommend. As for the jury, I reckon the combination of signed check, imprisoned lawyer, recorded and written confessions will do a solid number on "reasonable doubt."
[deleted] t1_j6otl00 wrote
[removed]
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6otscz wrote
Perhaps we're referring to different tweets. Can you share a link to the one you'd cite as a confession?
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6oudk0 wrote
OK, we're on the same page. That's the one that I thought would be shared.
What is "VERY OLD & happened a long time ago"?
(asking for the jury)
[deleted] t1_j6ouo2f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6ousys wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6ov1tf wrote
[deleted] t1_j6ov8cy wrote
Ferregar t1_j6ov8ne wrote
Questions for the bench!
But my answer is Donald Trump.
[deleted] t1_j6oveex wrote
[removed]
CoalCrackerKid t1_j6ovneq wrote
Ha!
You see my point. When you want to win, you setting ambiguity like this before you bring the case.
To reiterate my prior though, if Weisselberg or Pecker came forward with evidence that they've sat on all this time, it all might be academic (and the reason why the DA finally decided to go to the grand jury).
Strange times. We'll all find out eventually.
[deleted] t1_j6ox35v wrote
[deleted]
safely_beyond_redemp t1_j6oxgu7 wrote
>“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
At some point, the media has to be able to learn. Don't expect the media to let you know when democracy fails because they have an almost supernatural ability to believe the law still applies just because it says so. In other words, how often can the media print that charges are just around the corner for Trump without charges ever being delivered before the media learns that Trump isn't going to be held accountable in this lifetime? Don't get me wrong, I want Trump in jail but the pattern couldn't be more clear. Talk about charges and then ignore the outcome until the next round of charges for different crimes gets discussed.
ford_chicago t1_j6ozedh wrote
Have an upvote for Count of Mostly Crisco.
notnickthrowaway t1_j6p1di1 wrote
>There aren’t really any active theories at the DOJ that the president can’t do anything illegal
Well, not currently, now that Barr’s gone and a Dem is president…
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/172098
https://www.thebulwark.com/william-barrs-dangerous-affection-for-the-imperial-presidency/
[deleted] t1_j6p48p0 wrote
[removed]
thatnameagain t1_j6p4j9e wrote
Barr wasn't adhering to any legal theories in the defense of Trump, he was just defending Trump from justice because he had personal interest in doing so.
jupiterkansas t1_j6p8ekf wrote
Religions will say he appointed the supreme court justices that overturned Roe v Wade, so whatever Trump does personally doesn't matter. All they care about is abortion.
spasske t1_j6p8n4f wrote
“He’s God’s flawed vessel!”
David_ungerer t1_j6p9o0g wrote
Yes . . . They’ll (The Prosecutors)have to prove that he lied . . . So they(The Prosecutors) cover their asses with a Grand Jury Inditement (foot dragging) to hold off charges ! ! !
[deleted] t1_j6pcbaz wrote
[removed]
JhymnMusic t1_j6pcmly wrote
K. Wake me up when he ever has to face any consequence for anything at all.
cgerrells t1_j6pef6w wrote
Guy’s guilty as shit. Maybe this time they can lock him up. Doubt it though
cgerrells t1_j6pem2f wrote
Processed American cheese is the most fitting
Funklestein t1_j6phjrl wrote
The check wasn’t to her though was it? I thought he paid off the Enquirer to buy any story regarding him.
She sold her story to The Enquirer and they decided not to run it as per their deal with Trump.
Considering that he successfully civilly sued her for violating the non-disclosure what is his criminality regarding this?
andropogon09 t1_j6pi62u wrote
I'm partial to the Fanta Menace
[deleted] t1_j6nbvw6 wrote
[removed]