Trump Investigation, Lawsuit and Indictment Tracker

Summary of Actual trial:
- Pecker said explicitly that the request from Cohen/Trump, as laid out in a meeting they both attended, was "what can you (AMI) do to help the campaign?"
- He said they made an agreement with Cohen that if his contacts heard about any damaging info to Trump, they would call Cohen, and they would all arrange to "catch & kill".
- He said if they could establish the accuracy of one of these reports, they absolutely would have published. But not until after the election, because that was the agreement with Cohen/Trump.
- He said they worked closely with Cohen on the political coverage during the election. Cohen would signal who to write articles about, they would send drafts to Cohen to approve. Specifically talked about targeting Rubio and then Cruz when those guys seemed like the biggest threats to Trump
- Pecker admitted fabricating some of the stories (not even just embellishing or running unverified stories)
- He said the max they would go for "checkbook journalism" (paying for scoops) was $10k, and anything above that would have to get approval from him personally. They shelled out $30k, $130k and $150k to the Trump accusers without even doing due diligence.

Basically, they are 2 hours into testimony and they are going to absolutely blow up the defense Trump wants to use, that they "buried" these stories to protect his marriage. The fact that Pecker said he could publish the stories, but only after the election, is just damning. He also makes clear that he loved covering Trump, was good friends with Trump and Trump moved copy, but that was all putting Trump on the cover as a hero. Burying stories about Trump + writing bad stories about Cruz/Rubio and the Clintons was not helping sell copy - it was just to help Trump get elected.

- Gag order:
Could not have gone worse for Trump, per analysts. They wanted to offer a vague defense. He was just defending himself against political attacks. He's a public figure, and he has to be allowed to defend his reputation. Judge asked for specifics. Pulled up specific tweets and asked what specific attacks were being rebutted in each. Trump's lawyer apparently had no answer for any of it. Sounds like the judge got fed up with double talk and lack of answers.
 
Another lie exposed....

1713965881493.png
 
SayMyName said:
1ft.io

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.
1ft.io 1ft.io
Click to expand...
From the NY Times no less. A key quote:

This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.
 

What is clear is in this case, Trump is right. This is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief.

The arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out, this is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn't exist. The Department of Justice doesn't view it this way.

On top of that, you got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team. Saying someone else designated this as a legal expense. He was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account.

Keep in mind, this is what Hillary Clinton's people did. Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier -- which they denied to reporters -- they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying that it was a legal expense. Now you've got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.
 
ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com

How bad is Alvin Bragg's Manhattan prosecution?

Worse than you thought, because it will do more long-term damage than you thought.
ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com

If this matter did not so seriously threaten our faith in law, I’d have to laugh, honestly. This really is like putting someone on trial for lying to his diary.

The political nature of this trial is obvious, and unprecedented in the United States. Even with irrefutable DNA evidence that Bill Clinton committed perjury, the special prosecutor declined to press criminal charges against him. In America’s recent past, prosecutors tended to exhibit a modicum of restraint. Those days are apparently gone.
Click to expand...
And we’ll miss them. As I told the American University law students (and others at, for example, Stanford and Penn), it’s true that prosecuting a powerful man like Trump could have a bracing effect on future office holders that — hey guys! — you really can wind up in trouble, and maybe in jail, for your lawlessness. But the more probable outcropping of Trump’s prosecution will be considerably less wholesome: It's less likely to spawn an embrace of prudence than an appetite for revenge. The Democrats’ appetite will be whetted by their success in putting a despised Republican in the slammer. The Republicans’ appetite, once they return to power, is too obvious to elaborate: You used the law to screw us and now we’re going to use it to screw you.

These indictments, and Bragg’s Rube Goldberg invention in particular, will launch, not an era of renewed accountability, but a cycle of recrimination. In the real world of hardball politics, a cycle of recrimination is certain to degrade rather than enhance whatever chances people of good faith have left to restore the rule of law.
 
It's a long video but fair and essential viewing if you truly want to understand what is happening here. The first 25 minutes lays out the reason why they should not have indicted Trump here. A defense of the indictment is offered up later.

ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com

Why it's important to protecting the rule of law and democratic institutions that the country go forward with Trump's prosecutions, and why it's important that it not.

Just walking past opposing arguments is dishonest and foolhardy.
ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com
 
BlackandGold said:
A jury of Americans deciding his fate is the most successful judicial system in the world. Stop attacking it
Click to expand...
........Australia called. They want all them kangaroos back when you lefty clowns get finished destroying our rule of law, and once proud system of justice. Hurry up and find that orange SOB guilty of something, anything.....throw him in jail so he can't be elected President, and get them kangaroos back on the next boat to Goolagong or Kambria. STAT!!!!!
 
JUSTGOPLAY said:
........Australia called. They want all them kangaroos back when you lefty clowns get finished destroying our rule of law, and once proud system of justice. Hurry up and find that orange SOB guilty of something, anything.....throw him in jail so he can't be elected President, and get them kangaroos back on the next boat to Goolagong or Kambria. STAT!!!!!
Click to expand...
Take your meds and move to Austria. We appreciate our Troops and the sacrifice they make protecting the best system of government in the world.
 
BlackandGold said:
A jury of Americans deciding his fate is the most successful judicial system in the world. Stop attacking it
Click to expand...
www.theblaze.com

'Historic mistake': Law professor takes apart Alvin Bragg's case against Trump — then predicts the outcome | Blaze Media

Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, thinks Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump is a "historic mistake."Shugerman made that conclusion after witnessing opening arguments on Monday in which prosecutors alleged Trump "orchestrated a...
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com

"As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal," Shugerman wrote.

He continued:

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.
Click to expand...
According to Shugerman, there are "three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution" in the case, all three of which concern the novel legal theory prosecutors are using against Trump for which there is no precedent.

"Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law," Shugerman wrote. "This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America."

He added, "This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution."

Still, Shugerman said the legal process should play itself out — but predicted Trump may ultimately win.

"If Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all," he said.
 
BlackandGold said:
Attacking the process is an admission of guilt. His destiny lies with the jury of Americans. NY is not the only institution to indict Trump for election interference.
Click to expand...
alexberenson.substack.com

Should Donald Trump refuse to participate in his show trial in Manhattan?

I'm serious. Democratic prosecutors in New York are bringing a fundamentally corrupt case against Trump. Maybe he needs to stop legitimizing his tormentors.
alexberenson.substack.com alexberenson.substack.com

The Manhattan prosecution of Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the American justice system.

Like Trump or dislike him (and as you know, I dislike him), he is neck-and-neck with Joe Biden in the 2024 Presidential election. Trying the leader of the opposition party on criminal charges is no small matter in a democracy. It should be reserved for very serious crimes - espionage, for example - with irrefutable evidence.

As I wrote Monday, this indictment is the opposite.

Trump faces 34 felony counts for the way he classified internal accounting entries. Prosecutors are relying on hyper-aggressive legal theories and making the case a referendum on Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, which was wildly unpopular in New York. They are almost openly telling the jury to punish Trump for having won.

And Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor who made the opening statement against Trump, was a top Justice Department official until late 2022, when he joined the Manhattan district attorney’s office as “senior counsel.”

Going from a top federal post to a local prosecutor’s office is not a normal midcareer move. Then again, if Colangelo had stayed at Justice, he wouldn’t have gotten to help lead a case against Donald Trump, the man that Joe Biden, Colangelo’s top boss at Justice, calls a threat to democracy. Convenient.
 
winbypin said:
Austria and Australia are different countries. You know this, right?

What do our troops have to do with what he said?
Click to expand...

Yeah.......I have no idea where all that came from. This B&G chick just might be one of Goofy Joe's press secretaries. I can see it now, big press conference and a writer asks "Mr. Goofy Joe, how do you intend to respond to Iran sponsoring and coordinating Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel?" Goofy Joe replies, "Well, My Uncle Oscar in Wilkes-Barre once grew a rutabaga that was this big. No joke, I ain't kidding!"
 
BlackandGold said:
A jury of Americans deciding his fate is the most successful judicial system in the world. Stop attacking it
Click to expand...
Then you should really be pissed at the DOJ and NY prosecutors whose reckless actions have put the American justice system at risk of descending into Banana Republic territory. They have rejected all precedent and norms to pursue their number one political enemy in Donald Trump. They have made a mockery of our once great justice system. And when the Republicans gain power and predictably go after their democrat enemies using these same lawfare tactics the unvirtuous circle will have been closed.
 
lotr10 said:
Then you should really be pissed at the DOJ and NY prosecutors whose reckless actions have put the American justice system at risk of descending into Banana Republic territory. They have rejected all precedent and norms to pursue their number one political enemy in Donald Trump. They have made a mockery of our once great justice system. And when the Republicans gain power and predictably go after their democrat enemies using these same lawfare tactics the unvirtuous circle will have been closed.
Click to expand...
The only reckless actions were by Trump. Over and over again. And Trump is the King of unprecedented. Stupid games win stupid prizes.
 
BlackandGold said:
The only reckless actions were by Trump. Over and over again. And Trump is the King of unprecedented. Stupid games win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...
Sure Trump will sometimes say and do dumb things. And yea Trump is king of the cheap insults and dubious morals. So what. This excuses the current administration marshaling America's senior law enforcement agencies to distort the judicial process and go after Trump by any means necessary?

Just remember what goes around comes around.
 
lotr10 said:
Sure Trump will sometimes say and do dumb things. And yea Trump is king of the cheap insults and dubious morals. So what. This excuses the current administration marshaling America's senior law enforcement agencies to distort the judicial process and go after Trump by any means necessary?

Just remember what goes around comes around.
Click to expand...
He is a lifetime conman. NY Russian mafia ties for decades with a reputation well known in NYC. Not to mention his child sex allegations with his buddy Epstein. Trump deserves all the legal trouble coming at him.
 
BlackandGold said:
“An Arizona grand jury has indicted 18 allies of Donald Trump for their efforts to subvert the 2020 election — including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign operative Mike Roman.

The indictment, which includes felony counts of conspiracy, fraud and forgery, also describes Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator.”

Click to expand...
which MAGA slug will be the first to call it a sham? will it be LOSR10 or famed internet legal expert OldSoulon or diaper schitting crybaby cade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top