He looks like usual to me.
Stress I think is more likely to have you lose weight than gain.
But we aren’t talking about a normal person here.
Yes, theyve got his mugshot on a t shirt and selling it. Twitted by MRG
It’s not a mugshot. There was no mugshot taken. They used a stock Trump photo. You’re spreading fake news.
I encourage you to find a better news source than Twitter.
The grift that just keeps on grifting:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3933956-trump-campaign-fundraises-off-fake-mugshot/
That wasnt intentional on my part. I thought it as his mug shot.
Probably a good sign that you’ll want to be more skeptical about where you take your news in the future. There’s a lot of fake garbage out there!
Eventually they’ll sell it on a mug, and then all will be well.
If they’d put the face on the inside so I didn’t have to see it that would be better.
On toilet paper?
Back in the day there was quite a variety of insulting products graced with TFG’s snarling or smirking face. I’ve not searched recently but they may be about to enjoy a real sales renaissance.
At least until a freshly elected Herr GriftenFührer has the vendors all rounded up and shot.
Here’s a good discussion of the charges and the challenges with securing a felony conviction. In the author’s analysis, a misdemeanor charge is a slam dunk, but the felony is an uphill battle.
The problem for Bragg is that they’re only misdemeanors, and the district attorney wants a felony conviction. Why? Most obviously, to ensure that his prosecution does not look like petty, partisan effort to give Trump a mere slap on the wrist. But there’s a purely legal reason, too: The statute of limitations may have passed for misdemeanor charges, but it surely has not for felony charges.
…
But what election law, exactly, did this plot run afoul of? The entire prosecution hinges on that question—and yet neither the indictment nor the statement of facts identifies it. Instead, Bragg briefly described them in a press conference afterward: a New York law that prohibits any conspiracy to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means” and a federal limit on campaign contributions. It’s not totally clear whether violation of a federal law can transform the business record charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, so that theory is somewhat shaky.
(By the way, what should we be posting in this thread and what should we be posting in the “Trump Indicted” thread?)
N/m Off topic.
The indictment is a fixed event. It occurred today. There may be some additional posts that are germane to the indictment, but mostly, that event is over.
This thread is a discussion of the entire action, from the time charges were likely to be filed through to a conclusion, whether by dismissal, plea or conviction.
Hope this helps! This is how I’m parsing it, anyway. It is confusing, I know, and with so many prosecutions pending, likely to become more so as we go along.
So, after having reviewed the Statement of Facts regarding this NY indictment, I have a stupid question:
What if Michael Cohen had actually drafted a legal retainer agreement, and categorized periodic communications with Trump as “legal consulting”? Could he then have successfully billed Trump for the amount needed to reimburse him for the payments that had been made?
I mean, attorney/client communications are confidential, so nobody would actually know what they spoke about, but if Trump publicly “valued” those discussions as worth the $400,000 or so that was paid to Cohen, would that simple machination have avoided the fraud that arose from his fictitious billing?
It seems that the case really hinged on the fact that there was no actual retainer agreement, notwithstanding the billing and ledger entries to the contrary.
(It strikes me that this case just wouldn’t be possible if Cohen and David Pecker - from the National Enquirer- hadn’t already flipped. Props to @Aspenglow, who I believe has been stressing patience as the prosecutors built their case by working their way up the chain of command)
Thank you. When you sit in a courtroom day after day for years (and as you I’m sure already know), you soon understand that the pace of justice is much slower in most cases than most people would realize. There are good reasons for it, and much happens behind the scenes that the public never considers or is even is told.
This case is a good example. We only recently learned the reason SDNY did not complete their case is because Main Justice under Bill Barr told them to stand down in 2018, leaving them with the impression that Main Justice was handling it. Why, yes! They were! They buried it.
And while we did know that Michael Cohen refused the offer of SDNY to be Queen for a Day in their investigation, I’m not sure anyone quite put it together that just because Cohen refused to cooperate in the federal case, he became a willing cooperator in the Manhattan case. Cohen’s cooperation was critical to building this case to fruition.
It all takes time.
Whenever I have an intake, I remind my (criminal defense) clients that “court time and real time are not the same thing.”
In court, resetting something another couple weeks is lightening speed.
Now, having said that, this judge reset this case to December. That is a long time for a criminal case. Basically, this judge is trying to limit the time spent in court, and I fully anticipate that at that next hearing that court will presume that all evidence has been disclosed and that all plea negotiations have been completed and Trump will either enter a plea or get a trial date.
Note, as well, that if any legal issues in the case arise between now and December (such as an issue with the evidence, an issue with the defendant’s conduct, or an agreed upon disposition), we may get a court date in the interim.
Not to mention the David pecker immunity that gives them another witness to the fraud that elevated the charges to felonies.
According to the Statement of Facts:
So at at least one Trump and Cohen discussion will be presumably played to the jury.
It would be interesting to know if this “falsification of business records” would still be hidden in the background if he hadn’t been compelled to release his tax returns in December 2022, or if that release helped kick the investigation into a higher gear to get us to this point.