All of this has extreme implications for the 2024 republican nomination.
But I don't think it changes anyone's vote in the general. If Trump runs in the general from a jail cell, it changes nothing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here's an interesting item. DeSantis has said he will refuse to extradite Trump, but if he follows through on that promise, he will be violating the US Constitution.

Article IV, Section 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

---

Here's an interesting item.  DeSantis has said he will refuse to extradite Trump, but if he follows through on that promise, he will be violating the US Constitution. 

Article IV, Section 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Yes, we could quite possibly have a Constitutional Crisis on our hands, exactly what the Dems want. We can go ahead and get the bloodshed out of the way and get back to rebuilding our country.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think this is the most relevant part of it.  I underlined one key point:  

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.
Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.
In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.
But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.
That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

=====
Personally, in my opinion, if the above is accurate, it still seems like a stretch to move this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.  It reminds me of the way law enforcement goes after known gangsters.   
The article continues:
======

If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.

Yet a conviction is not a sure thing, and Mr. Bragg’s case might apply a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges. A New York Times review of relevant cases and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York State prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign.

Cohen's payments were his monthly retainer, there's no paperwork that shows it was reimbursement for anything. There's also quite the smoking gun in that the alleged recipient of this hush payment swore in a written and verbal statement that there was no affair to cover up and the only person who claims there was is a discredited and disbarred attorney who both lied to and cheated Daniels. This case is something only a partisan or a moron could accept as legitimate, so we understand why there's celebration in the streets today.

She stated in January 2018 that she didn't have an affair with Trump, but in March 2018 she said that she did.  She said she had been forced to say that because of the non-disclosure agreement she had signed.  She said Cohen wrote the statement after he paid her the money and she had signed the NDA.

---

Cohen's payments were his monthly retainer, there's no paperwork that shows it was reimbursement for anything. There's also quite the smoking gun in that the alleged recipient of this hush payment swore in a written and verbal statement that there was no affair to cover up and the only person who claims there was is a discredited and disbarred attorney who both lied to and cheated Daniels. This case is something only a partisan or a moron could accept as legitimate, so we understand why there's celebration in the streets today.

She stated in January 2018 that she didn't have an affair with Trump, but in March 2018 she said that she did.  She said she had been forced to say that because of the non-disclosure agreement she has signed.  She said Cohen wrote the statement after he paid her the money and she had signed the NDA.

Highly credible testimony that. Lol.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think this is the most relevant part of it.  I underlined one key point:  

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.
Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.
In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.
But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.
That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

=====
Personally, in my opinion, if the above is accurate, it still seems like a stretch to move this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.  It reminds me of the way law enforcement goes after known gangsters.   
The article continues:
======

If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.

Yet a conviction is not a sure thing, and Mr. Bragg’s case might apply a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges. A New York Times review of relevant cases and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York State prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign.

Cohen's payments were his monthly retainer, there's no paperwork that shows it was reimbursement for anything. There's also quite the smoking gun in that the alleged recipient of this hush payment swore in a written and verbal statement that there was no affair to cover up and the only person who claims there was is a discredited and disbarred attorney who both lied to and cheated Daniels. This case is something only a partisan or a moron could accept as legitimate, so we understand why there's celebration in the streets today.

If you claim a payment is a business expense, the burden of proof is on you to show that it was connected to your business, and part of the ordinary course of your business and similar businesses, and that your business is paying that expense from revenues streams that themselves are legal and reported to the tax man.
Because as you know, if it's not a business expense, it comes from post tax income rather than pre tax income.  This is not a part of the law to be trifled with.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

She stated in January 2018 that she didn't have an affair with Trump, but in March 2018 she said that she did.  She said she had been forced to say that because of the non-disclosure agreement she has signed.  She said Cohen wrote the statement after he paid her the money and she had signed the NDA.

Highly credible testimony that. Lol.

Less credible than her denial, after she had been paid off and signed an NDA?

You really think it's credible that they would pay her $130,000 if she was just some person who came out of the woodwork with a baseless allegation?

---

She stated in January 2018 that she didn't have an affair with Trump, but in March 2018 she said that she did.  She said she had been forced to say that because of the non-disclosure agreement she has signed.  She said Cohen wrote the statement after he paid her the money and she had signed the NDA.

Highly credible testimony that. Lol.

We may never know if she had sex with Trump or not, but there should be receipts for everything else.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here's an interesting item.  DeSantis has said he will refuse to extradite Trump, but if he follows through on that promise, he will be violating the US Constitution. 

Article IV, Section 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Yes, we could quite possibly have a Constitutional Crisis on our hands, exactly what the Dems want. We can go ahead and get the bloodshed out of the way and get back to rebuilding our country.

If the Dems want it, did DeSantis just walk right into it?  

I don't think it'd be much of a crisis.  It's pretty clear-cut.

---

Cohen's payments were his monthly retainer, there's no paperwork that shows it was reimbursement for anything. There's also quite the smoking gun in that the alleged recipient of this hush payment swore in a written and verbal statement that there was no affair to cover up and the only person who claims there was is a discredited and disbarred attorney who both lied to and cheated Daniels. This case is something only a partisan or a moron could accept as legitimate, so we understand why there's celebration in the streets today.

If you claim a payment is a business expense, the burden of proof is on you to show that it was connected to your business, and part of the ordinary course of your business and similar businesses, and that your business is paying that expense from revenues streams that themselves are legal and reported to the tax man.
Because as you know, if it's not a business expense, it comes from post tax income rather than pre tax income.  This is not a part of the law to be trifled with.

Also, I would want to know when that monthly retainer was set up.  Did it start right after Cohen made the payment to Daniels?  That would be evidence that they two were connected.

---

Yes, we could quite possibly have a Constitutional Crisis on our hands, exactly what the Dems want. We can go ahead and get the bloodshed out of the way and get back to rebuilding our country.

If the Dems want it, did DeSantis just walk right into it?  

I don't think it'd be much of a crisis.  It's pretty clear-cut.

The Dems think they will win. They don't really understand just how violent the other side will be when the real fighting starts. They are deluded by the safety of the society which was provided to them to believe that it is capable of protecting them when those who built it decide to discard it. Or as that Mike Tyson attribution going around says, the internet has made people way to comfortable with disrespecting other people and not getting punched in the face for it. When the punches start coming it's going to be rough on them. We're headed for civil war in this country, I'd rather we go ahead and get it over with so we can get back to work.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's an interesting item.  DeSantis has said he will refuse to extradite Trump, but if he follows through on that promise, he will be violating the US Constitution. 

Article IV, Section 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

That is not what DeSantis said. He said Florida will not assist in the extradition.

---

If you claim a payment is a business expense, the burden of proof is on you to show that it was connected to your business, and part of the ordinary course of your business and similar businesses, and that your business is paying that expense from revenues streams that themselves are legal and reported to the tax man.
Because as you know, if it's not a business expense, it comes from post tax income rather than pre tax income.  This is not a part of the law to be trifled with.

Also, I would want to know when that monthly retainer was set up.  Did it start right after Cohen made the payment to Daniels?  That would be evidence that they two were connected.

And if it shows that it was before that, is that exculpatory or do we have to reach for other ideas for how to get him this time?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's an interesting item.  DeSantis has said he will refuse to extradite Trump, but if he follows through on that promise, he will be violating the US Constitution. 

Article IV, Section 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

That is not what DeSantis said. He said Florida will not assist in the extradition.

What's the difference?

---

I think this is the most relevant part of it.  I underlined one key point:  

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.
Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.
In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.
But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.
That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

Personally, in my opinion, if the above is accurate, it still seems like a stretch to move this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.  It reminds me of the way law enforcement goes after known gangsters.   

For anyone with a shred of impartiality, it’s obvious this is a witch hunt. I’m not defending Trump, if the guy broke the law then prosecute him as anyone else would be. But from everything that has been divulged to the public so far, it’s a legalistic reach, and we all know why.

As I said, this is setting a bad precedent that will have effects and ramifications beyond this election.

It does seem like for this to make any sense they need to have something else which is why I'd like to see the actual charges and evidence. If all they have is what they seem to have, I agree it's not worthwhile. Charging a president or ex-president with a crime is not a bad-precedent if they deserve it. Not charging them in the past has been the bad precedent.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

Also, I would want to know when that monthly retainer was set up.  Did it start right after Cohen made the payment to Daniels?  That would be evidence that they two were connected.

And if it shows that it was before that, is that exculpatory or do we have to reach for other ideas for how to get him this time?

Absolutely.  I think if the monthly retainer was set up well before the payment was made, I think that would be evidence for the defense.  To me at least, it would depend on whether it was well before it, or right before it.  If it was like the day before the payment was made, I would think that would be evidence for the prosecution.  If it was a year before, then it would be evidence for the defense.

---

That is not what DeSantis said. He said Florida will not assist in the extradition.

What's the difference?

He’s not preventing New York from retrieving Trump, if they so choose.

---

What's the difference?

He’s not preventing New York from retrieving Trump, if they so choose.

Oh, okay.  I don't think it will come up anyway, I think Trump will go to New York.  Heck, how would he campaign if he has to be holed up in Florida the whole time?  

It's kind of a thin case, anyway.  I think he has a good chance of beating it.

---

He’s not preventing New York from retrieving Trump, if they so choose.

Oh, okay.  I don't think it will come up anyway, I think Trump will go to New York.  Heck, how would he campaign if he has to be holed up in Florida the whole time?  

It's kind of a thin case, anyway.  I think he has a good chance of beating it.

The idea was floated that he would be able to do it virtually. There’s also the issue of the Secret Service. I know a lot of people are hoping he’ll be cuffed and perp walked. Ain’t gonna happen.

---

For anyone with a shred of impartiality, it’s obvious this is a witch hunt. I’m not defending Trump, if the guy broke the law then prosecute him as anyone else would be. But from everything that has been divulged to the public so far, it’s a legalistic reach, and we all know why.

As I said, this is setting a bad precedent that will have effects and ramifications beyond this election.

It does seem like for this to make any sense they need to have something else which is why I'd like to see the actual charges and evidence. If all they have is what they seem to have, I agree it's not worthwhile. Charging a president or ex-president with a crime is not a bad-precedent if they deserve it. Not charging them in the past has been the bad precedent.

True words.

---

I hope they put the trial on TV. This could be really interesting.

---