We've got him this time!?!?!

I have not followed this at all, but were the funds used from his campaign or similar source? If personal, while it might be unethical, is it really a legal matter that meets a bar of indictment of a POTUS?

I clearly dislike him but he was elected (and voted for by me ) knowing he was unethical. I'd frankly have expected there were other things more likely to get him indicted than this
Does feel like a DA "shoot your shot" moment.
And I'm afraid it will just galvanize all the MAGA folks amd Trump behind a 24 run

Packchem91 said:

---

I have not followed this at all, but were the funds used from his campaign or similar source? If personal, while it might be unethical, is it really a legal matter that meets a bar of indictment of a POTUS?

I clearly dislike him but he was elected (and voted for by me ) knowing he was unethical. I'd frankly have expected there were other things more likely to get him indicted than this
Does feel like a DA "shoot your shot" moment.
And I'm afraid it will just galvanize all the MAGA folks amd Trump behind a 24 run

---

Assuming the indictment is about the money to Stormy…. Yes, it is said that Trump paid hush money. Cohen, his former lawyer said Trump told him to pay her. Trump has denied this. That said, if Trump did pay the hush money, then has to be proven that it came from campaign funds. Otherwise, if money has been given to Stormy, from his own funds, I'm not sure what's illegal…. Unseemly? Yes!

If this is about the so-called hush money; then, this has been looked at multiple times and no other DA (or whatever they are) thought there is anything with it…. So, if you are an anti-Trump person and want to see him in jail, then, other charges may be what is needed. We will see once the indictment is unsealed…

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

Anyone with 1/4 of a brain should be able to see this is strictly political and I hope this wakes ppl up. You may hate Trump (personally I don't like him) but this will be the start of dark times for our country. You think the division has been bad well it's about to get really nasty and 80% of this lies at the feet of the democrats.

---

Trump's right-hand attorney Cohen went to prison for campaign finance violations directly related to the matter Trump is being charged with.

Trump's CFO went to jail for tax fraud.

It's not "strictly political." Trump's first-order associates have been convicted of serious financial crimes.

We can all agree that political motivations exist for pursuing charges for Trump. And as I've said before, to the extent there are political motivations for pursuing charges I don't think this path will be effectual political strategy.

But we can't argue there isn't actual, legally corroborated evidence of financial crimes directly adjacent to Trump, and quite possible involving him firsthand.

---

Civ, check your story on Cohen. His primary charges were related to his own doing. The supposed hush money been proven to been on his own accord.

That said, Trump has been charged with so much stuff and he still walks around. I guess he's just slippery enough. Now, the latest stuff will be all over with in due time…

---

Its essentially the same charge levied against your FAV NC Senator several years ago. John Edwards

Defendant Donald!! Tuesday can't come fast enough!!

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

I have not followed this at all, but were the funds used from his campaign or similar source? If personal, while it might be unethical, is it really a legal matter that meets a bar of indictment of a POTUS?

I clearly dislike him but he was elected (and voted for by me ) knowing he was unethical. I'd frankly have expected there were other things more likely to get him indicted than this
Does feel like a DA "shoot your shot" moment.
And I'm afraid it will just galvanize all the MAGA folks amd Trump behind a 24 run

---

Assuming the indictment is about the money to Stormy…. Yes, it is said that Trump paid hush money. Cohen, his former lawyer said Trump told him to pay her. Trump has denied this. That said, if Trump did pay the hush money, then has to be proven that it came from campaign funds. Otherwise, if money has been given to Stormy, from his own funds, I'm not sure what's illegal…. Unseemly? Yes!

If this is about the so-called hush money; then, this has been looked at multiple times and no other DA (or whatever they are) thought there is anything with it…. So, if you are an anti-Trump person and want to see him in jail, then, other charges may be what is needed. We will see once the indictment is unsealed…

---

I suspect there's more fire there than some would like to admit. Trump, like many powerful folks in his class (any party) live by different rules and are used to influencing others, and sometimes by any means. I have zero issue believing Trump directed Cohen. Amd the saying, "when you lay down with dogs" comes to mind

That said, unless there is really good evidence of ties to campaign funds, hard to imagine this would go far.
And if political only, the other saying that comes to mind is, you better cut the head off the snake.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

I have not followed this at all, but were the funds used from his campaign or similar source? If personal, while it might be unethical, is it really a legal matter that meets a bar of indictment of a POTUS?

I clearly dislike him but he was elected (and voted for by me ) knowing he was unethical. I'd frankly have expected there were other things more likely to get him indicted than this
Does feel like a DA "shoot your shot" moment.
And I'm afraid it will just galvanize all the MAGA folks amd Trump behind a 24 run

---

Assuming the indictment is about the money to Stormy…. Yes, it is said that Trump paid hush money. Cohen, his former lawyer said Trump told him to pay her. Trump has denied this. That said, if Trump did pay the hush money, then has to be proven that it came from campaign funds. Otherwise, if money has been given to Stormy, from his own funds, I'm not sure what's illegal…. Unseemly? Yes!

If this is about the so-called hush money; then, this has been looked at multiple times and no other DA (or whatever they are) thought there is anything with it…. So, if you are an anti-Trump person and want to see him in jail, then, other charges may be what is needed. We will see once the indictment is unsealed…

---

I suspect there's more fire there than some would like to admit. Trump, like many powerful folks in his class (any party) live by different rules and are used to influencing others, and sometimes by any means. I have zero issue believing Trump directed Cohen. Amd the saying, "when you lay down with dogs" comes to mind

That said, unless there is really good evidence of ties to campaign funds, hard to imagine this would go far.
And if political only, the other saying that comes to mind is, you better cut the head off the snake.

---

They are definitely trying to cut off the head of the snake, no doubt. If all the speculation is true, this should blow up in the Democrats face. If they have more, them I think people will start to looking at this differently.

We do know that DA Bragg campaigned, heavily, on getting Trump. That's one reason that people are saying it's political…

Werewolf said:

---

This woman has it figured out and doesn't mind telling you about it.

I wanna find this woman and give her a big hug. This girl is straight 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/vQDBtinBbY

— MAGS (@TAftermath2020) April 1, 2023

---

What did she say to make you wanna hug her!! The same man she praising is the same man doing what she is spewing about!! I get it tho, you put a token African American aka "black" on a video praising a John and that suppose to make him innocent!! Please, see you Tuesday!! Perp walk time!! Lol!

packgrad said:

---

Jeez… even Portnoy has more sense than the lefties defending this. Sad times to be a democrat. Sheep.

'WHAT A JOKE': Dave Portnoy points out your money is funding Trump's indictment. https://t.co/gC0LjthPtk pic.twitter.com/j3AeWnUBHq

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 31, 2023

---

I see Fox News on there,say less!!

So many have prayed and continue to pray for @realDonaldTrump
God Bless #Trump pic.twitter.com/UmbN9Mwyn1

— Fletch17 (@17ThankQ) April 1, 2023

We need to start removing people from voting. We can start right here with Marco!

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Interesting- thanks for the insight. Figured there had to be something unique about this above and beyond just paying her off

Calling it a business expense and getting a tax benefit it s unique way, indeed, lol

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

Bill Barr, former AG said it. And… he's no Trump fan!

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

What "news" outlet should I listen to?

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

equit justice

Douglass Mackey now faces a staggering *10 years in prison* for poking fun at his political opponents, yet people on the other side did the *exact same thing* with impunity. This is a frightening weaponization of our justice system. I will fix this as President & will announce my… https://t.co/SIYSiGgoWj

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) April 1, 2023

What news source is playing this?

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

Bill Barr, former AG said it. And… he's no Trump fan!

---

I disagree. After Michael Cohen was prosecuted on federal charges for his part in the Daniels payoff, Barr pressured all arms of the Justice Department to cease investigations into "Individual 1". He even tried to get Cohen's conviction overturned so the entire matter would be undone.

Barr has only been more vocal against Trump after resigning and it hasn't been that vocal. When he resigned, he did not take any form of vocal stance against the whole Jan 6 fiasco/tragedy. He is still generally an apologist. Look at his totally inappropriate behavior with the Durham investigation.

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

What "news" outlet should I listen to?

---

Anyone you want as long as you recognize those who are not truthful and are infotainment rather than being reputable reporters. The Dominion case has revealed what Fox "News" really has been.

pman27 said:

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

Interesting, thanks.

Trump doesn't seem like a details dude but this situation has a UNC scandal feel to it. If his right-hand attorney is paying hush money to the porn star he was banging, he either knew or should have known that the payments were being made, where they were originating, and whether they were being claimed as business expenses.

Ironically, the tax write-off piece is the one he was probably least likely to have oversight over (whether he should have or not is a different story) but it's the one most likely to get him in legal hot water.

ETA: the saying "grand juries would indict a ham sandwich" comes from somewhere; I don't think their approval of moving forward with charges is as much confirmation that the charges are sound and the case is strong aas they are an indication that the charges aren't completely bat-**** crazy.

We're in uncharted territory here with Trump but that typifies his whole presidency so no surprise there.

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

What "news" outlet should I listen to?

---

Anyone you want as long as you recognize those who are not truthful and are infotainment rather than being reputable reporters. The Dominion case has revealed what Fox "News" really has been.

---

It's funny that you cant recommend a news outlet for unbiased news.

Also, the Dominion thing with Fox is going to be interesting to see…. That said, I watch very little Foxnews…. Why? Because they are anti Trump!! The Murdoch family hates Trump!!

---

I can name a number of reputable news sources - many are. I just don't wish to dictate what anyone should listen to. Easier to name some of the most offending sources.

The Murdoch family may or may not dislike Trump, but they cater to his base as that is their audience. That is what the whole Dominion thing is about - Fox amplifying the lies around voter fraud and everything Trump said as a business decision because when they reported truthfully they lost viewers to NewMax and OAN, as they were even more on board with the lies and distortions. They even put the MyPillow guy on the air to keep in his good graces and he's one of their biggest advertisers.

Not sure what is worst - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis because they believe a bunch of lies, or what the Dominion case has revealed - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis while cynically knowing it is all lies and talking (Fox internal email and text) about how much they hate Trump. This is covered by any reputable news outlet, documented in many case filings. Fox doesn't cover this.

^ Uncharted in that we've never indicted a former president. However, we've indicted hundreds of politicians - including Robert Menendez (US Senator), John Edwards (former Senator, VP candidate), and most famously Spiro Agnew (Vice President). Look at other countries - South Korea, France, Italy have all fairly recently charged former heads of their country. I just heard a stat that four of the last seven governors of Illinois had been charged with crimes.

Nothing is special other than Trump trying to make it seem so - let the legal system play out and if innocent, there should be an acquittal. Note that Trump could have testified in front of the various grand juries and chose not to.

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

What "news" outlet should I listen to?

---

Anyone you want as long as you recognize those who are not truthful and are infotainment rather than being reputable reporters. The Dominion case has revealed what Fox "News" really has been.

---

It's funny that you cant recommend a news outlet for unbiased news.

Also, the Dominion thing with Fox is going to be interesting to see…. That said, I watch very little Foxnews…. Why? Because they are anti Trump!! The Murdoch family hates Trump!!

---

I can name a number of reputable news sources - many are. I just don't wish to dictate what anyone should listen to. Easier to name some of the most offending sources.

The Murdoch family may or may not dislike Trump, but they cater to his base as that is their audience. That is what the whole Dominion thing is about - Fox amplifying the lies around voter fraud and everything Trump said as a business decision because when they reported truthfully they lost viewers to NewMax and OAN, as they were even more on board with the lies and distortions. They even put the MyPillow guy on the air to keep in his good graces and he's one of their biggest advertisers.

Not sure what is worst - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis because they believe a bunch of lies, or what the Dominion case has revealed - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis while cynically knowing it is all lies and talking (Fox internal email and text) about how much they hate Trump. This is covered by any reputable news outlet, documented in many case filings. Fox doesn't cover this.

---

Honestly, it appears as if you are scared to name who you consider to be a reputable news source. If you have something, you deem as reputable, please don't run from it, just let everyone know where you get your info.

If the shoe was in the other foot, people like you, would want to know who the reputable news source is…

Don't dodge my question, just answer it…

---

Reputable: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, many large city/regional print newspapers.

Those known to blatantly distort the truth or promote promote propaganda: Fox (more their infotainment "analysis" prime time bunch, less their hard news folks), OAN, NewsMax, Breitbart.

Not an exhaustive list. Certainly others that promote a conservative or liberal agenda that tend to try to provide symmetrical reporting to asymmetrical behavior.

Priceless........you need to continue to post here. Sieve and Marco need help.

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

caryking said:

---

pman27 said:

---

People are missing the point - this isn't about paying hush-money - that is not the crime. The crime is writing it off as a business expense. That is defrauding New York state as it violates business practices and tax laws. There may be some campaign funding violations too - we'll see when the indictment is unsealed. Bragg has charged over 1000 people with similar crimes during his tenure - this isn't selective prosecution - this is seeking equal justice - no one is above the law.

The irony in all of this are that all these alleged crimes were mostly avoidable. Trump could have paid Daniel and simply not tried to take the payments as a business expenses. He could have returned all the documents when asked and not obstructed justice. Don't call the prosecutors and crimes petty, call the guy who allegedly committed them stupid.

---

Where does the two years come in play? The word is that this is past the statute of limitation, for a state legal issue, right?

So, reconcile that one and let's move to the next part of the "presumed" allegations…

---

Depends where you are getting your information on statute of limitations. Certain media outlets have agendas well beyond fact. We'll see when the charges are unsealed, but if a grand jury charged then clearly the crimes charged crimes are legally justifiable.

Regardless, indicting is the end-all-be-all - it is the start of the process. The legal process will likely take a year to get to conclusion, with all the procedural and pretrial motions, discovery, etc, - boring stuff. The process is very normal and typical from a legal perspective. Trump and his supporters are mischaracterizing everything as highly irregular and that is being believed by many who take his claims at face value and don't know how legal proceeding work. Trying listening to those who deal with this process for a living, not the more craven "news" outlets who are propaganda arms of Trump and tell his base what they want to hear.

---

What "news" outlet should I listen to?

---

Anyone you want as long as you recognize those who are not truthful and are infotainment rather than being reputable reporters. The Dominion case has revealed what Fox "News" really has been.

---

It's funny that you cant recommend a news outlet for unbiased news.

Also, the Dominion thing with Fox is going to be interesting to see…. That said, I watch very little Foxnews…. Why? Because they are anti Trump!! The Murdoch family hates Trump!!

---

I can name a number of reputable news sources - many are. I just don't wish to dictate what anyone should listen to. Easier to name some of the most offending sources.

The Murdoch family may or may not dislike Trump, but they cater to his base as that is their audience. That is what the whole Dominion thing is about - Fox amplifying the lies around voter fraud and everything Trump said as a business decision because when they reported truthfully they lost viewers to NewMax and OAN, as they were even more on board with the lies and distortions. They even put the MyPillow guy on the air to keep in his good graces and he's one of their biggest advertisers.

Not sure what is worst - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis because they believe a bunch of lies, or what the Dominion case has revealed - infotainment trying to pass themselves off as news/analysis while cynically knowing it is all lies and talking (Fox internal email and text) about how much they hate Trump. This is covered by any reputable news outlet, documented in many case filings. Fox doesn't cover this.

---

Honestly, it appears as if you are scared to name who you consider to be a reputable news source. If you have something, you deem as reputable, please don't run from it, just let everyone know where you get your info.

If the shoe was in the other foot, people like you, would want to know who the reputable news source is…

Don't dodge my question, just answer it…

---

Reputable: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, many large city/regional print newspapers.

Those known to blatantly distort the truth or promote promote propaganda: Fox (more their infotainment "analysis" prime time bunch, less their hard news folks), OAN, NewsMax, Breitbart.

Not an exhaustive list. Certainly others that promote a conservative or liberal agenda that tend to try to provide symmetrical reporting to asymmetrical behavior.

---

Ok, you lost all credibility with me based on what you think is reputable. The same networks that pushed so many narratives that were false (shall I address some of them?).

Dude, that's right, I called you dude… your TDS is beyond reproach!