Preparing for Trump's Indictment

[TreeFrogTrader]

James did not do anything she was not entitled to do. Get over it.

It is above your level to understand it, but as I said, wait until there is a presiding judge who has to deal with her twittering on an open case.

As I said, there will be a quick refresher course right there as to what "she is entitled to do."

Of course, as a Canadian, you are an expert on all things American as usual.

 

[El OchoCinco]

It is above your level to understand it, but as I said, wait until there is a presiding judge who has to deal with her twittering on an open case.

As I said, there will be a quick refresher course right there as to what "she is entitled to do."

Of course, as a Canadian, you are an expert on all things American as usual.

I dont think what the AG did was illegal as an AG is often asked to give updaes on a case as much as they can. As someone else said it is like giving a press conference.

However the message given out sounded more political and bullshit in what she said and did stretch ethics a bit by saying they had real evidence. Well duh I assume you have some evidence of something but going on twitter is not a good look for an AG on a high profile case and claiming you need the alleged defendants to come in and give testimony (which is useless since they can simply invoke the 5th).

Good lawyers don't brag about actual real evidence because the actual real evidence speaks for itself. Claiming she has real evidence and then needs to have the trumps come in and testify shows how weak the case seemingly is..

 

[El OchoCinco]

The Trumps are in a legally precarious situation now. The NYAG claims to have evidence of wrong doing within the Trump sphere and as such she has the legal authority to bring in witnesses and as such those witnesses are obligated to be truthful with her or face legal consequences, or plead the fifth amendment. Not fun stuff.

Yeah but if her case resides on hard core financial evidence then the case should be going really quickly to the next step. If her case depends 100% on the trumps coming in to catch them in a lie and not invoking the 5th, which they will, then to me her twitter seems to indicate her case is extremely shaky.

Looking at financial records to prove something illegal was being done is almost impossible when the alleged person has the most expensive accountants able to take advantage of every tax loophole or stretch the meaning of any financial regulation. If I believe trump is a mentally challenged child, I also believe his accountants and financial advisors are beyond masters at producing financial documents that cannot be conclusive of any illegal actions and the AGs case will fail probably.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

going on twitter is not a good look for an AG on a high profile case and claiming you need the alleged defendants to come in and give testimony (which is useless since they can simply invoke the 5th).

Maybe she wishes to highlight the wholesale invocation of the 5th for posterity.

Properly punctuated, of course:

 

[Ricter]

Yeah but if her case resides on hard core financial evidence then the case should be going really quickly to the next step. If her case depends 100% on the trumps coming in to catch them in a lie and not invoking the 5th, which they will, then to me her twitter seems to indicate her case is extremely shaky.

Looking at financial records to prove something illegal was being done is almost impossible when the alleged person has the most expensive accountants able to take advantage of every tax loophole or stretch the meaning of any financial regulation. If I believe trump is a mentally challenged child, I also believe his accountants and financial advisors are beyond masters at producing financial documents that cannot be conclusive of any illegal actions and the AGs case will fail probably.

Once the first subpoena landed it took less than a year to bring down Al Capone.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Good lawyers don't brag about actual real evidence because the actual real evidence speaks for itself. Claiming she has real evidence and then needs to have the trumps come in and testify shows how weak the case seemingly is..

Maybe. Or maybe it highlights the Trumps' unwillingness to be held to account as normal, respectable citizens. How they are willing to do anything and everything to avoid daylight. The Trumps are showcasing themselves for the entitled POS that they are. And that they evidently have much to hide...

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Once the first subpoena landed it took less than a year to bring down Al Capone.

Interestingly, I was thinking of Capone when I was reading about the latest Trump legal entanglements. Let's hope it plays out the same way.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I dont think what the AG did was illegal as an AG is often asked to give updaes on a case as much as they can. As someone else said it is like giving a press conference.

However the message given out sounded more political and bullshit in what she said and did stretch ethics a bit by saying they had real evidence. Well duh I assume you have some evidence of something but going on twitter is not a good look for an AG on a high profile case and claiming you need the alleged defendants to come in and give testimony (which is useless since they can simply invoke the 5th).

Good lawyers don't brag about actual real evidence because the actual real evidence speaks for itself. Claiming she has real evidence and then needs to have the trumps come in and testify shows how weak the case seemingly is..

And I did not refer to illegality. Just proper and improper conduct.

But also with the warning, that once they are at trial or even before the judge will have a say into how much can be bantered around out on twitter while at trial.

You know, take someone like Roger Stone and a couple others. It definitely is not illegal for a defendant to consistently, loudly, and obnoxiously proclaim their innocence in public. They too are entitled to "update the public with their own press conferences." Except the judge issued gag orders.

It varies on where you are in the process. In general, where an Attorney General knows that a defendant is going to raise a "political witchhunt" defense, I would like my attorney general to not be making politically motivated statements on twitter if I lived in that state. It is a risky and low level of conduct. Which a judge will/may weigh in on at some point especially if defense presents motions. My comments are based on many other statements, a constant drumbeat in fact, that she has also engaged in. Not limited to this one twitter thing.

 

[Ricter]

Interestingly, I was thinking of Capone when I was reading about the latest Trump legal entanglements. Let's hope it plays out the same way.

Personally I'm wishing for a Jack Ruby solution to the Trump crime family. Wishing, not advocating, which would be illegal.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483652354398429184

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483652355442847748

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483652358206857219