NYPD may find less trouble with MAGA idiots than with people so happy they are dancing in the streets! Mary Trump said that the biggest problem with a Donald indictment wouldn't be MAGA protests , it would be that there was not enough beer for the celebrations!
The first of many, I’m waiting for the other shoes to drop. The only one that will prevent him running is the J6 suit and I don’t know how close they are to bringing that. The E Jean Carroll case is set for next month and GA could be voted on anytime. There’s still the DOJ cases the documents and J6 ... in any case , I’m going to savor this moment. I hope the House monkeys heads explode and reduce their loud mouth lies and attempts at interference. I feel like singing “it’s beginning to look a lot like justice...”
those political pundits (unlike the ones I grew up with in the last century...the Walter Lippmann, James Reston, and--best of all--Murray Kempton types, who actually knew stuff) are largely idiots.
Biden was being widely counted out until his improvs at the SOTU, after which he was suddenly a contender again.
so 20024 is a good while off. and who knows what kinds of filthy Repug behavior might come out as a result of this (and the coming) indictments?
In fact (I'm not a drinking person, either) I'm gonna have a shot of Irish Mist-one of the few times in my life I actually can celebrate. My husband would have joined me.
Mazel Tov! Here's to many more indictments to come!
I am saving Guinness Stout celebration (hopefully!) for tomorrow night's NCAA women's semifinal game between my favorite team this year and any year, the Iowa Hawkeyes, #2 seed, versus #1 seed South Carolina --- unbeaten this season with a 36-0 record.
But the Hawks have the National Player of the Year in the women's game, the astounding Caitlin Clark:
2 minutes 47 seconds, she did something no player in the men's or women's NCAA Tournament history had ever done: A "triple double" with over 40 points, 10 rebounds, 12 assists. Her passes to her teammates are as impressive as what the best NBA players do, she's that good.
If you ever have the chance to go to a Woman's tournament...TAKE IT!
I got to see the The Final Four in Columbus in 2018. Both final 4 games went to OT with last second shots for wins. Arike Ogunbowale was brilliant, hitting final shots in both the Semi and Final games to bring the championship to Notre Dame. The best part was all final four teams could have been champs, they were all that good. Very, very exiting stuff.
I will definitely arrange the tickets, especially as the standard of play has consistently been improving since Title 9, what a shocker! How could they start accelerating their skills and expertise
when systematic discrimination was so blatant. Still exists, but far less onerous than before Title 9.
Women's rights are human rights, but not only that, sports is such a huge part of world culture, it helps to educate men to stop condescending to women no matter what the venue is, it's flat out entertaining as hell, the girls and women have the opportunity to learn valuable "life lessons." There's no RATIONAL reason at all for male sports fans to avoid attending, and all kinds of reasons they should.
I really have no idea who will win the game tonight between Iowa and S. Carolina, don't trust any overly confident predictions at this stage, but as long as the refs don't "lose control of the game," I am ready to see it go either way. Triple OT win by Iowa via a last second shot from the logo launched by AP Player of the Year Caitlin Clark to break a tie and seal the victory, or something more mundane!
Everyone in New York City is everything: Irish on St Pat’s, Chinese on Chinese New Year’s, and so on down the line. Jewish is prevalent because it’s just another way of saying “outsider”. We’re all outsiders here!
Personally believe both the Georgia and DOJ cases are more important to clearly show the threat Trump represents to the Republic but if he is found guilty on this case there is no immunity as a presidential candidate
With each indictment hell gets colder, is that it? After the last trial, when Diaper Don (thank you, Mary Hilton) hears those cold steel bars clang shut, hell freezes over. Wild celebrations and parades ensue in all Blue states.
Don't forget Cristina, you and I are not on Trump's jury, not part of the judge's court and not part of all the other persons who might directly, or indirectly, unduly influence the final verdict.
So we can take all of our life experience into account, including seeing Trump on video, hearing his rants, the works --- and conclude, this guy is as guilty as it gets.
"Presumption of innocence" doesn't abolish our right, being outside his legal process, to freely state we believe Trump is guilty, and deserves some serious prison time, maybe five years in Dannemora.
And that he's a menace to humanity, or however we want to further contextualize our views.
Guilty or not guilty, this is a milestone no matter what the indictment says. The last few years have brought home to many of us just how fragile the rule of law and what we like to call "our democracy" are. One so-far-sealed indictment doesn't fix it, nowhere close, but I'm willing to take it as a positive sign.
He deserves execution by firing squad, or hanging, or at the very least, life without parole. But it’s totally unlikely he will suffer any imprisonment at all.
My phone blew up while I was in a Zoom meeting, and about two seconds later, three people in the meeting said exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. O happy day!
Was the media and pundits who got ahead of themselves, again.
Common sense said the GJ had a Easter break coming. Much like the history of juries on a Friday, the smart play was the GJ wanted this behind them and DA Bragg knew they did.
It was the false reporting and punditry claiming the GJ wasn't due to come in for their regularly scheduled Thursday afternoon session. DA Bragg didn't dismiss them from Thursday's session, then call them back in. Woulda' pissed off the very people he needed the most.
Even Trump's own attorney had to admit that the political aspect of this indictment is more about Bragg getting elected than Trump. There is really nothing unusual about a DA taking the opinions of the electorate into account when administering justice. I'm not saying it's right and I'm not admitting Bragg is doing it, but it happens all the time.
It is really going to be fascinating to observe how the defense handles this. They can't allow Trump to take the stand but they can't stop him either. If he doesn't take the stand I don't know how they can answer the charges. If he does take the stand it is more than likely that Individual One will admit to crimes nobody even knew about.
That one still sticks in my craw, too. When did enslavement get re-installed just for these "special" wonderful Mommies--indeed I wonder if their sponsoring organization is called 'Moms for Liberty' (and wouldn't that be richly ironic?) but they "own" their children. What depraved hubris.
Those mommies are some of the same racists who (secretly) would LOVE to see slavery reinstated. The idea of owning another human being is entirely comfortable and familiar to them.
One thing we would NOT see as part of that hypothetical is Trump threatening to kill himself, or any sign of remorse, no metanoia, nothing like that.
In fact, pushing it further, it would be more likely it would turn out Trump had bribed a body double to impersonate him in the Bronco, and was fleeing to Russia!
Notice the implications of a Donald J. Trump DNA swab for the upcoming defamation/sexual assault case filed by journalist E. Jean Carrroll. It could more or less decide that case in her favor, allowing her both vindication and heavy, heavy damages.
Part of his processing will PROBABLY be to get a DNA swab, he can't refuse the mugshot, without causing world-wide hilarity, but hey, it's Trump. The indictment is still under seal, so maybe they won't include it, and leave it to the E. Jean Carroll lawyers to demand it in discovery as relevant, probative evidence. The thing is, in this Stormy Daniels hush fund case, it is entirely likely the grand jury heard from other witnesses, other women (establishing a pattern of Trump having illicit affairs and bribing them to remain silent) so they feel confident Trump's DNA is relevant, in fact, highly relevant. It might even be connected to only Daniels, but Trump can refuse in any case. It's his right to refuse, and the judicial system's right to compel it anyway.
Trump can't refuse to show up without repercussions, but once he is in custody he can IN THEORY, of course "refuse to allow a DNA swab, " if one is required, and see what that proves.
Prosecutors would love it, do you see why? "Mens rea," i.e. "consciousness of guilt," it would be great stuff; let the first part of the case already involve Trump refusing to provide any DNA after spending time in the friendly confines of the building, if he likes.
He's subject to a judicial order that alleges probable cause for a felony in the indictment, in fact it may be more like 30 felony counts, and the indictment, or warrant or presentments, or whatever New York State terms it, can indeed include a mandatory DNA sample. But theoretically, he can refuse, and then have to explain on what legal grounds he should be exempt.
So, yes, he could fall to the floor kicking and screaming, and here come the handcuffs. He can theoretically try all sorts of tricks, maybe even feign insanity like that Mafia don did for years, who knows?
Then when the DA's staff discovers samples all over the place, he can deny that they are his.
When they use eyewitnesses and surveillance video to show it's his DNA, his lawyers can argue about that, too!
This process is not the same thing at all as, for example, a police officer pulling some random driver over for speeding and DEMANDING a DNA swab out of the clear blue sky, maybe that's the confusion?
This is very different, but if Trump wants to start in on refusing to provide a thumbprint or a mugshot or to supply any past aliases or....etc. etc., he can do that. And refuse to allow a DNA swab, too.
I hope he does try that, so the lawyers he has hired can provide legal arguments as to why Donald J. Trump, unlike any other citizen similarly situated, should be allowed to provide no DNA, despite the judicial order that is very likely going to include that stipulation, along with many others.
I was under the impression that they already have a DNA sample. can he refuse to allow them to use it, or is it out of his hands once they have it? do I have ANY of this right?
Sure, I see it was not truncated. Maybe it's not even going to be an issue at all, but it seems awfully likely that with Trump expounding his version of Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman," and Ms. Daniels insisting, yes he did, and DNA being very persistent in nature, she even already has presented what her side alleges is his DNA, he denied it, so it will be an issue.
When you think about "Cold Cases" from over 30 years ago being solved in large part via DNA evidence, and this being "only" from around 2007, it's not such a reach. Also, considering Trump was extremely high profile, very wealthy, and Daniels no fool at all, she might have realized it could be legally valuable to have saved that biologically persuasive evidence.
Now I see that the entire example distinguishing Trump in custody under judicial order, from for example a highway patrol officer randomly demanding a DNA sample, might be what the confusion is. It's very different, and judges can indeed issue warrants or sign off on indictments (the lawyers for Trump and those for the Manhattan DA might even have already argued this issue, when it comes to that) that stipulate a DNA sample be provided.
Oh, if I wasn’t so exhausted from never sleeping through the night and having relentless low-grade anxiety, I would drag my ass to 5th Avenue and run up and down the street with sparklers. Oh happy day. Makes me proud to be a New Yorker.
"New Yawk, New Yawk, the town so nice they named it twice."
I would love it if only for having been able to see a production of Cabaret with Joel Grey and Jill Haworth, Bert Convy, Jack Gilford, and the INCREDIBLE Lotte Lenya, in the 60s.
Oh gosh, I sure as hell hope so but she is a millionaire in her own right. A tabloid, the Daily Mail, had to pay her $2.6 million for defamation. They said she went beyond being just a model. She could leave his ass and take their kid with her.
NYPD may find less trouble with MAGA idiots than with people so happy they are dancing in the streets! Mary Trump said that the biggest problem with a Donald indictment wouldn't be MAGA protests , it would be that there was not enough beer for the celebrations!
That's funny, Peter, maybe even a ticker day parade when he gets convicted :)
The first of many, I’m waiting for the other shoes to drop. The only one that will prevent him running is the J6 suit and I don’t know how close they are to bringing that. The E Jean Carroll case is set for next month and GA could be voted on anytime. There’s still the DOJ cases the documents and J6 ... in any case , I’m going to savor this moment. I hope the House monkeys heads explode and reduce their loud mouth lies and attempts at interference. I feel like singing “it’s beginning to look a lot like justice...”
We should be careful what we wish for. Some political pundits say that t-Rump is the only GOP candidate that Biden can beat.
those political pundits (unlike the ones I grew up with in the last century...the Walter Lippmann, James Reston, and--best of all--Murray Kempton types, who actually knew stuff) are largely idiots.
Biden was being widely counted out until his improvs at the SOTU, after which he was suddenly a contender again.
so 20024 is a good while off. and who knows what kinds of filthy Repug behavior might come out as a result of this (and the coming) indictments?
I'm not worried yet.
I just knew this was going to be a good day. Happy Hour commences now.
In fact (I'm not a drinking person, either) I'm gonna have a shot of Irish Mist-one of the few times in my life I actually can celebrate. My husband would have joined me.
Mazel Tov! Here's to many more indictments to come!
Prosit!
I am saving Guinness Stout celebration (hopefully!) for tomorrow night's NCAA women's semifinal game between my favorite team this year and any year, the Iowa Hawkeyes, #2 seed, versus #1 seed South Carolina --- unbeaten this season with a 36-0 record.
But the Hawks have the National Player of the Year in the women's game, the astounding Caitlin Clark:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJoTUT9LB9o
2 minutes 47 seconds, she did something no player in the men's or women's NCAA Tournament history had ever done: A "triple double" with over 40 points, 10 rebounds, 12 assists. Her passes to her teammates are as impressive as what the best NBA players do, she's that good.
even as a recovering alcoholic for more than half my life, a shot of the 12-year-old Macallan sounds good, especially when there's none around.
but a pre-rolled joint will definitely do...
LOL, yes, that too, and "moderation in all things."
If you ever have the chance to go to a Woman's tournament...TAKE IT!
I got to see the The Final Four in Columbus in 2018. Both final 4 games went to OT with last second shots for wins. Arike Ogunbowale was brilliant, hitting final shots in both the Semi and Final games to bring the championship to Notre Dame. The best part was all final four teams could have been champs, they were all that good. Very, very exiting stuff.
I will definitely arrange the tickets, especially as the standard of play has consistently been improving since Title 9, what a shocker! How could they start accelerating their skills and expertise
when systematic discrimination was so blatant. Still exists, but far less onerous than before Title 9.
Women's rights are human rights, but not only that, sports is such a huge part of world culture, it helps to educate men to stop condescending to women no matter what the venue is, it's flat out entertaining as hell, the girls and women have the opportunity to learn valuable "life lessons." There's no RATIONAL reason at all for male sports fans to avoid attending, and all kinds of reasons they should.
I really have no idea who will win the game tonight between Iowa and S. Carolina, don't trust any overly confident predictions at this stage, but as long as the refs don't "lose control of the game," I am ready to see it go either way. Triple OT win by Iowa via a last second shot from the logo launched by AP Player of the Year Caitlin Clark to break a tie and seal the victory, or something more mundane!
Love it!
Thanks, I’ll be sure to watch it 👍
Wow! She's amazing and clearly is part of a superb team.
Good one!
a genuine giggle, to be sure.
I like that in these jokes, the genie is ALWAYS Jewish. or maybe just a New Yorker, which in some ways amounts to the same thing.
Everyone in New York City is everything: Irish on St Pat’s, Chinese on Chinese New Year’s, and so on down the line. Jewish is prevalent because it’s just another way of saying “outsider”. We’re all outsiders here!
Personally believe both the Georgia and DOJ cases are more important to clearly show the threat Trump represents to the Republic but if he is found guilty on this case there is no immunity as a presidential candidate
of course they are, and I would personally have preferred one of THOSE to have come first. but they WILL come.
and as of right now, we don't know if there's a legit felony charge happening after someone decided he didn't much like his new digs.
The sun is still shining and the birds are chirping, but I think hell has gone a few degrees colder :).
With each indictment hell gets colder, is that it? After the last trial, when Diaper Don (thank you, Mary Hilton) hears those cold steel bars clang shut, hell freezes over. Wild celebrations and parades ensue in all Blue states.
Trust me, there will be celebrations in red states, too. ✊🥂🎉
The first of the dominoes falls.
Am I allowed to be this happy? I know. I know. “Innocent until...” and all that. But it is a lovely beginning!
Don't forget Cristina, you and I are not on Trump's jury, not part of the judge's court and not part of all the other persons who might directly, or indirectly, unduly influence the final verdict.
So we can take all of our life experience into account, including seeing Trump on video, hearing his rants, the works --- and conclude, this guy is as guilty as it gets.
"Presumption of innocence" doesn't abolish our right, being outside his legal process, to freely state we believe Trump is guilty, and deserves some serious prison time, maybe five years in Dannemora.
And that he's a menace to humanity, or however we want to further contextualize our views.
Guilty or not guilty, this is a milestone no matter what the indictment says. The last few years have brought home to many of us just how fragile the rule of law and what we like to call "our democracy" are. One so-far-sealed indictment doesn't fix it, nowhere close, but I'm willing to take it as a positive sign.
Absolutely!
He deserves execution by firing squad, or hanging, or at the very least, life without parole. But it’s totally unlikely he will suffer any imprisonment at all.
I've always felt the same way, Judith.
but his unraveling is a great second-best, dontcha think?
My phone blew up while I was in a Zoom meeting, and about two seconds later, three people in the meeting said exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. O happy day!
Nice sleight of hand by Alvin Bragg.
Was the media and pundits who got ahead of themselves, again.
Common sense said the GJ had a Easter break coming. Much like the history of juries on a Friday, the smart play was the GJ wanted this behind them and DA Bragg knew they did.
It was the false reporting and punditry claiming the GJ wasn't due to come in for their regularly scheduled Thursday afternoon session. DA Bragg didn't dismiss them from Thursday's session, then call them back in. Woulda' pissed off the very people he needed the most.
Even Trump's own attorney had to admit that the political aspect of this indictment is more about Bragg getting elected than Trump. There is really nothing unusual about a DA taking the opinions of the electorate into account when administering justice. I'm not saying it's right and I'm not admitting Bragg is doing it, but it happens all the time.
It is really going to be fascinating to observe how the defense handles this. They can't allow Trump to take the stand but they can't stop him either. If he doesn't take the stand I don't know how they can answer the charges. If he does take the stand it is more than likely that Individual One will admit to crimes nobody even knew about.
Admit them, and brag about them. No pun intended.
Hopefully the first of many, many more to come.
All sentences to be served consecutively.
A great and significant day, for sure, but those ladies still think they "own" their kids. Obviously, that flabbergasted me.
That one still sticks in my craw, too. When did enslavement get re-installed just for these "special" wonderful Mommies--indeed I wonder if their sponsoring organization is called 'Moms for Liberty' (and wouldn't that be richly ironic?) but they "own" their children. What depraved hubris.
Those mommies are some of the same racists who (secretly) would LOVE to see slavery reinstated. The idea of owning another human being is entirely comfortable and familiar to them.
Are we going to see a slow speed chase in Palm Beach with Stephen Miller behind the wheel of a Ford Bronco?
One thing we would NOT see as part of that hypothetical is Trump threatening to kill himself, or any sign of remorse, no metanoia, nothing like that.
In fact, pushing it further, it would be more likely it would turn out Trump had bribed a body double to impersonate him in the Bronco, and was fleeing to Russia!
But he can’t be President from Russia!
😆😆😆
🤣🤣
Notice the implications of a Donald J. Trump DNA swab for the upcoming defamation/sexual assault case filed by journalist E. Jean Carrroll. It could more or less decide that case in her favor, allowing her both vindication and heavy, heavy damages.
Could he be compelled to give a DNA sample? I thought people could refuse to provide that.
Part of his processing will PROBABLY be to get a DNA swab, he can't refuse the mugshot, without causing world-wide hilarity, but hey, it's Trump. The indictment is still under seal, so maybe they won't include it, and leave it to the E. Jean Carroll lawyers to demand it in discovery as relevant, probative evidence. The thing is, in this Stormy Daniels hush fund case, it is entirely likely the grand jury heard from other witnesses, other women (establishing a pattern of Trump having illicit affairs and bribing them to remain silent) so they feel confident Trump's DNA is relevant, in fact, highly relevant. It might even be connected to only Daniels, but Trump can refuse in any case. It's his right to refuse, and the judicial system's right to compel it anyway.
Trump can't refuse to show up without repercussions, but once he is in custody he can IN THEORY, of course "refuse to allow a DNA swab, " if one is required, and see what that proves.
Prosecutors would love it, do you see why? "Mens rea," i.e. "consciousness of guilt," it would be great stuff; let the first part of the case already involve Trump refusing to provide any DNA after spending time in the friendly confines of the building, if he likes.
He's subject to a judicial order that alleges probable cause for a felony in the indictment, in fact it may be more like 30 felony counts, and the indictment, or warrant or presentments, or whatever New York State terms it, can indeed include a mandatory DNA sample. But theoretically, he can refuse, and then have to explain on what legal grounds he should be exempt.
So, yes, he could fall to the floor kicking and screaming, and here come the handcuffs. He can theoretically try all sorts of tricks, maybe even feign insanity like that Mafia don did for years, who knows?
Then when the DA's staff discovers samples all over the place, he can deny that they are his.
When they use eyewitnesses and surveillance video to show it's his DNA, his lawyers can argue about that, too!
This process is not the same thing at all as, for example, a police officer pulling some random driver over for speeding and DEMANDING a DNA swab out of the clear blue sky, maybe that's the confusion?
This is very different, but if Trump wants to start in on refusing to provide a thumbprint or a mugshot or to supply any past aliases or....etc. etc., he can do that. And refuse to allow a DNA swab, too.
I hope he does try that, so the lawyers he has hired can provide legal arguments as to why Donald J. Trump, unlike any other citizen similarly situated, should be allowed to provide no DNA, despite the judicial order that is very likely going to include that stipulation, along with many others.
There's plenty more to look into if you want to see some interesting legal rules about the larger questions about DNA evidence: www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence/
"Standard 2.2." is the immediately relevant section.
They got DNA from him in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit.
Can't the police just wait until his diaper needs changing? Can't they use that?
😝😝😝
I was under the impression that they already have a DNA sample. can he refuse to allow them to use it, or is it out of his hands once they have it? do I have ANY of this right?
Wow! Thank you for a truly enlightening comment/explanation!
Sure, I see it was not truncated. Maybe it's not even going to be an issue at all, but it seems awfully likely that with Trump expounding his version of Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman," and Ms. Daniels insisting, yes he did, and DNA being very persistent in nature, she even already has presented what her side alleges is his DNA, he denied it, so it will be an issue.
When you think about "Cold Cases" from over 30 years ago being solved in large part via DNA evidence, and this being "only" from around 2007, it's not such a reach. Also, considering Trump was extremely high profile, very wealthy, and Daniels no fool at all, she might have realized it could be legally valuable to have saved that biologically persuasive evidence.
My answer got truncated just now when I tried to add one edit.
THIS is likely what you want to review Standard 2.2:
wwww.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence/#2.2
Now I see that the entire example distinguishing Trump in custody under judicial order, from for example a highway patrol officer randomly demanding a DNA sample, might be what the confusion is. It's very different, and judges can indeed issue warrants or sign off on indictments (the lawyers for Trump and those for the Manhattan DA might even have already argued this issue, when it comes to that) that stipulate a DNA sample be provided.
Oh, if I wasn’t so exhausted from never sleeping through the night and having relentless low-grade anxiety, I would drag my ass to 5th Avenue and run up and down the street with sparklers. Oh happy day. Makes me proud to be a New Yorker.
"New Yawk, New Yawk, the town so nice they named it twice."
I would love it if only for having been able to see a production of Cabaret with Joel Grey and Jill Haworth, Bert Convy, Jack Gilford, and the INCREDIBLE Lotte Lenya, in the 60s.
And...AND...Melania was just seen sporting her “I really don’t care. Do you?” jacket while on her way to Publix to buy day old bread.
Yeah, love that jacket reference.
Oh gosh, I sure as hell hope so but she is a millionaire in her own right. A tabloid, the Daily Mail, had to pay her $2.6 million for defamation. They said she went beyond being just a model. She could leave his ass and take their kid with her.