Criminal Charges Against Trump

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

So which is worse? Going to trial and losing, or just giving up on prosecuting people anytime a conviction isn't certain?

Oh come on. This isn't just any time. There are very few cases where the example set, statement made, comes in to play.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Federal judge increase pressure on DOJ to charge Trump in Jan 6 issues.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...ction-00020918

Nice dig from the judge:

Indeed.

Claiming that a law doesn't apply to you is Sovereign Citizens ****.
It should be a nonpartisan principal that the President should not think and act like a Sovereign Citizen.
Too bad only Democrats think so.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Indeed true. But Donny would have trouble explaining WHY it worked to his advantage, what the underlying method was and how the scheme actually worked. If asked to provide an explanation, I'm sure he would change the subject.

Again, I completely disagree. It's a very simple concept and whatever else Trump may be, he's an excellent grifter and not stupid when it comes to getting away with schemes like this. Thinking he can't understand exactly how it worked is not based on any evidence I've seen. Quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

You do realise Donny was not the author of any of these get-rich schemes. They are quite clever and inventive, and so some clever people must have thought them up. "Clever" is not a word associated with Donny by a long shot. All he would be interested in is how much any such scheme would pay off for him - give him a single dollar figure with enough zeros at the end and that's all he would summon interest in. That and when his next Diet Coke would come. He really is quite a smooth-brained reptile.

You underestimate him with the above assumptions. No, he's not 'clever' in the sense of being quick witted or highly intelligent or well read, etc. but he's not as stupid as you seem to think he is. You seem to think he can't tie his own shoes, but when it comes to grifting and knowing how to get away with it, he's shown a remarkable ability. I suggest you read Michael Cohen's book.

[Stacyhs]

Today:

Quote:

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress.

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress as part of a criminal conspiracy when he tried to subvert the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote.

Carter’s sweeping and historic ruling came as he ordered the release to the House’s Jan. 6 committee of 101 emails from Trump ally John Eastman, rejecting Eastman’s effort to shield them via attorney-client privilege.

Eastman used the email account of his former employer, Chapman University, to discuss political and legal strategy related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and had sued the select committee to prevent them from obtaining the emails from the school.

Carter, who sits in federal court in California, said that the plan Eastman helped develop was obviously illegal and that Trump knew it at the time, but pushed forward with an effort he says would have effectively ended American democracy.

“If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution,” Carter wrote. “If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”

[newyorkguy]

The notion that low-balling commercial property values to reduce tax liability while high-balling the value of the same properties when dealing with commercial banks -- for credit, for collateral purposes to secure loans or financing -- was beyond donald trump's comprehension as to how that would work seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

Reference was made to clever and inventive 'get rich quick' schemes that donald trump was involved in but that were beyond what he could understand. What schemes are being referred to? Selling steaks? trump couldn't understand how that works?

Quote:

“When it comes to great steaks, I’ve just raised the stakes!” Trump declares straight into the camera. “Trump Steaks are by far the best tasting, most flavorful beef you’ve ever had. Truly in a league of their own.” Link to Think Progress dot com

As noted, trump and his kids have agreed to be deposed in a class action suit by investors who claim the trumps "conned them into making bad investments." I've seen trump give a deposition involving trump university. It is quite revealing.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That was also a suit over fraud by the trumps. At one point a lawyer for the plaintiffs tries to get trump to explain why he thought certain 'university' instructors he hired were qualified. trump says he can't remember. That the attorney is asking about events of several years ago and he can no longer recall anything about it. Or about the instructors, up to and including their names. At one point, the lawyers remind trump he has claimed to have "one of the best memories in the world." Correct? trump doesn't remember saying that.

It illustrates how trump deflects accusations. He can't recall. It's not illegal to forget. The bottom line is, you know he's lying, he knows he's lying, he knows you know he's lying. But how do you prove it? trump's tactical 'advantage' is he's absolutely shameless, he seems not to care one bit what people think of him, so long as he can get away with his nonsense. And he has gotten away with it for forty years.

He's not a normal person and you can't use normal standards in judging him.

[Regnad Kcin]

Wouldn’t Trump Steaks be made from Trump?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

The notion that low-balling commercial property values to reduce tax liability while high-balling the value of the same properties when dealing with commercial banks -- for credit, for collateral purposes to secure loans or financing -- was beyond donald trump's comprehension as to how that would work seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

Reference was made to clever and inventive 'get rich quick' schemes that donald trump was involved in but that were beyond what he could understand. What schemes are being referred to? Selling steaks? trump couldn't understand how that works?



As noted, trump and his kids have agreed to be deposed in a class action suit by investors who claim the trumps "conned them into making bad investments." I've seen trump give a deposition involving trump university. It is quite revealing.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That was also a suit over fraud by the trumps. At one point a lawyer for the plaintiffs tries to get trump to explain why he thought certain 'university' instructors he hired were qualified. trump says he can't remember. That the attorney is asking about events of several years ago and he can no longer recall anything about it. Or about the instructors, up to and including their names. At one point, the lawyers remind trump he has claimed to have "one of the best memories in the world." Correct? trump doesn't remember saying that.

It illustrates how trump deflects accusations. He can't recall. It's not illegal to forget. The bottom line is, you know he's lying, he knows he's lying, he knows you know he's lying. But how do you prove it? trump's tactical 'advantage' is he's absolutely shameless, he seems not to care one bit what people think of him, so long as he can get away with his nonsense. And he has gotten away with it for forty years.

He's not a normal person and you can't use normal standards in judging him.

Well said. It's beyond ridiculous to think Trump could not conceive of these schemes, understand them or explain how they work. He's been doing it since he was learning at the knee of his equally psychopathic crook of a father.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Wouldn’t Trump Steaks be made from Trump?

They would be nothing but fat and gristle, and taste like ****.

[Warp12]

Quote:

He was nominated to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1998, according to Ballotpedia. Carter also previously ran as a Democrat to represent California's 38th Congressional District, but his efforts were unsuccessful, according to the Los Angeles Times

Judge David Carter, who ruled in Trump records case, has a colorful history
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/polit...ess/index.html

[dudalb]

A 7 hour gap? That makes Nixon look like a piker.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Judge David Carter, who ruled in Trump records case, has a colorful history
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/polit...ess/index.html

All criticsim of Dear Leader is wrong! All Hail Dear Leader!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A 7 hour gap? That makes Nixon look like a piker.

Of course, it would be so partisan for anyone to suspect those missing 7 hours during the violent attack on the Capitol are not by accident and not, shall we say, supportive of Trump.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Oh come on. This isn't just any time. There are very few cases where the example set, statement made, comes in to play.

I think you're hung up on the least relevant words of my post. Why is not prosecuting him at all better than prosecuting him and losing?

If Trump was put on trial his cultists would believe him an innocent man being persecuted regardless of the jury verdict. And the argument that they'd use it to say he is innocent, well they'll do that anyway, win or lose, trial or no trial. "See, all that evidence was deep state fabrication or they'd have charged him".

However, if you have evidence of illegal activity, and enough that multiple prosecutors believe sufficient to convict but you don't even try, well that tells everyone in the country justice is dead and Trump already won.

ETA - Another way to look at this is that it advocates not prosecuting illegal activity when it's politically convenient

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

I think you're hung up on the least relevant words of my post. Why is not prosecuting him at all better than prosecuting him and losing?

I'm not hoping for not at all, I'm hoping for later. And if we get closer to some statute of limitations then I might change my mind that the prosecution would be best to go forward with whatever they have. Get back to me when we're actually in that situation.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

If Trump was put on trial his cultists would believe him an innocent man being persecuted regardless of the jury verdict. And the argument that they'd use it to say he is innocent, well they'll do that anyway, win or lose, trial or no trial. "See, all that evidence was deep state fabrication or they'd have charged him".

I have no idea why I should care about this. I want him convicted.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

However, if you have evidence of illegal activity, and enough that multiple prosecutors believe sufficient to convict but you don't even try, well that tells everyone in the country justice is dead and Trump already won.

Or just that this case is unwinnable. Get back to me when you actually have evidence that the current prosecutors are actually subverting justice by throwing away a winnable case. Note that Pomerantz thinks they are wrong and >not< that they are acting in bad faith. He specifically addressed that.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

ETA - Another way to look at this is that it advocates not prosecuting illegal activity when it's politically convenient

No. It advocates for pursuing winnable cases.

And did you mean "inconvenient"? The political aspect is that a loss would be "inconvenient". And it seems to me that both justice and politics are congruent here so I'm not even concerned about that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

... No. It advocates for pursuing winnable cases. ...

Here's my question: How is Rump's reputation for always getting away with crimes influencing prosecutor's decisions about whether or not they have a winnable case?

Sure, maybe it's hard to prove intent but why not let the jury decide that as you would any other criminal you are prosecuting?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Here's my question: How is Rump's reputation for always getting away with crimes influencing prosecutor's decisions about whether or not they have a winnable case?

Don't know if this was a rhetorical question or not but I'll just answer "I don't know". But if this is true another Trump win won't help.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sure, maybe it's hard to prove intent but why not let the jury decide that as you would any other criminal you are prosecuting?

Because he's not just any other criminal. When trying your average first time offender you can probably tolerate the risk that he might offend a second time and not overthink it. The stakes are a bit higher here.

I happy hour with some prosecutors. Next time I'll ask them how many of their cases involve defendants that might have the nuclear launch codes in three years.

[RecoveringYuppy]

This been posted yet?

DOJ: Do your job!

Really think we need some action and transparency from the DOJ. The DOJ seems to be dragging it's feet.

ETA: Just noted that SG posted on this subject in the Jan 6th thread.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A 7 hour gap? That makes Nixon look like a piker.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. It's a perfect gap, beautiful, a gap greater than anyone has ever seen. The only reason it only got to 24x was because Biden stole the rest. And hid it in Hunter's laptop.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I'm not hoping for not at all, I'm hoping for later. And if we get closer to some statute of limitations then I might change my mind that the prosecution would be best to go forward with whatever they have. Get back to me when we're actually in that situation.

I would be fine with later. I just don't think later is ever going to come.

Quote:

Or just that this case is unwinnable. Get back to me when you actually have evidence that the current prosecutors are actually subverting justice by throwing away a winnable case. Note that Pomerantz thinks they are wrong and >not< that they are acting in bad faith. He specifically addressed that.

No. It advocates for pursuing winnable cases.

If there is sufficient evidence that a person committed a crime then it should go to trial and a jury should make a determination. It's unfortunate that other factors beyond the evidence can sway the odds of a trial but winnability shouldn't factor into whether a case is brought. If it does then justice is already being subverted.

Quote:

And did you mean "inconvenient"? The political aspect is that a loss would be "inconvenient". And it seems to me that both justice and politics are congruent here so I'm not even concerned about that.

Convenient as in expedient. Everyone involved seems to believe the evidence shows Trump committed a crime and that the disagreement centered around proving intent. Maybe the DA thinks that normally the evidence they have would be enough to prove intent but this is an unprecedented case involving a former President and current quasi political/cult leader so they still might lose and he wants no part of that **** storm anyway so it's just easier to not pursue it.

Or maybe the DA genuinely believes they do not have the evidence of intent. As you noted, Pomerantz believed the DA's decision was made in good faith. But even so, two senior prosecutors investigating the case vehemently disagreed with that assessment to the point of resigning. In addition, the odds of prosecuting at a later date seem grim per this NYT article

Quote:

Mr. Bragg has told aides that the inquiry could move forward if a new piece of evidence is unearthed, or if a Trump Organization insider decides to turn on Mr. Trump. Some investigators in the office saw either possibility as highly unlikely.

“There are always additional facts to be pursued,” Mr. Pomerantz wrote in his letter. “But the investigative team that has been working on this matter for many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge.”

He added that “I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating.”

I'm hoping he is wrong.

[The Great Zaganza]

The DOJ excuse is that, not only, does their case have a high chance of conviction, but also to win on Appeal.
In the case of Trump, it should be obvious that this is the wrong standard.
For starters, getting Trump convicted and forcing him to Appeal inverts the effort, forcing him, for a change, to not delay.
It also makes no sense, since any Trump Flunky on the Bench would let him win his case no matter the evidence.

DOJ should try to get as many convictions against Trump, since family, his company and his associates as fast as possible, and let them do the work of finding a way out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Don't know if this was a rhetorical question or not but I'll just answer "I don't know". But if this is true another Trump win won't help.


Because he's not just any other criminal. When trying your average first time offender you can probably tolerate the risk that he might offend a second time and not overthink it. The stakes are a bit higher here.

I happy hour with some prosecutors. Next time I'll ask them how many of their cases involve defendants that might have the nuclear launch codes in three years.

No, it was not rhetorical.

See, you're doing the same thing, you're treating him like some invincible god-criminal. But he's not. He's just a con. And how worse would it be, charge him and he gets off or don't charge him and he gets off?

I say call his bluff.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

I would be fine with later. I just don't think later is ever going to come.

If there is sufficient evidence that a person committed a crime then it should go to trial and a jury should make a determination. It's unfortunate that other factors beyond the evidence can sway the odds of a trial but winnability shouldn't factor into whether a case is brought. If it does then justice is already being subverted.....

This ^

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A 7 hour gap? That makes Nixon look like a piker.

Indeed so!

Especially when one considers the fact that Trump was so very fond of being the administration of "Law and Order" which was also one of the keystones of the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972.

[Fast Eddie B]

Is it possible that all he did in that time span was watch TV? It does seem like the flurry of calls we know about were mainly to his Chief of Staff and others. Of course a President frozen into inaction while historic events unfold around him is not a good look either.

His blatant lying shouldn’t surprise anyone, but his recent assertion that he’s never heard of a burner phone is especially egregious, since he’s discussed them in prior depositions.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

See, you're doing the same thing, you're treating him like some invincible god-criminal.

No I'm not.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But he's not. He's just a con. And how worse would it be, charge him and he gets off or don't charge him and he gets off?

Both are worse than "charge him later and convict him" which is how I'm hoping this plays out.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

It's unfortunate that other factors beyond the evidence can sway the odds of a trial but winnability shouldn't factor into whether a case is brought.

The DA's are basing their decision on their evidence. Cohen's testimony is evidence.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

It's unfortunate that other factors beyond the evidence can sway the odds of a trial but winnability shouldn't factor into whether a case is brought.

In real life, winnability is always a factor.

After making a felony arrest, we would have to go before an Assistant State Attorney for a “Pre-file conference”. In spite of a sound arrest based on probable cause, charges would often be dropped exactly because the State didn’t feel they had a very good chance of prevailing at trial, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. Frustrating for officers, but State Attorneys have limited resources and must mobilize them for cases that are eminently “winnable”.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Wouldn’t Trump Steaks be made from Trump?

I hope so!

Such a steak would make a good meal for the vultures who live in my area.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The DOJ excuse is that, not only, does their case have a high chance of conviction, but also to win on Appeal.
In the case of Trump, it should be obvious that this is the wrong standard.
For starters, getting Trump convicted and forcing him to Appeal inverts the effort, forcing him, for a change, to not delay.
It also makes no sense, since any Trump Flunky on the Bench would let him win his case no matter the evidence.

DOJ should try to get as many convictions against Trump, since family, his company and his associates as fast as possible, and let them do the work of finding a way out.

IANAL, and real lawyers can correct me, but appeals courts usually don't weigh evidence. They weigh process and procedure.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

In real life, winnability is always a factor.

After making a felony arrest, we would have to go before an Assistant State Attorney for a “Pre-file conference”. In spite of a sound arrest based on probable cause, charges would often be dropped exactly because the State didn’t feel they had a very good chance of prevailing at trial, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. Frustrating for officers, but State Attorneys have limited resources and must mobilize them for cases that are eminently “winnable”.

Unfortunately it is a factor. I'm just saying that ideally it shouldn't be because it allows perversion of justice.

Winnable is how you get a prosecutor on a case where the evidence doesn't add up but they pursue it anyway because the defendant has a bad public defender, the demographics of the area make the jury more likely to vote guilty, and the prosecutor just wants the win for their own career. Groups like the innocence project can attest to how often this happens.

Limited resources is a very real problem and I think more needs to be devoted to fight white collar crime and corruption and less on things such as Marijuana.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Unfortunately it is a factor. I'm just saying that ideally it shouldn't be because it allows perversion of justice.

Winnable is how you get a prosecutor on a case where the evidence doesn't add up but they pursue it anyway because the defendant has a bad public defender, the demographics of the area make the jury more likely to vote guilty, and the prosecutor just wants the win for their own career. Groups like the innocence project can attest to how often this happens.

Limited resources is a very real problem and I think more needs to be devoted to fight white collar crime and corruption and less on things such as Marijuana.

Indeed. One can see how the "Party of law and order" would enjoin vigorously in a "war on drugs" that would tie up the courts with a debilitating schedule of easy cases against the rabble, thus benefitting the criming of the white collar set. I don't think I'm being too cynical in this.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No, it was not rhetorical.

See, you're doing the same thing, you're treating him like some invincible god-criminal. But he's not. He's just a con. And how worse would it be, charge him and he gets off or don't charge him and he gets off?

I say call his bluff.

You're exactly right. Hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers and investigators from local, state and the Federal governments as well as all kinds of private organizations have been given one directive: Get Trump by any means necessary. Trump's been one of the most investigated people in history, certainly in American history ever since he had the audacity to run against Herself. And we're supposed to believe that all of these people are so moronic that they couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight?

And the notion that Trump is some kind of criminal genius, a Keyser Soze-like sinister mastermind who's committed every crime and sin known to man and God but is just so good that he never leaves a speck of evidence is equally dumb.

I don't believe that many of the best and brightest lawyers are that stupid, and I don't believe that Trump is that smart.

Now I know this is heresy to suggest about someone you politically disagree with, but maybe the reason they haven't found something is that there isn't something to find? Occam's Razor and all.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Now I know this is heresy to suggest about someone you politically disagree with, but maybe the reason they haven't found something is that there isn't something to find? Occam's Razor and all.

It's not heresy, it's just factually wrong. The DA and senior prosecutors agree the evidence shows he committed a crime. What they disagree about is whether they have sufficient proof of intent. The NYT article I linked in post #1579 gives a good rundown of the situation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by cmikes

You're exactly right. Hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers and investigators from local, state and the Federal governments as well as all kinds of private organizations have been given one directive: Get Trump by any means necessary. Trump's been one of the most investigated people in history, certainly in American history ever since he had the audacity to run against Herself. And we're supposed to believe that all of these people are so moronic that they couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight?

And the notion that Trump is some kind of criminal genius, a Keyser Soze-like sinister mastermind who's committed every crime and sin known to man and God but is just so good that he never leaves a speck of evidence is equally dumb.

I don't believe that many of the best and brightest lawyers are that stupid, and I don't believe that Trump is that smart.

Now I know this is heresy to suggest about someone you politically disagree with, but maybe the reason they haven't found something is that there isn't something to find? Occam's Razor and all.

Well 3 of those top prosecutors who are familiar with the tax fraud evidence have resigned in protest because their boss is not moving forward with charges.

And Cheney on the Jan 6 congressional committee has announced publicly the law(s) which apply to Rump and to which it looks like he broke. We're still waiting on Rump charges to be recommended by that committee.

And BTW, I disagree with a slew of GOP legislators, none of whom I have said should be charged with crimes. So your hand waving away reality is a FAIL.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

It's not heresy, it's just factually wrong. The DA and senior prosecutors agree the evidence shows he committed a crime. What they disagree about is whether they have sufficient proof of intent. The NYT article I linked in post #1579 gives a good rundown of the situation.

It's this fear they can't prove intent that I find problematic. Short of confessing to crimes, isn't proving intent an issue with just about everyone who says they are innocent? Why isn't that an issue with just about every prosecution?

I say let the jury decide if they think intent has been demonstrated.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

The DA and senior prosecutors agree the evidence shows he committed a crime.

So did Mueller, with over 10 cases of obstruction of justice where all 3 elements of the crime were met.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by cmikes

You're exactly right. Hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers and investigators from local, state and the Federal governments as well as all kinds of private organizations have been given one directive: Get Trump by any means necessary. Trump's been one of the most investigated people in history, certainly in American history ever since he had the audacity to run against Herself. And we're supposed to believe that all of these people are so moronic that they couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight?

And the notion that Trump is some kind of criminal genius, a Keyser Soze-like sinister mastermind who's committed every crime and sin known to man and God but is just so good that he never leaves a speck of evidence is equally dumb.

I don't believe that many of the best and brightest lawyers are that stupid, and I don't believe that Trump is that smart.

Now I know this is heresy to suggest about someone you politically disagree with, but maybe the reason they haven't found something is that there isn't something to find? Occam's Razor and all.

Have thought of setting the "Trump is Just the Poor Victim of Democrat Witch Hunts" meme to music? Something catchy with a good beat that could be sung at his rallies?

[Craig4]

So, having been the pitcher in some criminal prosecution meetings (for stakes far less then a former president), it's never a foregone conclusion. That a criminal case for a former president is taking this long doesn't surprise me. Law Enforcement, going into the conversation is up against the presumption that what you're pitching doesn't rate criminal prosecution. When an AUSA takes a case for prosecution, they don't do so trivially. That we're not two years form January 6th and there's no criminal case for the organizers doesn't surprise me at all. It would take two years just to build the case to the pitch meeting.

[theprestige]

The thing is, Trump has allegedly been committing felonies for years, maybe decades. Some of these supposed crimes have had far more than six or eight years to ripen in the prosecutor's office. Did it really not occurred to anyone to try put together one of these slam dunk cases until after he became president? And then sit on the idea until after he left office?

Hell, the House could have subpoenaed evidence his of criminal activities in support of their case for impeachment.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers and investigators from local, state and the Federal governments as well as all kinds of private organizations have been given one directive: Get Trump by any means necessary.

How about addressing your original fact-challenged goalpost location?