Your own linky explains that the DA who said that Trump committed several crimes was resigning in protest since the Manhattan district attorney decided not to seek an indictment. Am I misreading this?
"Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, said in a statement Wednesday night that the investigation into Trump is continuing and that a "team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation.”
So there is no official announcement. And again, like here, many are wanting to see trump arrested NOW, no matter the end result. The DA likely wants a sure win, even if that means later.
I think that we will see Trump’s business endeavors brought down before he personally is.
You’re not.
Moreover, Alvin Bragg did not renew the grand jury that had been convened to hand down indictments. It appears the case is effectively over, because Bragg was too spineless to proceed without the cooperation of Allen Weisselberg – who did not cave to pressure to testify against Trump and who just beefed up his legal team in anticipation of the legal fight ahead.
Alvin Bragg has said the case against Trump is not yet closed, but based on my own experience in these matters, I’d say it’s gasping its last breaths on the shores of Failure Island.
I actually lay the blame for this more at the feet of Cyrus Vance Jr., former Manhattan DA. He could have brought those charges as he danced out the door into retirement with no consequence to himself, and leaving Bragg holding the bag for the actual prosecution. Which, according to lead prosecutors Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, was winnable.
This one completely stinks, IMHO.
You may not be praising Luttig, but it seems that other people are. And he sounds like he’s gravely concerned about something; could be the state of our democracy or covering his own ass.
I don’t know much about Letting. But going from his closing statement. Which was about as damming as a statement towards Trump and friends as one can get.
I would say providing cover for Trump’s friends was NOT one of Littig’s intentions.
And this is the most important thing, IMO. We’ve seen by now that essentially nothing will change the mind of hard-core Trumpists, because they simply refuse to even listen to the case against Trump. The only way American Democracy survives this is if enough other people come out to vote against the Republicans, and that’s not going to happen if those other voters see the Democrats waffling about, failing to even try to convict Trump.
Even on this board, we see people lamenting the apparent lack of progress on this front. Do you imagine the bulk of the US population is more, or less, enthused than those of us here?
I think he was trying to avoid giving anyone a “Gotcha!!” quote. If you look around, a lot of Trump’s “defenses” are based around, “I never said that exact word, so you’re lying!!” kinds of claims, and his supporters buy that every single time. So I think it’s important to be very careful about how you word things, so as to minimize the wiggle room you allow them.
Less. By a lot. The fact that we’re talking about it means we’re self-selected to want to talk about it. Vast swaths of people may not like what’s coming but as long as they get their Jimmy Fallon and their diet sodas they won’t be inclined to raise a significant fuss.
^^^
Very much this.
The best hope is to energize more folk who trend left but are apathetic, and educate those who vote right/Trump for “entertainment” reasons, and those lighterweight Trumpers who do not appreciate how they will be negatively affected by a breakdown of our systems.
We can be certain that the GOP and its overseas allies will be putting substantial and ongoing effort into pushing the ‘Democrats and Republicans are both exactly the same, so why vote?!?!!’ idea.
It rears its bad-faith head in every election, but this time they’ll be working extra hard to sell it.
eta -some clarity
For those who are wondering whether these hearings are having any impact, there’s this recent poll:
OT, but who does the bushy haired guy who’s always in the background remind me of?
showing what happened at the homes of people is new and seriously terrifying. that could turned very bad very quickly.
I think Rusty Bowers is a very effective witness.
he is amazing. very powerful.
I guess I missed the reference(s). Moriarty’s link only has a 26-second video of Rep. Bennie Thompson, and a photo of him and Liz Cheney.
You know, when they remodel the Capitol they should put in an orchestra pit for the media.
they showed clips of protestors outside the houses of election officials. i don’t believe that has been shown nation wide as yet.
On ABC, Chris Christie is going full whatabout, painting Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 as examples of rejecting the results of an election.
Is there a Pit thread for that guy?
I think in the future, when law textbooks discuss what makes an effective witness you’re going to see Rusty Bowers’ picture. Just incredible.