To say that the corporate media is having a field day with the run-up to Donald Trump’s likely arraignment on Tuesday in a Manhattan courtroom, where charges are being preferred by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, is an understatement. Former President Donald Trump is facing multiple charges of falsifying business records, including at least one felony offense, in the indictment handed down by a Manhattan grand jury, two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Friday.
The general rule of thumb is that the more persecution an individual is facing in the "press" and now the "courts" is proportional to the potential value they offer toward creating peace and prosperity in this country.
There is certainly an inverse variation between the magnitude of indignity and outrage among Democrats and wokesters and the actual severity of the offense.
Essentially, Bragg indicted Trump for being Donald Trump.
We should be mandated to wear neck braces rather than masks.
A comment just now on AB's stack echoed your sentiment:
Joe Writes Joe’s Newsletter
"LOL - a corrupt local prosecutor in NYC decides to charge a former President and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for an underlying federal crime (which has never been adjudicated by Federal Authorities) and Alex has some "qualms". This is a watershed moment in American history and Alex thinks it's water off the ducks back. No big deal right?"
I'm willing to withhold final judgement until Bragg makes his case. If he has a solid case then let justice be done.
However, he has a very tall hill to climb to make a case that justifies all the melodrama we've seen this far. To borrow from James Comey, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case".
If he (Bragg) had a track record of holding lawbreakers feet to the fire then it's more plausible that we could presume he could have valid charges to press against Trump. There is a very small chance he could have dug something up. . . Likely it's more Russia Russia Russia-type claims. Will see.. .
Even if Bragg had such a track record, what has been reported in the media thus far is that either Donald Trump or the Trump Organization made what amounts to a bookkeeping error.
But the Trump Organization is not a publicly traded company. There is no market implication to such transactions. And non-disclosure agreements are part and parcel of modern business (I've signed plenty of them in my day and have always been paid handsomely as a result).
That Trump wished to secure NDAs from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep their stories of Trump's alleged sexual indiscretions off the front page of the New York Times is about as sleazy as the alleged sexual indiscretions themselves (contrary to the media's anti-Trump propaganda machine, there was never an age in the US where it was considered cool for a man to cheat on his wife with another woman).
However, sleazy is not criminal. While the position of the feds was that the payments resulted in illegal political campaign contributions, that interpretation by definition means the payments themselves were not illegal.
It is almost impossible to see how even a righteous prosecutor could produce a criminal case over bad bookkeeping that warrants the effort--which is why a righteous prosecutor would most likely use his discretion and simply not pursue a case of bad bookkeeping.
The general rule of thumb is that the more persecution an individual is facing in the "press" and now the "courts" is proportional to the potential value they offer toward creating peace and prosperity in this country.
There is certainly an inverse variation between the magnitude of indignity and outrage among Democrats and wokesters and the actual severity of the offense.
Essentially, Bragg indicted Trump for being Donald Trump.
We should be mandated to wear neck braces rather than masks.
A comment just now on AB's stack echoed your sentiment:
Joe Writes Joe’s Newsletter
"LOL - a corrupt local prosecutor in NYC decides to charge a former President and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for an underlying federal crime (which has never been adjudicated by Federal Authorities) and Alex has some "qualms". This is a watershed moment in American history and Alex thinks it's water off the ducks back. No big deal right?"
I'm willing to withhold final judgement until Bragg makes his case. If he has a solid case then let justice be done.
However, he has a very tall hill to climb to make a case that justifies all the melodrama we've seen this far. To borrow from James Comey, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case".
If he (Bragg) had a track record of holding lawbreakers feet to the fire then it's more plausible that we could presume he could have valid charges to press against Trump. There is a very small chance he could have dug something up. . . Likely it's more Russia Russia Russia-type claims. Will see.. .
Even if Bragg had such a track record, what has been reported in the media thus far is that either Donald Trump or the Trump Organization made what amounts to a bookkeeping error.
But the Trump Organization is not a publicly traded company. There is no market implication to such transactions. And non-disclosure agreements are part and parcel of modern business (I've signed plenty of them in my day and have always been paid handsomely as a result).
That Trump wished to secure NDAs from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep their stories of Trump's alleged sexual indiscretions off the front page of the New York Times is about as sleazy as the alleged sexual indiscretions themselves (contrary to the media's anti-Trump propaganda machine, there was never an age in the US where it was considered cool for a man to cheat on his wife with another woman).
However, sleazy is not criminal. While the position of the feds was that the payments resulted in illegal political campaign contributions, that interpretation by definition means the payments themselves were not illegal.
It is almost impossible to see how even a righteous prosecutor could produce a criminal case over bad bookkeeping that warrants the effort--which is why a righteous prosecutor would most likely use his discretion and simply not pursue a case of bad bookkeeping.