Select Page

DA Bragg Offers Politics Over Law in Prosecuting Trump

DA Bragg Offers Politics Over Law in Prosecuting Trump

The charges against President Trump further prove that a prosecutor can use a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich – and this is one that has quickly turned into a nothing burger.

Virtually every expert, on both sides of the political divide, agrees that the indictment revealed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is very, very weak.  It is so bad in so many ways that many pundits, television attorneys, and former prosecutors see a real possibility of the entire case being dismissed.

No, there, there

The issue of election law violation was examined by the Federal Election Commission – and they found no cause for action.  The case had been reviewed by the previous Manhattan DA, and he did not find sufficient evidence to pursue even a civil case.  The facts were reviewed by the Department of Justice – and they took a pass. So, why would Bragg take up the case? 

Political motivation

From the very onset, the case was tainted by Bragg’s campaign pledge to use the office to “get Trump.”  He made those judgmental comments even before he knew there was a case – or what evidence might be found.  It was purely a political promise — and one he kept.

Most observers believe Bragg will never get a conviction in this case – it is that weak and so wrongfully brought.  Some believe that Bragg’s motivation was not getting a conviction —  the chief consideration of most prosecutors – but to win an easy indictment that would hurt Trump’s political image and keep him distracted from campaigning for the next year or so.   Bragg seems to be timing the case to have the maximum impact on the 2024 presidential election.  That may be why the next court date has been put off until December – eight months away and one month before the first Republican primary.  That smacks of politics over issues of justice – prosecutorial abuse.

Creative prosecution

The political motivation can also be seen in how Bragg developed his case. He is using a unique legal argument – a method of the prosecution that has never been used or tested in the history of the United States.

Bragg’s initial problem was the fact that the Statute of Limitations had arguably run out on the core election fraud issues and the hush payments.  He gets around that by tying those actions to a criminal felony.  But what is that felony?  He does not say.  It is not in the indictment – and he refused to give an answer to reporters.

Some say it is an election law violation, but even that would have to be adjudicated.  Bragg would be prosecuting a federal crime.  That is a head-scratcher for most legal authorities. Bragg is not in a position that allows the prosecution of federal cases.  Some believe he will use state election laws.  But again, there is no violation of New York election laws since the only possible charge is federal.


Bragg has filed 34 charges against Trump – but not really.  What he has done is to string out the central charges by creating individual charges for each check written out to Michael Cohen.  That is for appearances, not law. He could have made all the checks one charge since they all represent the same thing.  The way Bragg structured the indictment, Trump could be declared guilty based on one check and not guilty on another check made out for the same exact purpose.  


What we have in this case is a highly politically motivated prosecutor going to extreme measures to “get” a presidential candidate.  No matter what you think of Trump, this is outrageous prosecutorial abuse and the weaponizing of law enforcement for political purposes.  It is the reason that you see so many  Trump detractors – like George Romney – supporting the claim of a politically motivated prosecution. It sets a very bad and dangerous precedent for American justice in the future.

Hopefully, the case will be dismissed post haste, and we can get to the other cases to see if they have more merit than this bit of prosecutorial poo-poo.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. frank stetson

    But he’s not a fan……he’s Captain Spanky! Speakin of spanking, did you hear the one about Stormy spanking Don for a buck?

    “Virtually every expert, on both sides of the political divide, agrees that the indictment revealed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is very, very weak.” Well, I think both the “virtually every….” and the “very, very, weak” are very, very, overstated. Every case has risk of failure. Yet, there is merit to the case, Bragg is a winner, Bragg has beaten Trump a number of times already, and while the case is political, Bragg is not. Trump is political, he is the conservative state, he is grooming an entire generation of extremists, and he is losing, over and over.

    “From the very onset, the case was tainted by Bragg’s campaign pledge to use the office to “get Trump.” Where are you quoting Bragg from on this? When did Bragg actually say: “GET TRUMP!” Bragg mentioned nothing about this throughout his campaign, there is no political promise that I can find, voters did not vote for him on a “get Trump” platform. Only at the very end of his 2021 race did he even mention it as a possibility, and that was in reaction to his Democratic opponent who began launching his own campaign against Trump in desperation to losing to Bragg.

    Prosecutors, politics, weaponizing, deep state —– all convenient scapegoats to the stupid.

    I honestly think you think you are inside Bragg’s mind and can psychoanalyze his wants and desires. It’s like you invent the Horist Bragg as your bogyman hunting TRUMP like NAZI hunters in Brazil. It’s your obsession to fantasize your version of Bragg in support of TRUMP. Fantasize, fan, hard to tell the difference sometimes.

    He did mention in late 2020 that he thought their might be a case but could not prejudge that which he had not reviewed the evidence.

    Bragg timing this for the 2024 election? Stop it; TRUMP determines the timing for all of his cases. Heck, he’s only running to avoid prosecution. Once that goes away, he will duck out as soon as the money slows down.

    Statute of limitations expired: if you were right, the case would already be dead. Obviously, Bragg has an argument here, you know what it is, and it will play out in court. But the prosecutor has a lot of precedent on this one. HOWEVER, the Statute of limitations is years longer for a felony than a misdemeanor SO Bragg really needs the felony uplift because the longer statute helps. And it’s the uplift that requires the statute remission which provides the house-of-cards concept you are portraying so poorly.

    Felony uplift: absolutely needed to bolster the Statute claim, if bogus, case would already be tossed. But it is not and this will be argued in court, with precedents, though not as solid as the statute of limitations. It hinges on establishing an underlying crime, not indicted, and not as self-evident as the financial crimes which are pretty damned self-evident as misdemeanors.

    Showboating: absolutely. Every prosecutor stacks the charges to compel a plea. But really, you want to highlight TRUMP as the victim to showboating. That’s just hilarious. Poor TRUMP.

    In conclusion: “What we have in this case is a highly politically motivated prosecutor going to extreme measures to “get” a presidential candidate.” Yes, he is motivated and I am sure gets more so every time TRUMP opens his big fat mouth. Except this has nothing to do with a Presidential candidate (he’s not even a nominee yet) and everything to do with an ex-President. You don’t convict this power without powerfully extreme measures. Whether Capone or Trump, you don’t dump on a don without breaking a few eggs.

    “No matter what you think of Trump, this is outrageous prosecutorial abuse and the weaponizing of law enforcement for political purposes.” TRUMP weaponized the Presidency so fair is fair.

    “It is the reason that you see so many Trump detractors – like George Romney – supporting the claim of a politically motivated prosecution.” Wow, considering George is dead for decades, I wonder if you need a competency test to continue writing. If you meant Mitt, then where’s the “so many” Mitts you are talking about. Like any other Republican in Congress? Haven’t you already drummed them out of Congress, the party, and their home towns? You seem very confused.

    “It sets a very bad and dangerous precedent for American justice in the future.” based on the very dangerous precedents this American President has already perpetrated in the past as prologue to our future if you let him in one more time, as you said you would, if nominated.

    SERIOUSLY: This case is valid, there seems to be a crime. Your statute argument will probably be deemed as bogus by the court. If you can’t indict the King during the time limit, then the time limit should not apply while he’s on the throne. Even worse if the State is precluded to indite by the FED, who deigns not to prosecute based not on law, but on a memo. The financial crimes are there. black letter law, documented, and tied with a bow. Are they felonies? Well, that will depend on the court, but not immediately toss-able — or they would be already.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … LMAO. Your “conclusion” is followed by five more long tedious paragraphs. I discovered that by scanning your screed since I no longer ready them. I doubt that anyone — with the possible exception of Tom — actually reads your crap.

      • Tom

        Ahhh but Larry, it is a win-win for you. Whether you get paid by the word for what we type, or you get paid by the number of responses, its all good and you can take it to the bank! So sooth that beastly doppelganger Larry and let the kind, warm, amiable Larry you write of shine through. Lets all shine on, like the moon, and the stars and the sun!

        • larry Horist

          Tom … why do you wrongfully suggest and imply things you have no way of knowing. You have no idea how I get paid — and you are wrong on every guess. Down below you even criticize my use of “nothing burger” as if Frank invented the term or has proprietary rights. It has been in common use of decades. Have you really descended to that level of irrelevant pettiness? I know you and Frank think you are cleaver and cutesy with insults, mocking, sarcasm and complaints. Eliminate all that and you guys have very little to offer in terms of substance and civil dialogue. As far as I can tell, you each have an audience of one. Even I have stopped readding and responding to most of you stuff — and that trend will continue. One point for your team. I did mix up Mitt Romney’s name with his father — probably because I knew him much better. But even that is pretty small stuff. You may call yourself an independent by virtue of not registering with a political party, but you are radical left (Democrat) in your views. And you most surely do not speak for all independents as you so often and so arrogantly claim.

      • frank stetson

        It was doubt that let Spanky the Clown beat Larry the pugnacious Republican in his one-time-wonder Chicago mayoral bid. It may have been Spanky’s only victory in many an election bid.

        If no one reads my “crap” because of length, what do you think your fate is? Well, it’s PBP — you already know….

        • Tom

          Frank, are you saying PBP is where opinionated pontificating writers go to die? LOL :>)

          Again, Larry is incorrect though. JoeyP and Darren have both responded to you, as well as me. Yet he only points out me! Could that be because I am civil and am willing to see both sides, rather than gobble down Larry’s view? Must be that ole Doppelganger Larry on the loose again!!! Who let the dogs out!!!!

      • AC

        Where and when was it, again, that you attained a J.D. and pass the Bar Exam. Most credible commentators preface comments to do with particulars regarding the Law by saying “I’m no lawyer. but ….” It goes without saying that what follows is pure opinion based on nothing more than hunch. And. under the circumstances of this technical case, one persons hunch is as good as any other.
        The Law, like every other profession, has its particular specialties. Litigating allegations against Trump requires just the particular specialized understanding of the Law few know and fewer are adept at while threading the legal needle.
        On the other hand, if commentators were limited to commenting on matters they actually knew something about to the degree of practical understanding. then what would be the fun in that.
        Seriously, who and how many commentators/pundits are deserving of the public’s serious attention and merit credible standing for relating truth in facts with out self serving political overtones.
        One sure thing with your commentaries, Larry, readers find nothing new under the sun. We’ve heard it all before.
        And that old fashioned muck-racking just does not go out of fashion for some ol’ folks .

    • Tom

      I happen to agree with you Frank, and I actually think that Trump is attempting a hostile takeover the the GOP for the end purpose of grooming political terrorists! It shows in recent debt ceiling debates! I am all for reducing national debt, and very all for scrutinizing what we spend on before we spend it – but I am thoroughly against not paying the bills for services already rendered. And our dear friend Larry continues to cheer lead for Trump, and occasionally sound like a lawyer for Trump. And that word “virtually” is not an absolute, but rather means some legal experts disagree. And finally, yes, Bragg has a good record against Trump. So my Independent/Unaffiliated point of view is to let the case move forward and reserve opinion for later. And as I stated to Larry, as a juror, I would prefer the 34 charges over one aggregated charge. I think it leads to more accurate justice!

      Interesting bit of history on Mr. Bragg’s campaign. I did not follow it since I am in NC as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. So thank you for that bit of insight. You bring up a very interesting hypothesis worthy of consideration that “Doppelganger Larry” is attempting to deflect criticism and gain legitimacy by creating a “Doppelganger Bragg”. So it may just be true that like Trump, Doppelganger Larry is building his own reality, and in so doing, just like Trump financially benefiting off of the indictment and chaos, Doppelganger Larry may be doing the same thing! I never thought about that before! I try to always see the nice, kind, amiable Larry that all of FL loves, which may be my naivety.

      I actually went one step further than you on the timing when I said to nice guy Larry, “So if I put myself in the defendant’s shoes, they always say the longer the case waits to go to trial, the lower the chance for the DA to have success. So wouldn’t moving the case to December be better for Trump? Wouldn’t that give him more time to build his case? Also, Trump is famous for not giving documents over in discovery until the last minute – which may be why Mr. Bragg allowed an extra three months. It all seems reasonable to me.” AND, in my last paragraph stated that one of the cases, a rape case, may actually come to trial before this case, and knowing how Trump does not supply discovery documents on time combined with the rape case timing, Bragg was smart to push this out even though it gives Trump more time to build his defense.

      I agree with you on your analysis of the statutes of limitation and the “underlying crime”. In my response to nice guy Larry, I spoke of the underlying crime in all of this – and Larry has never in the two times I have mentioned it, ever given it any acknowledgement. Right now, it seems to me that Trump is doing the showboating and making lots of money off of it – and nice guy Larry who has NEVER liked Trump, is helping with that showboating via PBP. Nice guy Larry incites guys like JoeyP who then send money to Trump! But nice guy Larry does not see this as helping Trump. (oh and heads up, do not criticize nice guy Larry’s use of the word NEVER – he gets really irate. Seems to be a Doppelganger Larry trigger! Makes him spew venom like Trump, the guy he NEVER liked.)

      I really do not think two wrongs make a right, so both should not be doing any weaponizing of system or offices. I really do not see Bragg as weaponizing. I see it more as a case where he has to do it now because Trump is going to duck behind the veil of another presidential run. And it is not a foregone conclusion that he will be the GOP nominee. Good point on needing power to oppose power. You are correct, you do not oppose a don very easily nor weakly. And I think nice guy Larry realizes this but he has a penchant to wear that pleated skirt and get out the pom poms which overrides his sensibility sometimes. But I still love nice guy Larry, Doppelganger Larry, and Pom Pom Larry.

      Actually Frank, I think Larry meant George Clooney, not George Romney. He actually has done this confusion in a previous blog. I remember this at least one time before. But you are correct, it might confuse new readers. However! There is a possibility that nice guy Larry knows Mitt and Doppelganger Larry knows George, and MPD caused what is known as a “personality switch” and the names got co-mingled in the switch. IT is an interesting thing about MPD that each personality will remember a person in a different way. The George Romney result may be a case where both nice guy Larry and Doppelganger Larry have blended their data, thus the names are blended as well.

      I agree with you conclusion but do acknowledge that the hard core Trump fans do agree with Larry – which is why I stated earlier that his use of the NEVER word was disingenuous. As an Independent/Unaffiliated voter, I look forward to the prosecution of this case and testing the untested precedent. I think Trump is guilty of some of the 34 charges and look forward to hearing the uplift. I do acknowledge that the law does not require DA Bragg to divulge the underlying crime in the indictment, and that may be wisely written so as to not taint nor to hinder the state’s case building. As a veteran and citizen, I think this is the only way we can show the elite power brokers that we are serious about their integrity and will punish them for unlawful actions – and we get to show the world that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people that can do it!!!

      I would also like to declare that this response was written after I responded to Larry, and there was no collusion. I am dismayed that Doppelganger Larry would implicate me in a mean spirited comment to you.

      • frank stetson

        Clooney, that’s a good one.

        Larry must be tweaked because that one really smacks of old age. Hell, most readers here don’t even know George. Or that Mitt’s first name is Willard, that rat…. :>)

        Hey, at least he didn’t go with George Washington who I understand Larry consulted with during his term in office.

        • Tom

          Holy Crap!! I did not know his first name was Willard!!! Good one! I wish Larry would be this informative! I did not know Larry had a term in office. Was he working under MR. Spanky in Chicago?

  2. JoeyP

    Hopefully Bragg is KICKED to the CURB to the UNEMPLOYMENT line . . . WHAT a FRAUD!

    • Frank stetson

      He lost his mayoral bid to “Spanky” the clown. That’s never gonna get old

  3. frank stetson

    JoeyP: I am sure I can’t convince, this is just pissing into the wind, but here goes:

    There is very little doubt about TRUMP committing financial misdemeanors in his porn star payments to cover Melania’s potential shame. The only fraud in that is TRUMP’S. The “fraud” that you speak of should be Bragg charging TRUMP’S misdemeanors as a felony fraud, not a misdemeanor, due to TRUMP’S using the payments to obscure his porn star relationships in order to become President in 2016. Bragg needs the felony charges to better make his claim that the Statute of Limitations applies. The Bragg house of cards starts with the need to overcome Statute of Limitations, he has a good misdemeanor case here but misdemeanors have a 2-year statute, felonies have 5 years. Thus, the felony uplift is the second card in the house and to prove that, will be the rub. But fraud? Hardly.

    It’s a good misdemeanor case that the Fed should have taken the day Cohen was charged. Only the Presidency protected TRUMP then. After that, TRUMP weaponized the DOJ and they would not proceed further and they would not drop it either. Only after the DOJ dropped it, only after Trump left the protection of his office, did NY move as it should; the misdemeanor case seems a slam dunk, the only fraud being TRUMP’S. As to the rest, it’s riskier but the only way to get around the Statute of Limitations which should have a special Presidential exceptions. The Presidency is the only reason the statute of limitations is even an issue. Citizen Trump would have been convicted already. The NY lawmakers just did not envision a guy like TRUMP when they wrote the statute of limitations rules.

    • Tom

      Frank, I agree with your statement, “Thus, the felony uplift is the second card in the house and to prove that, will be the rub. But fraud? Hardly. “. I also agree when you say that the only reason the statute of limitations is an issue is because of Trump being in the presidency, and this was never envisioned by the writers of the law. This is so very true.

      And thank you for your sensitivity to Melania.

      I do not mind the giant legal heads and other opines saying its a weak legal case. I am fine with that because a DA with a 26 year reputation on the line is brave enough to think the case has merit, and he was willing to be “hung by the tongue” in his campaign. And we should admire people that fulfill their campaign promises, irrespective of party. But what galls me is when they say it is testing a precedent that has never been tested before and therefore should not be undertaken. If we listen to that line of logic, how can we ever send a message to these power-brokers that the integrity of their lives matters to us, and we will not stand for corruption or “above the law” thinking. This is what I think the case is really all about and what is at stake for our system if Mr. Bragg does nothing.

  4. Tom

    Larry, I do wonder why if it is such a slam dunk “dismissal” is Trump worried about where his trial is held? And by the way, if Frank’s writings are such crap (very judgemental of that evil Larry twin), why did you use Frank’s term “nothing burger”. Seems like mimicking is a form of flattery isn’t it? Since I do value your opinion and Frank’s opinion equally, you are correct in that I will read it later, after I have read your opinion.

    Larry, correct me on the process involved, wasn’t the DA Mr. Bragg required by law to give Mr. Trump at least 6 months for discovery and building of his defense case? Am I correct? If yes, then that would put his trial at mid September 2023 at the earliest, right? So if I put myself in the defendant’s shoes, they always say the longer the case waits to go to trial, the lower the chance for the DA to have success. So wouldn’t moving the case to December be better for Trump? Wouldn’t that give him more time to build his case? Also, Trump is famous for not giving documents over in discovery until the last minute – which may be why Mr. Bragg allowed an extra three months. It all seems reasonable to me.

    I still believe that Mr. Bragg will connect the Stormy Daniels affair and cover up to an attempt to hide facts that would influence voters negatively, and in doing such, he committed election fraud – in 16 states adultery is a criminal offense! Also, many Evangelicals do not like a man committing adultery and some of these voters may have thought differently about Trump and voted differently. I also wonder if this had been known, would he have qualified to be on the ballot in those states? Probably so since he was not convicted but the problem is he killed the information from being released – seems a bit crooked to this Independent/Unaffiliated voter.

    Now I need help on this one too, Larry. All of those legal experts that believe MR. Bragg has a weak case also stated that by law the DA is not required to announce the tie to the criminal case at this time, am I correct on this? It would appear to me that Mr. Bragg most likely has a strategy and a tie but is not announcing it yet due to ongoing investigation and further building of his case. Is this a possibility?

    Now on showboating, a DA has to structure his case in the best way to get the conviction. There is not requirement as far as I know for the DA to be efficient as you recommend. So what it appears to me that the DA did was to parcel the cases individually so that a jury will not overlook the guilt on one or two checks because the other 32 are ok. That seems smart to me. IF I am correct (And tell me if I am not) the jury will have to decide each count, each check, individually, right? This gives the jury maximum flexibility, I would think. IF this Independent/Unaffiliated voter were one of the jurors, I would feel very uncomfortable having to give a summary judgement on 34 checks where two or three are guilty and the other 31 are innocent therefore I have to go with innocent because it was the majority. But if I can decide each one individually, then as a juror I am much more comfortable with three guilty verdicts and 31 innocent verdicts, and, I will feel much better that justice has been done. Larry, you seem to have a view of justice that allows three occurrences to slip through if the other thirty-one occurrences are innocent. I do not share that view as a military veteran who risked his life for the system as well as an American citizen who believes in the system.

    Now on your summary, “outrageous prosecutorial abuse and the weaponizing of law enforcement for political purposes.”, as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter, I do appreciate your opinion as well as your advocacy for Mr. Trump. Your opinion has validity in and of itself. But I will wait for the trial and outcome before I render final opinion. As for the other cases, they will still go forward despite the verdict in this case. And it may well be that one of them, a rape case, may be on the docket before this case which may be another reason why Mr. Bragg pushed out the case and allowed it more time which favors Trump.

    I would also like to state that I wrote this opinion before reading Frank’s opinion, and there was no collusion involved or other conspiracy as you have often implied. :>)

  5. frank stetson

    Here’s the real point of TRUMP. He’s drilling for dollars, he knows the 2020 Big Lie is dead. But without a bogyman, there can be no witch hunt and without a witch, there can be no retribution. And without retribution, there can be no TRUMP. The weaponizing of NY’s DA office refreshes TRUMP’S demand for donations, allows him to touch base with major endorsers, demand their fealty, to breath new life into his campaign which was showing signs of becoming competitive. As the prosecutions mount, so does the claim of unfairness, weaponizing, and demonizing for donations. He has forced his endorsers to take a stand, choose, and most in tight race States have come to his aid. Even DeSantimonious who seems to be content with being second place, for now.

    Republicans fear the deplorable ragged right that can still mount an election-drubbing volley of volume strong enough to take them down in a primary or State race. Even not-a-fan Larry focuses in on the rule of law by forgiving or forgetting the laws broken by his ruler.

    Once again TRUMP can block the media sun by taking up all the air space with his new nonsense allegations. Better yet, he can call forth his enablers to either support him or be primaried, most, like Larry, have chosen support. They hide it in their affronts to our rule of law by overzealous, partisan, prosecutors in NY, GA, and the Federal DOJ. Thus the rule of law has been harmed because TRUMP has been harmed, and now he’s the leader of the pack for the 2024 election. Even DeSantis, his top competitor, bowed and took a knee, I guess seeing the end game and hoping to pull VP out of it.

    FYI: as an aside, catch SNL’s news for last Saturday. The montage of TRUMP telling us about all the tears over all those years is even funnier than his “china, china, CHINA” montage of 2017.

    TRUMP knows that if he fills the news space, he wins the nomination. And TRUMP knows how to be news, just be himself, lie, brag, boast, demean, demonize. TRUMP knows exactly how much donations each legal tragedy will provide and he leverages his circus to bring in the big bucks, one beer budget donator at a time. The bucks cover his ever-growing legal defense. His circle of life is complete when his enablers step up and take his side as victims demanding retribution.

    He even convinced Jordan to waste all that taxpayer money to bring Jordan’s “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan,” aka Jordan spends our money to defend TRUMP, destroy Bragg. WTF does Jordan, or his committee, have to do with Bragg or NYC crime? Timely son of a bitch, I’ll give him that. Subtle, not so much so. Rumor has it Jordan will actually feature a short sleaved dress shirt NOT bought at Walmart. It will be American made.

    Fact is Larry knows the illegality of the hush payments implemented as they were. It may not be a felony, but it’s a dead-bang, black letter law, misdemeanor and a crime. But he goes after the felony uplift added to make the Statute of Limitations easier to circumvent as reason to dismiss the entire crime, which is on paper — a misdemeanor at least.

    Remember this: TRUMP uses a mafia management model making it near impossible to tag him on any crime. His inner circle, the family, are about the only ones who could spotlight that and they won’t. Cohen was close and look what happened to his reputation. Think Jared would step up and tell on Don? NBL. That’s why it’s so tough to nail the guy. Meanwhile, look at his surrounds just for the Presidency and the number of criminals in his inner circles.

    Steve Bannon – convicted of Contempt of Congress and in appeal, money laundering case over donation theft forthcoming
    Allen Weisselberg – 5 months for tax fraud as TRUMP’S CFO
    Roger Stone – guilty of lying to Congress, pardoned by TRUMP
    George Papadopoulos – TRUMP campaign advisor, guilty of lying to FBI, 12-days in jail, pardoned by TRUMP
    Michael Cohen – TRUMP Consigliore, guilty of hush money to porn star, Congress lying, guilty — 3 years
    George Nader – TRUMP foreign policy advisor, guilty child porn and transporting a minor for sex, 10 years in jail,
    Michael Flynn – TRUMP National Security advisor, guilty of lying to FBI, pardoned by TRUMP
    Paul Manafort – TRUMP campaign chairman, guilty of fraud, money laundering, lobbying fraud, — 7.5 years, pardoned by TRUMP
    Rick Gates – TRUMP campaign deputy chairman, guilty conspiracy and lying, 45 days in jail
    Eliot Brody – TRUMP fundraiser, guilty of foreign lobbying violations, pardoned by TRUMP
    Peter Navarro — Contempt of Congress charges and trial pending
    1,000 REPUBLICANS arrested after being sent to the Capitol by TRUMP, a dozen for Seditious Conspiracy

    If Larry can’t see the crime here, he’s deluding himself. He can kvetch about the felony uplift, trying to skirt Statute of Limitations, but that’s not the crime, that’s the law and the case will confirm whether this is a legal precedent or not, previous precedents withstanding. That’s just how law works, how our laws evolve. But it does not change the fundamental facts that a crime has been committed, a black letter misdemeanor, and there is no politics in thatr.

    • Tom

      Yes I agree that Trump is “demonizing for dollars” – hey sound like the title of a great game show where people play the victims on their way to becoming “golden martyr” and collect money at each game level! Trump is definitely positioning himself as a martyr for all Americans. He is sacrificing his life and reputation for them, so send lawyers, guns and money!!!! Truth is, Trump is devaluing the system and doing it great harm in that he is recruiting people not to believe in the system of justice. He wants them to view the government as an enemy of the people. I do not see it this way, as it is written that the Lord gave the people governments so that they would have order and laws and know right from wrong, and could be punished for their wrong doings. Otherwise all we are left with is chaos, which is what Trump wants. Larry has often railed against trying cases in the “court of public opinion” but this is exactly what he is doing for Trump. Thus, the disingenuous use of the word NEVER, but I digress.

      Yes no matter what a person may think about Trump, we probably all would agree that he is a master at not letting an indictment go to waste! Sort of like Rom Manual said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Trump I am sure remembers that statement and has topped ole Rom. I am not sure about Jordan or his recent case, I did not read about it. I think he is some sort of chairman for the house judicial committee – whatever they do. It sounds to me like he is trying to use position to influence against prosecuting the case at all – another reason why I think there must be something to the case when all of these heavy weights come out against it. Heavy weights do not come out of trivial reasons or cases.

      And by the way, they may say this case is testing a precedent that has NEVER been tested. BUT, those of us older Americans that remember Nixon will remember he resigned AND avoided prosecution by his VP giving Nixon immunity!!! Had Ford not done this, which cost him the election in the opinion of many of those “expert legal minds” Nixon would have been prosecuted and the precedent would have been tested back in 1973! So again, me thinks Larry is technically correct about his use of the word “never” here, but, disingenuous in not stating the reason why it was never tested! But this inconvenient fact will not stop Larry from whipping out the Pom Pom Larry personality slice.

      Wow, that is quite a list of criminals! And big wow, half or so were pardoned by Trump!! Seems like Trump is truly a “Don”, a real Godfather of the GOP. Do be careful of using that word “skirt” and Larry in the same sentence. It may trigger is Pom Pom Larry personality.

  6. Darren

    If the Law was applied evenly to Democrat’s like it is applied to Republicans, this discussion would not be taking place.
    Biden would have been impeached 2 years ago and his Family members jailed.
    Do not think a list of republican corruption means crap. Nothing, Nothing ANYONE IN HISTORY HAS EVER DONE EVEN

    Look, it only took me 1 paragraph.


    • frank stetson

      Darren, please don’t say clowns. Too many Horist flashbacks.

    • Tom

      LOL Darren. Like I said, I do not know you. But you are in desperate need of English writing lessons. 1) Please learn what defines a paragraph. Technically speaking, you have four paragraphs there. 2) What the heck does this mean when you say, “Nothing ANYONE IN HISTORY HAS EVER DONE EVEN

      Do you know how to use the “enter key”?

      3) Take a spelling course or at least learn what it means when your words are underlined in red. It means you misspelled the word.

      4) Clinton family and Biden family are two different families separated by over 20 years of political office.

  7. frank stetson

    Darren, that’s because you printed some bogus conclusionary opinions without a shred of evidence.


    UH — Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, and so on and so on


  8. Darren

    I did not remember any of the horrible people you speak of ever holding an Office in the United States.

    • Frank stetson

      You’re the one who defined the universe and never said US office holders.

      You just say Biden bad; what is he convicted of?

      But until you specify and support Biden’s transgressions, I’ll just go with Nixon, Agnew, Harding, Grant, Garfield, Reagan. Ted Kennedy, to name a few

  9. George

    This “case” against Trump is so weak, so how are the Dems gonna get Trump? Let Mr. Bragg brag. With any luck HE will be behind bars for dereliction of duty. I’m sure that many “victims” of Bragg’s NON prosecution won’t hesitate to step up to the bat to take out this Soros puppet . Like the FBI, he’s out of control. A store owner gets robbed by a guy with a gun, so the owner stabs the perp, and the store owner gets arrested and is put through hell by Bragg. What’s wrong with this picture? Easy, it’s Bragg and his “do nothing” office protecting criminals and hurting the “little guy” who’s just trying to earn a living. The inmates are running the asylum! The asylum consists of Dem politicians and a corrupt legal system, especially the D.A.’s and “judges”.

    • frank stetson

      George, prepare for a life of frustration. You think over 50% of the country deserves the asylum, our legal system is corrupt, FBI is out of control, and want to do great violence by using a bat on 80-something SOROS liberal mastermind for being a philanthropist. Yup, you’re heading for a very sorry life full of frustration. Have you thought of immigrating to country that you might find more conducive to alleviating your frustrations.

      Well, rest assured the Republicans are here to help. Why, they’re attacking the Weaponization of the Federal Government by going to New York to fight Bragg on local crimes blaming NYC policies as being weaponized and causing rampant violent crime while their own Districts have far, far, worse records for thinking the same frustrated thoughts as you and trying to solving Federal Problems by going to NYC and bitichin on Bragg. BRILLIANT!!

      Still waiting for Jordan to roll out those thousands of FBI whistleblowers that he has depositions, tapes, and even hats saying “I’ve been de-weaponized.” He has had the tapes for over a year. Any day now he will spill the stuff.

      I really miss the professionalism of the 1/6/2021 committee to investigate the Republican Insurrection at the Capitol. This stuff is for amateurs.

      TRUMP’S first case won’t even be Bragg, it’s the defamation/rape case up next; I hope we have video clips…. Just can’t wait to hear all those TRUMP-abused women convince George that “grab em by the pussy” man could never do that. So George and company, rag on Bragg but judgement is coming. If not one, then the other, or the other. or…. So many crimes, so little time.