Below is my column in The Hill on the expected indictment this week of former President Donald Trump and the danger of prosecution by plebiscite. I have been critical of the indictment, which is reportedly based on a highly dubious use of a New York misdemeanor charge to revise a long dormant federal election law charge. We will have to wait to confirm the details on the indictment but this remains, in my view, a blatantly political prosecution.
Here is the column:
“The moment that we are waiting for, we made it to the finale together” — those familiar words from “America’s Got Talent” — could well be the opening line for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg next week, when he is expected to unveil an indictment of former President Trump. With Trump’s reported announcement that he expects to be arrested on Tuesday, it would be a fitting curtain raiser for a case that has developed more like a television production than a criminal prosecution. Indeed, this indictment was repeatedly rejected only to be brought back by popular demand.
Trump faces serious legal threats in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago investigation. But the New York case would be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bragg can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.
Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.
It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.
In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission chair also expressed doubts about the theory.
Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.
More importantly, Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office. The two lead prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned in protest. Pomerantz launched a very public campaign against Bragg’s decision, including commenting on a still-pending investigation. He made it clear that Trump was guilty in his mind, even though his former office was still undecided and the grand jury investigation was ongoing.
Pomerantz then did something that shocked many of us as highly unprofessional and improper: Over Bragg’s objection that he was undermining any possible prosecution, Pomerantz published a book detailing the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted.
He was, of course, an instant success in the media that have spent years highlighting a dozen different criminal theories that were never charged against Trump. Pomerantz followed the time-tested combination for success — link Trump to any alleged crime and convey absolute certainty of guilt. For cable TV shows, it was like a heroin hit for an audience in a long agonizing withdrawal.
And the campaign worked. Bragg caved, and “America’s Got Trump” apparently will air after all.
However, before twelve Simon Cowells can vote, Bragg still has to get beyond a series of glaring problems which could raise serious appellate challenges later.
While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.
Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. The campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget. Yet, there was no hue and cry for this type of prosecution in Washington or New York.
A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.
The linkage to a federal offense is critical for another reason: Bragg’s office ran out of time to prosecute this as a misdemeanor years ago; the statute of limitations is two years. Even if he shows this is a viable felony charge, the longer five-year limitation could be hard to establish.
Of course, none of these legalistic problems will be relevant in the coming frenzy. It will be a case that is nothing if not entertaining, one to which you can bring your popcorn — so long as you leave your principles behind.
Indeed, some will view it as poetic justice for this former reality-TV host to be tried like a televised talent show. However, the damage to the legal system is immense whenever political pressure overwhelms prosecutorial judgment. The criminal justice system can be a terrible weapon when used for political purposes, an all-too-familiar spectacle in countries where political foes can be targeted by the party in power.
None of this means Trump is blameless or should not be charged in other cases. However, we seem to be on the verge of watching a prosecution by plebiscite in this case. The season opener of “America’s Got Trump” might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“None of this means Trump is blameless or should not be charged in other cases.”
Oh, please. The left has been after Trump for seven years. Anything remaining on the prosecution table at this point is as much of a stretch as the Stormy Daniels case.
JT throwing a bone to the Lefty’s that read (and argue, ad nauseum) this blog. The professor knows if there was ever any there there, Orange Man Bad(!) would have been indicted long, long ago. It would have been nice if he had elaborated though…blameless for what, charged for what…rather than submit for Democrats and RINOs approval, an open-ended fallacy.
Gladiator “Are you not entertained?”
The real story is the corruption of the Biden family and the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party’s betrayal of America.
700 million guns. Wait for it…..
Thank you, Professor Turley for always providing intelligent discourse on the issues of the day. I don’t have to agree with you to appreciate the thoughtfulness of yourself and most readers. Yes, there are trolls here, as everywhere, but they always show their spots early. I would think most politicians and business leaders would be very interested in this cares, if not wholly outright against it as if this type of scrutiny works on one individual, who’s to stop this type of prosecutorial conduct against them also? It is quite common for the affluent to invoke NDAs on their employees, associates, particularly those they have settled cases with regarding sexual harassment and what not previously. This type of proceeding I would think serves to invalidate ANY NDA as long as it serves the purposes of an organization or individual with a bone to pick. The NDA, in essence becomes only worth the value of the paper it’s printed on. I think the domino effect of this particular case could unleash decades of future litigation.
America was built on violence
Most TV viewers want to see a match….. Trump Vs Bragg…. A privileged white man against an angry black man with a chip on his shoulder. Place your bets.
Let the Democrats “fire all their guns” one-by-one. eventrually They will run out of rounds
and the ‘Don’ will come out unscathed, in plenty of time for the 2024 Election.
A city which has just lowered the bar in order to raise the academic test scores in its public school system’s math and English proficiency. A city and state which essentially operate a ‘catch and release’ criminal justice system the nature of which has had a profound deleterious, detrimental and damaging effect on the public good, safety, health and welfare. A city DA who advocates for those who suffer from ‘Officer Krupke Syndrome’ instead of protecting the citizens who are their prey. Set upon, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered..I left there 12 years ago after 70 years a resident of the NYC/Metro area, much to my great satisfaction, and never to return. If this is what Svelaz can champion, it speaks tomes about her and others of her ilk.
I don’t think this case will ever get to a jury. Trump will file motion to dismiss on basis of the tolling of the statute and, alternatively, the lack of jurisdiction to try a federal charge in a state court. The court will deny but allow an appeal and the appellate court will toss the entire circus act and that will be the end of it.
It shouldn’t matter what anyone thinks of Trump personally — what should matter is how the Democrats are perverting justice and exploiting the media (and their base) to “get Trump.” They have tried two fake impeachments and a ton of unsubstantiated charges to keep this guy out of office. We have to ask, Why? No party expends that much time and money on a trivial issue. Trump represents a huge threat to their lucrative scams, from Ukraine to their “green” agenda (which left science in the dust long ago and now is running purely on the “profit” motive). This is just the latest travesty of “justice” by the rotten Democrats, via Soros bought and paid for DA Bragg.
Democrats are not exploiting legacy media. They’re tongue-kissing cousins with a common cause: destroy the American middle class by whatever means.
The process is the punishment. No one expects any charges not to be reversed.
The statute of limitations is a strange one.
2yrs for state crime.
5yrs if linked to a federal crime.
Its not 2+5 but 5yrs from the actual crime.
Nov 2016 is when the alleged payoff occurred.
So 2016 + 5 = Nov 2021 would have been it.
That’s the first hurdle.
Then it goes downhill for Bragg beyond that.
I wonder when Turley will start talking about Trump’s options to sue Bragg, the city of NY and the state?
-G
Ian – I agree that a 2 SOL under state law would probably not be extended by linking it to a different crime with a 5 year SOL.
Usually, a State SOL clock goes on hold when the defendant is not present in the state. How much time has Trump spent in NY over the last 7 years?
Tolling of the statute of limitations is governed by New York Criminal Procedure and is contained in Section 30.10 subsection 4, as set forth below:
“New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law – CPL § 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation
4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:
(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.”
Maj229 – Accoridng to Wikipedia, Trump and his wife changed residences from New York to Florida in September 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Residences _of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=Upon%20Trump’s%20election%20to%20the,%2Da%2DLago%20in%20Florida. This is almost exactly 3 years after the payment to Stormy Daniels. Even after 2019, it is not true that Trump was “continuously” outside New York. For example, he was reported to be back in Manhattan in 2021. https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-returns-to-new-york-city/ So, this out-dated tolling provision does save the state charge.
“not save”
edwardmahl: I also found this: New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules – CVP § 207. Defendant’s absence from state or residence under false name
“If, when a cause of action accrues against a person, he is without the state, the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time he comes into or returns to the state. If, after a cause of action has accrued against a person, that person departs from the state and remains continuously absent therefrom for four months or more, or that person resides within the state under a false name which is unknown to the person entitled to commence the action, the time of his absence or residence within the state under such a false name is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced. If an action is commenced against a person described above, the time within which service must be made on such person in accordance with subdivisions (a) and (b) of section three hundred six-b of this chapter shall be computed in accordance with this section.
?????
What are your thoughts?
Tom Delay got this same treatment in Texas in 2005 when he was indicted by a Travis County grand Jury. (For those of you who are unaware, Travis County is the bluest county in Texas and the site of the state capitol of Austin) The district attorney of Travis county had the ability to indict anyone in Texas because of the expanded powers of that county DA. This resulted in Delay resigning his seat in the US House Representatives (he was also majority leader). He was indicted on state campaign finance infractions. He was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to 3 years in prison but he remained out on appeal. Once the case left the local jury pool of Travis County the verdict was overturned by 2 separate appeals courts in 2014. But he never returned to the House or to elected positions. The Travis County DA (virtually always a democrat) was a longtime arch democrat with a heavily democrat jury pool who terrorized many Republicans through the state. Often overturned when his jury pool was not a factor. This was one the first major attempts by democrats to wage legal war. So I would not make light of this case, no matter how obtuse it seems.
GEB……Good comment………………and now Soros is choosing the Travis Co. DA’s, making the former ones look like John Birchers.
Add Senator Ted Stevens, and Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson. Also Consider Gov Sara Palin was under numerous criminal investigations in Alaska, by Republicans. Her real crime, pulling the curtians back on political corruption, grifting money from the public Treasury.
There are more examples of Democrat ‘LawFare’. A term coined by Democrats. The use of the law to punish your political opposition. Democrats must lean into lawfare because in the Arena of Ideas, Democrats always lose.
Let’s keep in mind one thing here. All this hype about Trump getting arrested is based on Trump’s own BS claim that he knows based on some leaks that he has not shown or provided to the public. Everyone knows Trump is a consummate liar and he’s good at manipulating the media.
I personally don’t buy the idea that he will be arrested this Tuesday, but I do believe he will be indicted within this month for sure.
He’s already called for protests and and his biggest MAGA nutty fans are losing their minds and preparing for the end times. Again. Clearly he is stoking rage and calling for help to get the outrage out there and create this victimhood aura that he will use to his advantage.
This indictment will not be a major one, that is coming down the pipeline soon. What this does have the possibility of doing is start the ball rolling on upcoming indictments that even Turley admits are more serious and less defensible than this one. Trump loves to put on a good show and this is no exception with his unsubstantiated claim that these “leaks” saying he will be arrested on Tuesday. He’s playing the media and his supporters as he usually does. In the long term it doesn’t help him. He’s nervous for sure and this is how he deals with it. By creating chaos and spreading BS as a fever pitch.
You must not be following all the other media outlets that are opining, independently of “political posturing” that the indictment is likely to be handed down. You might consider keeping in mind that “Making America Great Again” is a perspective shared by millions and millions and millions of people, many of whom do not particularly care whether Donald Trump carries that banner.
Everyone knows Trump is a consummate liar and he’s good at manipulating the media.
Bragg could easily issue a press release and be done with it.
Like the Hunter lap top. No one is claiming anything but what Trump is Claiming
Svelaz,
That doesn’t fly.
This had been in the works for a long time.
I suggest you reread Turley’s article. (Or maybe actually read it.)
He addressed this.
-G
Trump claimed he heard thru leaks. He never said who provided him with these “leaks”. Trump is a known habitual liar. Nothing coming out of his mouth can be trusted.
Ah yes …… No interest at Merrick Garland’s DOJ to charge Hillary Clinton for listing her $12 Million Dollar Steele Dossier cost as a legal expense. And certainly no interest at the “Independent” Federal Election Commission to refer this over for criminal prosecution either. C’mon….. it’s Hillary !! It’s just a little rounding error. Thank you, Jonathan, for your excellent legal analysis.
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
-Oscar Benevides, former President of Peru
Another great example for real time accountability for rogue prosecutors and judges.
The system is broken.
What reason do the people have to trust the institutions that serve them?
“In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations.”
What Turley is leaves out one particular detail about this. The prosecution was rejected was based on federal election law violations. Not state election law violations. Trump can still be tried under state election law violations which do not have a statute of limitations. Keep in mind that Cohen went to jail for this and the only reason why Trump didn’t was because he was president at the time. That’s no longer true and now he’s subject of state law rather than federal.
“While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws.”
He leaves out state election law.
“In the end, the National Enquirer bought McDougal’s story and did not publish it. And Cohen bought Stormy Daniels’ story through a shell company. Trump later reimbursed Cohen for what was described as legal expenses. And this is the fact pattern that we believe is at the heart of the grand jury investigation. The payment could constitute falsifying business records, which could be a felony if it can be shown this was in service of an illegal campaign donation under New York law. Remember, Michael Cohen went to jail for his part in all this. It was an illegal federal campaign contribution.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/12/1162917379/revisiting-the-stormy-daniels-case-that-could-lead-to-donald-trumps-indictment
It’s still considered an illegal campaign contribution under New York law. The easy part is proving that he falsified business records which is a felony in New York.
It’s a risky attempt at prosecuting under those circumstances however it seems Bragg may have shown the grand jury evidence that Turley is not aware of. Even he admits he doesn’t have all the details regarding the possible indictment.
Cohen went to jail for perjury. The rest is typical progressive clown drivel.
If Ms. Daniels accepted the settlement offer without being coerced, what’s the problem?
For a state election law violation – the state must have jurisdiction.
Daniels did not live in NY at the time. The transactions did not take place in NY.
The event she was paid to not disclose did not take place in NY.
This is a federal election – Federal law Trump’s state law.
Further the courts have already found that federal laws go about as far as they are allowed without running afoul of the first amendment – it is unlikely that if you can prosecute under NY law but not Federal Law that the law is constitutional.
Finally – if this is illegal – then so is Biden using campaign funds to pay election workers to supress the Hunter Biden Story.
All you are doing is proving that the law is being allied differently to Trump and republicans.
I would further note that we are all obligated to follow the law as it actually is – even if the law is wrong and we want it changed.
But that is ALSO precisely why the law must be construed NARROWLY, and it must be construed as those who wrote it intended.
If you are trying to find some broad reading of a law to “get someone” – You are the criminal – not they.
Your nonsense regarding the Biden’s is completely inside and Blind. There is plenty of evidence.
But you are correct that Thus far there is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Joe Biden acted criminally.
There is regarding Hunter, But Hunter is not the big deal here.
That said there is far more than enough proof that there should be an SC, that DOJ/FBI shoudl be actively investigating – as compared to trying to run out the clock. There is more than enough to justify the Congressional investigations, and more than enough that the media should be all over this.
The conduct of Joe Biden has far more and more serious questions than were ever raised about Trump.
With respect to the specifics of the purported NY investigation – Neither the letter of the law, nor anything of consequence is violated by Trump paying Daniels for he silence about a legal consensual sexual liaison almost 20 years ago.
Conversely Biden’s efforts to supress the NY Post story are RADICALLY worse.
The Daniels matter does not involve illegal acts, public corruption, or foreign influence.
Joe Biden, the Biden campaign, the DNC and democrats in congress – as well as the FBI and other alphabet agencies, paid people to lobby Social MEdia to supress a True story that involves abuse of power, public corruption, and national security.
Presuming that we accept – which I do not, that Government is free to criminalize campaign efforts to keep something secret,
it is far more criminal to keep claims that as Vice President Biden and his family received money from a foreign power likely in return for renting government power, than it is that Trump had a legal dalliance with a porn star.
I keep saying that you keep making apples and oranges comparisons.
This is an apples and oranges comparison – because if there is a crime to spending campaign funds to keep a political secret – allegations that you are beholding to foreign powers, is far far far more serious than that you spent and evening with a porn star.
Regardless, the letter of the law must be followed as narrowly as possible.
There is no way to ensnare Trump that does not also ensnare Biden.
So be careful what you wish.
When Republicans retake the Senate and the WH which is highly likely in 2024,
you can expect they will not be so kind or naive as in 2017.
What you have been doing, and continue to do, will be done to you.
What you prosecute Trump and others for will be the standard that will be applied to you in 2025.
As well as by the house until then.
If you wish to be broad in prohibiting the use of Campaign funds than AOC and Waters must be prosecuted for employing friends and family.
And they are the low hanging fruit. Hillary must be prosecuted for funding the Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank Hoax,
And every single democrat whose employed staff involved is tanking the NY POst story must be prosecuted and jailed.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
John,
I agree with what you say, but I am so disillusioned with anything about our govt. that I don’t believe for a second, anything will ever happen to any politician. It has gotten to the point where they are doing their deeds right in front of our faces and there is nothing we can do about it. How can we ever have a decent president when the system is set up that only a narcissist who sells their soul gets to climb the rungs of the ladder? It’s sad to think that the only hope we truley have, is for the whole thing to implode so we can rebuild with the present day being our cautionary tail.
“How can we ever have ..”
I hope that it does not come to this, but the last protection against tyranny is that it makes so many enemies it crumbles under its own weight.
Each Day a few more people move away from the far left.
Each egregious thing they do drives a few more away from them.
The last inevitable failure of tryanny is under its own weight.
I hope and expect we will see collapse before that.
But we WILL see the left collapse.
Svelaz- what “state electioin laws” are you talking about? New York Code 175,20, which JT is talking about, is not a “state election law.” It is merely an odd law saying that business books cannot be falsified. You state: “It is still considerred a contribution under New York law.” Which New York law? It is my understanding that Bragg is trying to rely upon federal campaign finance law in order to establish that the book entry was “false”.
A brief look at the headlines this weekend reveals how far down a dangerous path Trump Derangement Syndrome has led us. It paved the way for the election of a man so corrupt and dumb that even Obama said he surely could f— things up, and he has. We are viewed internationally as weak and that is how we are acting. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and even Saudi Arabia no longer take us seriously. Only these academic types and progressives would allow a Chinese spy balloon to fly across our country unmolested. Only these academic types and progressives would dry up our own oil and gas forcing us to beg other countries for our essential fuels. Only this group would allow an open southern border, inviting all manner of criminals, terrorists and drugs to invade us. Only this group would so mismanage once great cities like San Francisco and New York that the only ones who feel truly safe are the criminals. Only this group would stand idly by while our educational system is overrun by “teachers” suffering from mental diseases or defects which keep them focused on what is between their legs and how they wish it wasn’t there. While all of this and much, much more is going on, “progressive” Democrats and the media can think of nothing else but Trump. There is only one cure for TDS and that is to throw the Democrats and progressives out of office so that real men and women can regain control.
honestlawyermostly,
Well said.
But only those with TDS will think this is THE most important issue in the history of America.
“For a state election law violation – the state must have jurisdiction.
Daniels did not live in NY at the time. The transactions did not take place in NY.
The event she was paid to not disclose did not take place in NY.”
They do have jurisdiction. Trump was a state resident at the time he committed those offenses. Daniels residence is irrelevant. The location of the transactions is irrelevant. It’s Trump who is bound by New York State laws that qualify these potential charges against him.
“This is a federal election – Federal law Trump’s state law.”
Correct, however states determine how they conduct federal elections within their borders and that includes rules regarding contributions.
“Finally – if this is illegal – then so is Biden using campaign funds to pay election workers to supress the Hunter Biden Story.”
Again, what is your evidence backing up this claim. Did the Biden campaign falsify documents or used shell companies to hide these funds?
“If you are trying to find some broad reading of a law to “get someone” – You are the criminal – not they.
Your nonsense regarding the Biden’s is completely inside and Blind. There is plenty of evidence.
But you are correct that Thus far there is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Joe Biden acted criminally.”
YOU are trying to “get Biden” by using a broad reading of the law. Which is quite ironic.
You keep saying there is “plenty of evidence” yet you keep failing to present any. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove what you accuse Biden of. You are already judged Biden has committed criminal acts based on those non-existent evidence you keep failing to present.
“That said there is far more than enough proof that there should be an SC, that DOJ/FBI shoudl be actively investigating – as compared to trying to run out the clock. There is more than enough to justify the Congressional investigations, and more than enough that the media should be all over this.
The conduct of Joe Biden has far more and more serious questions than were ever raised about Trump.”
Not there isn’t enough evidence. All you have is pure speculation based on activities that are completely legal. You keep going beyond the “evidence” to insinuate that there is more which proves a certain guilt or criminal intent. You have already accused Hunter Biden of orchestrating some scheme to “sell the VP office” or some other asinine claim without any evidence that supports it other than what is already known which is not illegal or criminal. You’re pushing a witch-hunt in search of a crime that you have no evidence of.
“The conduct of Joe Biden has far more and more serious questions than were ever raised about Trump.”
You have still not provided any evidence of your claim about Biden paying staffers to suppress the NY post story. The fact that you keep failing to provide it shows exactly why most your claims are just BS. This is your biggest problem. You have no evidence to back up your claims. All you have is pure speculation and assumptions based on this magic evidence you can’t seem to present. Then you attempt to make these really bad false equivalencies to “prove” your point which are really just obfuscations and nonsense. Because you can’t provide the evidence you claim exists.
Svelaz – You write: “States determine how they conduct federal elections within their borders and that includes rules regarding contributions.” Not really, The FEC has a different opinion:
“Where federal laws and state laws appear to overlap, the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations take precedence in two broad areas:
1. Prohibitions on election-financing activities by foreign nationals, national banks and federally chartered corporations (2 U.S.C. §441e and 11 CFR 110.4(a);
§441b(a) and 11 CFR 114.2(a)); and
2. Laws that pertain to the financing of federal elections (2 U.S.C. §453; 11 CFR 108.7(a)).”
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fed_state_law_brochure.pdf
Back in 2017 people were yelling for Hillary to be prosecuted for her crimes and I commented that we don’t prosecute former presidents and their wives. I was wrong. Apparently we do prosecute former presidents.
No law says we can’t prosecute former presidents. Why would that be strange? Hillary was never charged with any crimes. Trump would be the first and that is not surprising. There’s always a first and Trump may making history in the worst possible way.
Because there was a time when America valued its dignity. That’s why Nixon didn’t go to jail. It wasn’t about him. It was about the Office of the President and maintaining respect in the eyes of other countries – both friends and enemies. America isn’t (or wasn’t) a third rate country where our former head of state was hauled off to jail. Unfortunately, our greatness is behind us.
Nixon didn’t go to jail because he was pardoned. Not because of dignity. In America there’s this concept that nobody is above the law. Nixon lucked out simply because he was pardoned. That didn’t mean he was not accountable for his crimes. He got lucky. Trump will not have that luxury if he gets indicted and that’s the point. He brought it upon himself and accepting personal responsibility for one’s actions is the undying mantra of the right. Apparently it only applies to anyone besides themselves. Aren’t they the ones who are always saying we should be tough on crime? You don’t hear them saying “except presidents and former presidents”
The season opener of “America’s Got Trump” might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution.
JT, you give this production far too much credit. This is just another in the long running series of the Looney Tunes (Democrats) .production of the Roadrunner (Trump) vs Wile e. Coyote (Justice). Even before it begins we know how it will end. Beep! Beep!
Yet another diversion to preoccupy and throw red meat at the 24-7 media monster to devour. Throwing a firebomb to divert attention away from something else. What damaging news is about to break in the current administration?
It is a propaganda event and/or perhaps pure, unbridled hatred toward an individual. This parallels Orwell’s 1984 ritual against “Emmanuel Goldstein” and the frenzied “two minute hate.”
How bizarre and shameful.
“Trump faces serious legal threats in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago investigation. But the New York case would be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bragg can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.”
Is this how Turley says, “rigged jury and judges” when he calls them “highly motivated”. That’s funny.
“He was, of course, an instant success in the media that have spent years highlighting a dozen different criminal theories that were never charged against Trump. Pomerantz followed the time-tested combination for success — link Trump to any alleged crime and convey absolute certainty of guilt. For cable TV shows, it was like a heroin hit for an audience in a long agonizing withdrawal.”
That’s exactly what Turley and the right wing media has been doing with the Hunter Biden “scandal”. There are all these criminal theories involving Chinese payments, and influence peddling schemes, and alleged corruption, etc, etc, etc. The resemblance is uncanny. If Hunter Biden can be subjected to such unjust insinuations, so can Trump. Problem is Trump has a lot more going on than just this one case. An indictment on this case could be the proverbial domino that starts all the other indictments that are much more serious and certain than this one. Just the image of Trump in handcuffs would be satisfying enough for a lot of people. Will Trump’s supporters and MAGA nutties start losing their minds and start rioting? Even MTG is calling for caution regarding these protests because they could have the tendency to devolve into rioting and acts of violence.
A Democrat operative would say…200 times a day.
Hullbobby, you’re off on the count. Slow down fella. Don’t get ahead of yourself. It’s too early.
Ha Svelaz, I am not off on the count, I am just highlighting your early commenting as a prelude to the next 197 comments you will make on this one story.
Come on hullbobby, you’re off on the count right now. I haven’t posted anything near what you say I will. Maybe I’ll post only 30. Who knows.
Do try to stay on topic here. I’m sure there will eventually be a Hunter article, until then the subject at hand id Trump and the pending charges this week.
Poor deflection and whataboutism.
It’s not deflection or whataboutism. I”m simply making an observation that is comically ironic coming from Turley.
You are unpersuasive.
Wasn’t meant to be. It’s strange that you couldn’t distinguish an opinion based on an observation and an argument for something. That’s ok. There are plenty of others who don’t either.