Disappointed

[angrychair]

So far DA Bragg appears to be backing off.

DA Willis went from "decision imminent" to ghost within a couple weeks.

AG James stuff amounts to minor fines and inconvenience and zero impact to trump himself.

This has gone exactly as I expected but wish is hadn't.
They've either been intimidated or pressured or both, into giving in to trump.

My biggest disappointment is with DA Willis as that was a rock solid case and it should now be painfully obvious that she will not be charging as she has gone completely to ground.

[Renew Deal]

1. Not charging Trump is the best thing for the Democratic party

Because he will basically destroy the republican party in a primary. Either he wins and loses the GE or he loses the primary and destroys DeSantis.

[Irish_Dem]

3. It may be good for the party but it is terrible for our country.

We are either a country based upon rule of law or we are not.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. That will pretty much happen regardless of whether he is indicted or not.

In fact, I would say that his indictment would make it more likely he "destroys" the Republican Party because it will make him even that much more toxic to independent/moderate types.

So, yes, he should absolutely be indicted because it's the right thing to do because a rampant criminal like him should not be let off the hook and it would also be best for our country and the Democratic Party.

[uponit7771]

38. +1, my cynical take on the matter TFG is a political gold mine for Dems

[Baltimike]

2. we wished it weren't Fitzmas, but we've seen this before. nt

[Silent Type]

12. Exactly. Learned my lesson waking up several times a night to see bush arrested. Nt

[Ocelot II]

4. Why do you assume he's backing off?

The grand jury was scheduled to hear another case today (grand juries consider more than one case at a time), and they don't meet on Fridays. There's no reason to assume anything has changed. TFG announced he was going to be arrested this week - another lie, just an excuse to raise money and get attention - and the media and a lot of other people foolishly believed him, and then when it didn't got their shorts in a wad, assuming it would never happen. There is no reason to believe that. The grand jury will be meeting on the case again on Monday, possibly hearing another witness.

[2naSalit]

5. +1

[angrychair]

7. Because of all the cases

This one is as straight forward and simple as they come and the framework of the scheme was already fleshed out in the case against Cohen.

It was, very literally, handed to him on a silver platter.

[onenote]

10. A lot of experts disagree with you.

But maybe you are more experienced than they are.

[angrychair]

14. Experts disagree

On the severity of potential charges that could be put forth but no serious legal experts doubt there are no potential charges to be had.

[Wednesdays]

32. Ugh, three negatives in a row

So, if I read you correctly, then serious legal experts think there are no potential charges to be had?

[angrychair]

36. No

There is specific disagreement on if a felony charge has a realistic chance of being prosecuted as opposed to a misdemeanor.

I tend to think absolutely nothing will happen but we will see

[Tommy Carcetti]

24. A week's delay is nothing in terms of legal time.

I wouldn't read a whole lot into that.

[Zeitghost]

40. That does not seem to fit with other analysis of the case

There are numerous issues with the case including statute of limitations and apparently Cohen was never reimbursed. They also have to show the hush money was for political campaign purposes and not personal.

It's not a cut and dry case.

[Effete Snob]

8. .

[cilla4progress]

6. I lean on Ocelot...

I'm finding him to be one of our most sober, knowledgeable members!

Reminds me of various hysterias throughout American history - Salem witch trials, Patty Hearst kidnapping, McCarthyism, Lincoln assassination.

Kinda par for our crazy course.

[electric_blue68]

9. I'm not giving up hope. You're making assumptions that may not be happening just bc things....

"gone to ground". "Seemingly".


As St Yogi Berra says:

"It ain't over, till it's over."

It Ain't over yet.

[onenote]

11. When did Willis say "charges imminent"?

I assume you meant "imminent" not "eminent". But the fact is that she said "decisions" are imminent. Not "charges."

As often is the case, some DUers interpret statements based on what they want them to mean, not the actual words used.

[angrychair]

13. Misspelling aside

I did update my OP to correct the spelling and wording for the sake of accuracy.

That said "imminent" is defined as "about to happen". She said those words 30 days ago tomorrow.

I know the wheels of justice can move slow but a new grand jury doesn't need to rehash everything, the hard part has already been done. 30 days is not "about to happen"

[onenote]

15. She said decisions were imminent. Not "charges". Not "announcement of decisions."

People hear what they want to hear.

[angrychair]

25. Again

Imminent means "about to happen".

The clear implication of "a decision is imminent" is obvious. It means that she will decide and announce her decision, whatever that is.

The phrase "decision is imminent" does not imply you will make a decision and then keep it to yourself for several more weeks.

Plain and simple, trump has avoided accountability for 40+ years and I've not seen or heard anything that is indicative of that changing.

If he does get pulled into court and found guilty then, "huzzah!" I'm wrong and a lifelong criminal is finally held to account. I'm not going to complain.
Right now I see the same trend line we always see when it comes to him.

[onenote]

26. You can say what you think it means, but what you or i think doesn't mean anything.

Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2023, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

But in the context of her statement, there would appear to be no reason to think she was indicating a public announcement of anything was in the offing. Remember -- this was in the context of the special grand jury and when and to what extent its report would be made public. But that grand jury wasn't authorized to issue an indictment. Only the regular grand jury could do that.

Willis' statement reflected the fact that decisions were in the offing about whether to pursue an indictment going forward based on the special GJ report. And from everything we know, the decision was made to bring the matter to the regular GJ that was empaneled this month. Witnesses have been called before the grand jury. Evidence is being presented.

Like I said, people hear what they want to hear. In this case they heard "decisions' as the same as "charges" or "indictments" when the process for getting an indictment was till to come and is still ongoing.

[angrychair]

28. You make a valid point

I understand what your saying. My understanding was the special GJ report would contain all the hard work and a regular GJ would go quickly because of that but I also get "quickly" is subjective.

I'll be happy if I'm wrong but I'm skeptical that this is going to play out any differently then it has for him for decades.

[Beastly Boy]

16. I am not disappointed.

My secret? I keep my expectations in check. And I only change them based on what I know, not what I guess.

On this basis, I am pretty certain that

-There is nothing that would lead me to conclude that Bragg is backing off

-I am comfortable with Willis keeping her decisions to herself

-I am grateful to James for suing the Trump Org for $250 mil and seeking to kick it out of NY State.

-I have no reason to conclude that any of them have been successfully intimidated or pressured

-Just about everything is going as I expected.

Oh, one disappointment: I can't believe the suckers in mass media who took Trump's word over Bragg's silence when Trump said he will be arrested on Tuesday.

But I am over it now.

[angrychair]

22. Find this somewhat insulting

I'm in no way depressed or angry...it's just a handle based off Alice In Chains/Temple of the Dog.

I am realistic though. I've lived long enough and seen enough of the world to know the wealthy trample the poor and screw over the world and no one seems to really care (individuals care but society, by in large, does not by evidence that it does little to stop it).

Thinking that trump will get away with it is so not depression, to its based on the foundation that he has got away with it for 40+ years.

He has stolen.
He has cheated.
He has grifted.
He has raped.

Entirely with no consequences.

For 40+ years.

Therefore it is a logical and normal belief to think he will get away with all this with little to no consequences. Because that is what has been part of his sorted and depraved record.

[brettdale]

19. It goes Deeper than people think

If Trump doesn't get indicted, it means bad powerful people,
bullies, people who are cruel, they win.

Its more about one man, it's society, its the class system.

It will be devastating if he doesn't get indicted, it means...

The Bullies win and they always will.

[brettdale]

20. Mary Trump gets it right

We can no longer fail to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes against our country.

Link to tweet

[Wednesdays]

33. Book your tickets now! Here's the link:

https://events.donaldjtrump.com/events/45th-president-of-the-united-states-donald-j-trump-to-hold-a-rally-2024-in-waco-texas

[MissMillie]

21. I think the James civil suit is far bigger and more consequential than Bragg's

Just my opinion of course.

Keeping TFG from ever holding a business license in NY--I think that's a big deal. Think about it: the "brilliant business man" barred from doing business. And it's not like he can just pass his businesses off to his kids because they'd be barred too.

And I think that Willis's case isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. Unless TFG himself can be tied to the phony electors (THAT'S the biggest deal in that case), the story of the phone call becomes: what did TFG mean vs. what did Raffensburger infer from it? I know Raffensburger said he felt threatened, but in my eyes that just isn't enough.

Let's not forget, this is far from over. Right now we're talking Bragg, Willis and James. There's still "Mr. Smith comes to Washington."

I think TFG's prediction of arrest had a lot of people's hopes up. To me, the real deadline is 90 days before the first primary. We're a long way away from that.

[Marius25]

23. Trump will never face consequences

I wish people would realize that.

[inthewind21]

27. Well

you know what they say about wishes. Now, why haven't you gone to NY and schooled them on how a case REALLY works?

[Zeitghost]

41. He will and has

They just might not be legal one.

He will soon be a two time loser in the biggest competition he's ever been in. It may not be all that we have wanted, but I know it has to sting and that makes me at least a little happy.

[Jose Garcia]

29. From what I have read about this case it appears to be far from a slam dunk if

they are going to try to convict him of a felony. The feds declined to go after him for the campaign finance violation. Trump's attorneys will likey argue that he paid the hush money so that his wife wouldn't find out.

[angrychair]

30. The feds didn't decline

SDNY was ordered by AG Barr not to pursue it. Big difference.

[Jose Garcia]

34. Barr hasn't been AG for over two years

The US Attorney for SDNY certainly could have indicated. But he hasn't.

[angrychair]

37. He has

He literally wrote a book about it

[angrychair]

31. The feds didn't decline

SDNY was ordered by AG Barr not to pursue it. Big difference.

[FrankBooth]

35. I'll be disappointed when...

Bragg shuts down the Grand Jury without an indictment. Or when Willis announces she won't be pressing any charges. Or when Jack Smith submits his report declining to indict Trump or anyone else.

Until all three of those moments happen the possibility of Trump being charged exists. It's really that black and white IMO. Any disappointment I might feel about the timeline of those events (and I admit to feeling some) is based on inconclusive reporting at best, and at worst media tea leaf reading using unnamed sources, or straight up disinformation. So if I'm disappointed, well, that's on me.

[bigtree]

39. I don't believe you

...because every one of the points you made is false.

They just are ('nuff said about that by posters responding).

What's really going on here with this disparaging of people working to hold Trump legally accountable? None of them have finished their work or made any ultimate decisions.

Anyone can beat them up for failing to indict while they're working to that end.