Trump ADMITS to Serious CRIME in New Post - Meidas Touch

[Rhiannon12866]

Donald Trump’s recent post on social media inadvertently stipulated to the civil charges against him by the New York Attorney General’s Office and the criminal charges being investigated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

[ancianita]

1. Thanks! This is a big deal.

I notice that Meiselas uses "stipulate" when he means "admit," or "concede."

It's laughable that Trump becomes an obsequious suckup to the grand jury, hoping they'll ignore Weisselberg's receipts.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. And yet he personally attacks the DA and the judges?

From everything we've heard, I think he's really lost it - even more than previously, I mean. His life from now on is going to consist of courtroom appearances.

[ancianita]

3. Right? Yep, he's lost it, whatever 'it' he had.

From now on he's only showing that he knows how to tell the truth -- and even THAT is scripted -- when his freedom and fortune are on the line. Too late, dirty don.


Gotta say, going forward, the days are feeling pretty gratifying.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I'm not holding my breath since we've gotten our hopes up so often, but things are finally moving forward

And there are so many strikes against him, we've got Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fani Willis, the E. Jean Carroll case - and, best of all, Jack Smith investigating more than one serious crime. Something's got to get him, finally. I just wish that the judge last week had issued a gag order, but we can't have everything.

[ancianita]

5. I hear you.

The ability of the rich to buy prolonged "due process" still has the effect of undermining public trust in the judiciary's enforcement of the nation's laws.

Pre-trial activity feels like unjust due process, parallel to MLK's definition of unjust laws. Thus, a double standard of rule of law -- 'justus' -- leads many to believe that justice delayed is justice denied. They're not wrong.

All these cases, well documented w/ evidence & laws cited even in the public domain, should come to trial, gag orders and all.
We have worked hard for justice and deserve "everything" by now.
I feel as frustrated as anyone about our enforcement pace.

[Irish_Dem]

6. +1. The rich use the law to escape the law.

Good post!

The wealthy have the ability to buy prolonged nonsensical due process.
The goal is not about due process, it is about delaying and tricking the court into dropping the case.

It is a form of legal warfare only the rich can afford.

And the courts think this is just fine.
They are following the letter of the law, but not the intent.
So it is a big shame on them.

[marble falls]

7. He can delay only to a certain point, and he's finally at the end of that rope.

[ancianita]

8. I hear you. But by the time he's at the end of that rope, the public's trust in justice is eroded,

even lost.

I'm probably beating a dead horse to repeat the pain many feel about how justice is enforced. I fuss at people about wanting their 'justice burger their way,' but in spirit, they have a right to expect better from the richest country on the planet. Yes, the Third Branch suffers from intentional underfunding and understaffing. Our Congress has to do better.

Still. Why should the rich cost the rest of us so much, just to have time-sensitive justice, when the spirit of the law's intent is also at the end of its rope.

How does democracy do anything but hang by a thread when the rich regularly and literally buy prolonged due process to eventually make justice inaccessible, even a churning nightmare, for the rest of us. Which is what 'justus' has come to mean.

After all that time, hard work by hundreds, or thousands, to get this man in court, he finally tells the truth.
That right there is a feature of what MLK calls "an unjust peace."

[marble falls]

9. He's using the same Consitutional "delays" you and I have access to, including a presumption of ...

... innocence. How would confidence in the justice system be served by eliminating his access to his Bill of Rights? We are all guaranteed equal access under the law.

[ancianita]

10. We have access to the same delays if we can pay. imo, there lies the difference.

The more money, the better the legal representation; thus, access to due process and "delays" that he has used.

[marble falls]

11. There's an old saying in the legal business: "How much justice can you afford?" ...

... that's no fault of the Orange Shitgibbon.

?w=500&h=212

There's a pile of reasons we don't get the same justice: underfunded Public Defender offices, underpaid public defenders, greedy lawyers, the pressure to force plea agreements because there are not enough courts and judges etc ...

The Tangerine Scream is not unique, he's just the most prominent example of how money and poverty screws the intentions of the Bill of Rights. Anything less than following the law weakens the system further. Whatever makes it easier to "get" the wealthier canned quicker will get the poor guilty or not, canned quicker too.

[ancianita]

12. I mentioned awareness of the structural funding and personnel problems of the third branch here.

Yes, he is at fault. He nominated justices that have eroded rights of 51% of the country. And of course that same criminal president is the prominent example that dramatizes all those "not unique" problems. More than anything, it is not the public's fault that it has varied awareness of that pile of problems you list, which frustrates them.

Congressional Democrats need to make the structural problems of the third branch a top priority, or constitutional crises arise with political circuit and SCOTUS decisions.

We are right to expect, DEMAND, that the Department of Justice, SCOTUS, and Congressional Democrats focus on the make-or-break outcomes these cases will mean for democracy. We are right to pressure them to plan what to do next, and act on it -- if/when Democrats win back both houses. No matter how many dark days are ahead in the next nineteen months, the first two branches must commit to judicial reform.

And there's not one damn good reason that indictments should stop during any election cycle.
No politics should delay justice. Any claim otherwise is bullshit.

Over the next year or two, Trump cases will bring to the forefront the frustration and distrust people have with unequal protection and equal justice in this country. Media won't help, with its profit motivated to highlight him and not bother with problems for representative democracy that unequal justice has had a hand in. And as we see now, Republicans and their anti-democracy donors will fight judicial reform by any legal/illegal means necessary. "If you don't have the courts, you got nothing," as Koch says.

[marble falls]

13. Actually, he was pretty lazy about naming juditial posts. Both Obama and Biden have been very ...

... good about it. Let alone the fact how he hasn't had much success with ones he did name to the bench, and neither has the J6 insurrectionists.

[ancianita]

14. Yeah, but that evangelical Kacsmaryk guy, jeez. That's the kind of dumbtrump damage

the country doesn't need. Sure the others have ruled against him, but in this case, the nomination has created nationwide personal harm for women.

[marble falls]

15. We'll get some damage control by getting to name Thomases replacemnt. This fight is not a single ...

... short engagement. The cost of freedom is unending vigilance. The GOP did not sneak in overnight. Now we know and we need to make them know, too. It ain't over.