U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 30, 2023 04:45 PM UTC
69 Comments
As the New York Times reports, Stormy Daniels
Getting ex-President Chump off the streets should help reduce our national crime statistics!
It is being reported that felony level charges are expected in the indictment. That's promising if true; the lingering rumors of misdemeanor-only charges were worrisome.
Meanwhile DA Bragg lets violent criminals plead down to misdemeanors.
There's no defending this political double standard. The judiciary has been weaponized for political purposes. We are headed straight for a banana republic. It's not about Trump anymore, it's about defending the nation from authoritarian judicial overreach.
The left is making a terrible mistake!
The " LEFT "? Rule of law the factor here.
How about NY STATE LAW and Manhattan borough of NYC?
Law broke then charged. Too little too late frankly.
Crime is down in Manhattan. And plea bargains are a routine part of the criminal justice system.
Next.
Moldy decipher: "Lay off the white collar crime and go after those icky people with a different pigment." The racism runs deep in this one.
Fluffy has gotta' scrape an awful lot of icky tangerine pancake pigment off of Ttump and his collar before getting to white.
So, it only took a Trump indictment to get you to crawl out of your hole and open your mouth?
I'm guessing we will hear more from you when the Georgia state grand jury and the federal grand juries finish their work.
Undoubtedly Ttump is just too fucking stupid to take any plea bargain??
Well of course Ttump did. Too bad it didn’t help him this time.
The Orange Jumpsuit is making his fiftieth or sixtieth terrible . . . mistake . . . (crime, extortion, fraud, theft, evasion, misappropriation, misrepresentation, conspiracy, insurrection, intimidation, blackmail, fuck up, etc.) . . . of this month!
Established 2016.
Yup. From Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh & Barrett. And, let’s not forget those Texas federal court judges.
(Oh, and yeah, you’re amazingly even a bigger fucking discredited idiot with each passing post. Sleeping in your buffalo horns, yet?)
First, as someone has already posted, crime is down in Manhattan.
Second, plea bargains are entered into between the prosecution and the defendant all the time, across the United States. What matters is whether the plea bargain fits the crime. Since you assert DA Bragg operates under a double standard, I'm sure you can point to a line of cases where he has done that. Right? Evidence please.
Third, the fact the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York turned down this case is not dispositive of anything. Prosecutors turn down cases all the time that law enforcement brings to their attention because they do not have enough evidence to prosecute. When that happens, the prosecutor usually sends what is called a declination letter to the law enforcement agency stating the case is turned down but if you uncover additional evidence, we will take a second look. That is common and very well may have happened in Trump's case.
Fourth, I think you are going to be sorely disappointed next Tuesday when the indictment is released. With over 30 counts, the Stormy Daniels case will probably only be a small part of the indictment. Trump (and the news media) has focused on the Daniels matter because he knows the public does not care about what he did with her but that probably will not be the heart of the DA's case.
Finally, I do not know whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of any of the 30+ counts in the indictment, and neither do you. I think we should wait for the jury verdict.
Moderatus: "the left is making a terrible mistake….."
You forget about us Never-Trump Republicans. Turns out that we've been right all along. Dave Williams needs to take note of this basic fact.
Hold My Beer Williams is too dumb and trapped in his own bubble to even try.
I strongly suspect that he will be charged with tax crimes.
Trump: It wasn't an illegal campaign contribution! I paid her off for personal reasons.
Bragg: Deducting a personal expense is not permitted. And trying to disguise the payment as a legal fee paid to your lawyer is a crystal clear indication of fraud.
Jury: Guilty AF!
Judge: Minimum sentence is 2 1/3 years. Enjoy your stay at the Graybar Trump Hotel.
Your argument is that non-violent crimes should never be prosecuted? So, I guess you were vigorously opposed to the criminal investigation of President Clinton, right?
Just so we know, could you provide a list of crimes that Republicans should never, ever be charged with?
But don't worry–Trump will probably be offered a plea bargain, too.
LOL cry more about having crimes punished and those doing the crime held accountable. What you conservaderps want is rules for everyone else except your own kind.
The only people weaponizing the government are the GOP fascists stepping in trying to obstruct justice and intimidate witnesses and prosecutors. Why is your side so obsessed with projecting everything you're doing onto "the left"?
Nutlid. We saw your act. It came and went. Flaccid as an ex-president.
So far, no protesters outside the courthouse; ( or no coverage of protests). Only one deranged woman threatening a family with a knife, yesterday.
Wouldn't it be great if Trump called for "Protest protest protest!" and nobody came?
Is there a scene in this film in which an old man says "Rosebud?"
The walls are closing in
Because there's credibility, there's incredibility, and there's Larry Kudlow.
‘It Looks Like Trump Will Not Be Indicted’: Fox’s Larry Kudlow Predicted No Charges Less Than an Hour Before Indictment News (msn.com)
If you shorted all of Kudlows predictions, You'd make Elon Musk look like a panhandler.
"Kudlow's predictions….."
I still remember the Kudlow and Cramer investing show on CNBC. I always thought that Cramer was the financial "brains" for that duo.
RIGHT? Spot on.
If he could campaign from a basement it could work out.
Only if he had himself to run against.
Captain Bone Spurs has some splainin’ to do…
Gotta love this:
https://queenseagle.com/all/2023/3/30/queens-man-indicted
Fantastic.
Now can Merrick the Meek do his job and indict Trump for planning and fomenting the insurrection? Or for stealing classified and top-secret documents and hiding them at Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere? And for obstruction of justice, since the Mueller report indicated that Trump may have committed that crime, too?
Until Garland the Ghost finds the courage to uphold the law, we can't truly say that Trump is held accountable for his crimes.
Garland is now waiting on the special counsel to issue reports (indictments?). He's not directly involved for now.
I suspect Garland appointed the special counsel so that he does not have to make a decision or can punt it down the road as long as possible. I think Garland is about as feckless a public official as the nation has ever seen. I'll grant that he's honest and knowledgeable, but he appears to me to have absolutely no courage whatsoever.
Speedy trial should be next Wednesday. Execution on Friday.
While I am overjoyed he has been indicted for SOMETHING after all this time, I fear this one will blow up in the prosecutor's face, which in turn will give the Cult of T grounds to say "See! See! It WAS a political persecution!"
So far, I can see no prosecutable crime that would fall into the jurisdiction of the Manhattan DA. Best I see is campaign finance violations, but those would have to be prosecuted in a federal court.
It will be very interesting to see what the arraignment actually charges him with. I saw that is supposed to happen on Tuesday.
But for now, I will am holding off celebrating until he is charged with one of the real crimes he has committed, like attempting to bribe, or intimidate and elected official, sedition, and maybe even treason for attempting to overthrow the US government. (OK, that last one is a stretch).
Dano is right. This is the most complicated of the four active cases in the works and probably the least serious. The legal theory is a little complicated, and the evidence consists primarily of testimony from a convicted felon and a retire porn actress. What the DA has going for him is the jury venire will be New Yorkers who have known the defendant for decades and most of whom hate him.
There is no guarantee that the cases proceed to trial in the order in which they are brought but Trump will have some say in trial scheduling, waiving his speedy trial rights, etc. Here’s hoping the classified documents case or the inciting a riot case or the Georgia case jumps the line!
I’m musing at the battle cry that Bragg ran on a platform of going after Trump!!! Obviously a majority of those who voted for Bragg agreed.
As to your comment…
Spot on. I attended a Yale Club Xmas party five years ago in the epicenter of Manhattan. There was open loathing for Trump … he’s despised there. The real billionaires in Manhattan see him as a fake billionaire, a buffoon.
So you see no prosecutable crime. What a joke comment
Have you seen the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury? Do you know what the crimes are? Of course not. You don't know jack shit about what he is being charged with. Neither does anyone else. If you really think that the DA would pursue charges without being able to prosecute them then you are going to be in for a BIG surprise.
Right? The denial is astounding, they're all acting like they know what's in the 34 count indictment.
Just face it, conservaderps, Trump is societal cancer and you need to stop defending him. This case is just the tip of the iceberg, just wait until the GA and classified doc charges drop. My only fear now is that Trump will be unable to run and Meatball Ron will take the helm. He's infinitely worse than Trump.
Here is hoping that there are some state tax law crimes in the indictment.
But then we will hear from Gym Jordan and his ilk about the need to defund the IRS even though Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute any federal crimes.
Marcy at EmptyWheel
Hey Pols, can we have a Big Line on odds of conviction?
How about an over/under on number of "Guilty" verdicts.
34 counts….. Whatcha think ColPols?
I'm in for 14
How about an over/under on the total indictments from all the grand juries investigating him? If it is 30 for business fraud then Georgia, Jan 6th and the documents could push it out to a 100. That's a whole lot of charges and legal fees he is going to have to deal with. Sure the sheeple with pony up for him but that is one less dollar going to other Republican candidates in 2024.
Everything is a fund raiser in Mango World. "Sure the sheeple will pony up for him". Money he will doubtlessly misappropriate. Then we can have another first.
'First time ever indictment for misusing campaign funds derived from the defense of misusing campaign funds'. For Trump, Corrupt is a verb.
Just listened to Rachel Maddow podcast. She cautions the punditocracy that this legal process going forward may be boring.
Twisted Trumpists.
At the base of Trump's indictment is that he, himself, on his own, committed adultery and tried to cover it up by paying hush money. Period.
Waiting for the Republicans to apologize to Bill Clinton.
None of which is a crime, by the way, just a demonstration that he is a vile individual.
It was a crime for John Edwards.
But he wasn't convicted.
That isn't relevant. Juries don't create precedents; they heard the testimony in the Edwards case and declined to convict. A Trump jury will hear different evidence–in particular, at least one insider (Cohen) will testify that the purpose of the payoffs was to influence the election. The Edwards prosecutors did not have such a witness.
Further, remember that the judge, prior to trial, denied Edwards's motions to dismiss the charges. Although the ruling of a federal district court judge does not constitute any sort of binding precedent, it is authority for the proposition that failing to report a payoff to a mistress to shut her up prior to an election is a violation of federal law. The Edwards prosecutors just couldn't convince a jury that the contributors (not Edwards) had the purpose of affecting the election.
It is if he wrote it off as a campaign donation.
It is also illegal if he deducted it as legal fees.
It's amazing how fast the GOP has circled the wagons in response to this. DeSantis and Pence are toast; they simply can't break away from Trump.
Maybe it's because if the law is coming after grifters, the grifters all start to get nervous. Colorado-relevant example number one is obviously Bobo and her "I are a oil company consultant now!" husband.
In mid December 1998 Bill Clinton’s approval rating was at 68 %. On December 19 the House of Representatives (with a Republican majority) adopted two articles of impeachment against against Clinton. Immediately after Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points to 78%. The American people, justly so, saw the impeachment as a partisan political stunt.
The political implications on the prosecution of Trump will be if the American people perceive it as political as in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. If so, and history indicates a good chance that will be the case, Democrats in their zeal to neutralize Trump as a presidential candidate may very well have assured the reelection of Donald J. Trump as president in 2024.
Perhaps its not a coincidence this is happening with Biden having a 38% approval rating and polls of Democrats with clear majorities not wanting Biden to run for a second term.
More will be revealed.
Farts in his Cheerios.
Lock him up and throw away the key. The age of the Anti-Christ is over.
LOL comparing Clinton to Trump is like comparing day old pizza to a bowl of hydrochloric acid with glass shards and a turd floating on top. The (sane) American people despise Trump and what he's done to both the discourse in this country and how he's weakened our Democracy.
The sentient skidmarks were always going to vote for their cult leader, and this indictment doesn't change that. It's not like somebody who either doesn't vote or wasn't going to vote for Trump is now suddenly like, "gee willikers, i gotta vote for him now that he's in legal trouble."
"day old pizza to a bowl of hydrochloric acid with glass shards and a turd floating on top"
Oh, Allyn. You and David T are the Doom4Dems twins. Do you have a formal agreement on whose turn it is to do Dem Doom each week?
I would not include David T and Allyn (Andrew Carnegie?) in the same club. David T genuinely identifies with the non-right wingers while Allyn is simply a shill for the Republican Party.
I'm guessing you're troubled by David's commenting on stuff that the hard left doesn't like to be criticize for.
The late and great Voyageur referred occasionally to kwtree as "La Pomposa." Don't know I would go that far; except maybe I did in the distant past. But she does seem thin-skinned when it comes to progressives like her being criticized.
CHB, do you really want to remember Voyageur for one of his worst habits, that of verbally demeaning people he disagreed with? Those were not always the “progressives” that you also despise, by the way- anyone who dared to disagree with V on any issue was treated with equal contempt.
Speaking for myself, I’ll remember Bob E ( Voyageur) for his wit and wordsmithing, and that, in the end, he apologized to me for all the nasty names, and tried to do better by all Polsters.
CHB, you are welcomed as a conservative voice in the echo chamber here. To have credibility, criticize policy, not people, and offer alternatives if you can.
I disagreed with VG occasionally and never found myself being targeted by him with contempt.
I don't need your "blessing" to have credibility.
David criticizes mainstream Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, elected Congresspeople. He seldom bothers to critique progressive ( “ hard left” in your terms) politicians or policies. You’re right about Allyn- he is a Republican shill who hates all Democrats, except perhaps Manchin and Synema.
David seems like a nice individual personally – he just needs to balance out the “ Dems are Doomed!!” schtick with the occasional acknowledgement of a job as well done as could be under continuing Republican scorched-earth obstruction. That, or stick to the areas he really is an expert in- software, technology, business. As a political prognosticator, he’s wrong much more often than he is right.
I like Presidents who weren't indicted.
Now that's funny.
Finally found a great article about the nuts and bolts of potential charges, reasons for those charges and potential defenses.
The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview
SO MANY stories about this are just about reactions to the news, ie. "So-and-so said this emotional thing about the indictment". It's really nice to find some practical details about this.
Many (most?) commentators focus on the auxiliary crime that elevates falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony as being a campaign finance violation. However, it could also be a tax crime, which he is also almost certainly guilty of. And, independently of the crime of falsifying business records, tax crimes are felonies.
Great link, Chickenheed. Thanks.
If the rumors of 34 charges are true, then this almost certainly goes beyond the "frivolous" charges and "weak case" speculation that's rampant. Even if they charge once per check at 4 checks, there are too many charges for simple campaign finance violations. This case may not be as weak as has been speculated.
We'll likely know on Tuesday.
I'll take "34 Charges" for $500, Alex.