Donald Trump Names Day He’ll Be Arrested In New Truth Social Screed

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

People can be arrested for shoplifting. Or crossing the street between lights. Or any of hundreds of other things. And all simply to be fined.

Being arrested simply means they are taking you to the police station, or government office, to process your paperwork. Doesn't necessarily mean jail time, or prison.

If Trump committed a tax crime, or a campaign finance crime, he could easily be subject to arrest, and then later that day be released. Or, if he agrees, he can arrange a time to surrender himself.

Plus, NYC has been itching to get Trump in cuffs, so it would be a political, and media, spectacle more then anything else, and that's mostly what they want.

So in the USA the ONLY way you can be charged, is by arrest - you aren't charged by notice or summons?

I doubt there is a need to arrest Trump, other than to mitigate the opportunity to create a fantasy that he was never correctly told to appear in court to face charges.

[MGB]

48 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

I warned the FBI, but they’re so arrogant they can’t see the new power Trump will likely, soon wield. They don’t understand the significance of this.

Trump doesn’t need to use any form of violence, at this juncture. Instead, he is starting his 2023 campaign in Waco, TX to put down his marker.

I don’t support Trump, but this is a smart move.

Waco is the biggest mistake that the FBI ever made, and they have a lot of innocent blood on their hands there. The reason is simple, they could have easily arrested David Koresh on any number of occasions, when he was away from that compound, but the FBI chose the wrong, arrogant path.

By placing his marker at Waco, Donald Trump is signaling that he can destroy the FBI, exactly as I have foreseen. Thus, he may be setting the stage for a new kind of conflict, on Earth.

 

I see that too. Go to Waco and trash the politicized FBI hoping to stir incitement. No reason he would go there to weep for the dead, simply a trash the FBI event which his simpletons will see as a call to arms.

See how the man calls these black prosecutors "racist?" That is him alerting all his racist followers these are black people "persecuting" him. Not hard to see through the man.

[WVK]

59 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

I warned the FBI, but they’re so arrogant they can’t see the new power Trump will likely, soon wield. They don’t understand the significance of this.

Trump doesn’t need to use any form of violence, at this juncture. Instead, he is starting his 2023 campaign in Waco, TX to put down his marker.

I don’t support Trump, but this is a smart move.

Waco is the biggest mistake that the FBI ever made, and they have a lot of innocent blood on their hands there. The reason is simple, they could have easily arrested David Koresh on any number of occasions, when he was away from that compound, but the FBI chose the wrong, arrogant path.

By placing his marker at Waco, Donald Trump is signaling that he can destroy the FBI, exactly as I have foreseen. Thus, he may be setting the stage for a new kind of conflict, on Earth.

 

Wasn’t Waco about Clinton wanting to appear tough?

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It's Trump on the line, but I'd imagine Stormy "knew" as many politicians as Epstein did.

Maybe they were discreet and didn't call her horseface.

[DieChecker]

46 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So in the USA the ONLY way you can be charged, is by arrest - you aren't charged by notice or summons?

I doubt there is a need to arrest Trump, other than to mitigate the opportunity to create a fantasy that he was never correctly told to appear in court to face charges.

Where did I say that? I speculated that due to politics, optics, the media, and the previous "I'm going to get you sucka!" announcements from the NY DAs office, that they'd chose to arrest him, rather then to just ask.

I even said "Or, if he agrees, he can arrange a time to surrender himself." by which I mean they COULD ask him to turn himself in. But my opinion is they want a spectacle, so they'll arrest him publicly.

Edited March 18 by DieChecker

[DieChecker]

38 minutes ago, WVK said:

Wasn’t Waco about Clinton wanting to appear tough?

I thought it was about Janet Reno wanting to appear tough. She was the one that told them to storm the compound.

[Bed of chaos]

2 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

I warned the FBI, but they’re so arrogant they can’t see the new power Trump will likely, soon wield. They don’t understand the significance of this.

Trump doesn’t need to use any form of violence, at this juncture. Instead, he is starting his 2023 campaign in Waco, TX to put down his marker.

I don’t support Trump, but this is a smart move.

Waco is the biggest mistake that the FBI ever made, and they have a lot of innocent blood on their hands there. The reason is simple, they could have easily arrested David Koresh on any number of occasions, when he was away from that compound, but the FBI chose the wrong, arrogant path.

By placing his marker at Waco, Donald Trump is signaling that he can destroy the FBI, exactly as I have foreseen. Thus, he may be setting the stage for a new kind of conflict, on Earth.

 

"The ATF desperately needed publicity. It was reeling from the 60 Minutes series of sexual harassment (indeed near rapes) of female agents, stinging from a racial discrimination class action lawsuit and was only ten days away from its appropriations hearings in the House of Representatives. Internally agents were referring to the Waco raid a "ZBO" slang for "Zee Big One", the publicity stunt that would ensure the agency went into the hearings with headlines and national media coverage behind it" (Everything You Know is Wrong, Russ Kick).

If I remember correctly (last day of Waco Hearings) Joe Biden claimed everything was justified (Davidians set the fire). Pack of lies. Koresh was a coward but the government murdered those children.

Edited March 18 by Bed of chaos

[Raptor Witness]

1 hour ago, MGB said:

…. his simpletons will see as a call to arms

It’s possible, but I don’t think violence is necessary, as this would hurt Trump’s election chances. I don’t think even the “simpletons” would be that stupid; if anything, for fear of going to jail, without a pardon.

Regardless of what we may sometimes imagine, in essence, politics is an endeavor in practicality. 

[Raptor Witness]

1 hour ago, WVK said:

Wasn’t Waco about Clinton wanting to appear tough?

Possibly, but we don’t really know if Janet Reno was influenced heavily by President Clinton, or was this mostly her idea, which is what I recall reading; unless you know something I don’t about the history of this mistake.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Where did I say that? I speculated that due to politics, optics, the media, and the previous "I'm going to get you sucka!" announcements from the NY DAs office, that they'd chose to arrest him, rather then to just ask.

I even said "Or, if he agrees, he can arrange a time to surrender himself." by which I mean they COULD ask him to turn himself in. But my opinion is they want a spectacle, so they'll arrest him publicly.

I agree that an arrest would be an abuse of power for someone under the constant watch of a Federal LEO.

Arrest may only be necessary after a Trump act of brinkmanship.  Do you you think he might forfeit his Constitutional Right to face his accuser?

[WVK]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I thought it was about Janet Reno wanting to appear tough. She was the one that told them to storm the compound.

Yes, a bit of googling confirms that.

[DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I agree that an arrest would be an abuse of power for someone under the constant watch of a Federal LEO.

Arrest may only be necessary after a Trump act of brinkmanship.  Do you you think he might forfeit his Constitutional Right to face his accuser?

I think probably the Secret Service isn't going to allow an open public arrest, regardless of whatever the NY DA offices want. 

I think if he doesn't have to, Trump won't testify at all. Probably feels he shouldn't have to.

[Raptor Witness]

28 minutes ago, Bed of chaos said:

Koresh was a coward but the government murdered those children.

…. and as far as I know, no one ever paid a price for it.

Your post is one of the most well thought, and well written items that I’ve seen here, in years.

These government departments, which protect themselves, using counter intelligence, is the greatest threat to freedom, I see. 

[lightly]

36 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think probably the Secret Service isn't going to allow an open public arrest, regardless of whatever the NY DA offices want. 

I think if he doesn't have to, Trump won't testify at all. Probably feels he shouldn't have to.

Can’t a judge compel (ORDER) him to testify?  .. give him a choice of testifying or face a contempt of court charge?   

[Occupational Hubris]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It's Trump on the line, but I'd imagine Stormy "knew" as many politicians as Epstein did.

Irrelevanet, if they didn't also use camapaign money to buy her scilence. Also, ****-shaming isn't a great look. 

[Occupational Hubris]

4 hours ago, and-then said:

 His "crime" is paying money to a ***** to keep her quiet while he ran for president.  The rest of the business world calls those - NDAs 

This is what and-then and his ilk think of women. This is what the poloticians passing these draconian laws acros steh country think of women. 

Edited March 19 by Occupational Hubris

[spartan max2]

4 hours ago, and-then said:

The DA in New York wants to be the one who gets credit for making the hater's dreams come true.  They'll get to try to humiliate him by videoing him walking in cuffs.  Musk is right... it will get him re-elected in a landslide.  I think even the more rabid of his haters understand this at some level but they've waited for so long to hurt him and been disappointed so often, they're willing to do ANYTHING to finally "get him".  Just remember, other, better funded investigations were done on this charge while he was in office and they found no evidence that he broke any laws.  His "crime" is paying money to a ***** to keep her quiet while he ran for president.  The rest of the business world calls those - NDAs 

If seeing Trump arrested for paying hush money to a woman he paid for sex (while being married) as to not make him look bad when running for president makes people want to vote for him then our nation truly has no soul.

Your comment is also sexist. You're upset with her for being a prostitute but not Trump for paying for one.

Jesus 

[Occupational Hubris]

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If seeing Trump arrested for paying hush money to a woman he paid for sex (while being married) as to not make him look bad when running for president makes people want to vote for him then our nation truly has no soul.

Your comment is also sexist. You're upset with her for being a prostitute but not Trump for paying for one.

Jesus 

the **** shaming coming out of this thread is on par for the people here. 

[el midgetron]

Team Misogyny is going to bat for “women”? 

Even a porn-star-loving Trump can get people to stand up for actual women, ….The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[DieChecker]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Can’t a judge compel (ORDER) him to testify?  .. give him a choice of testifying or face a contempt of court charge?   

Order him to testify? Probably, but he'd likely take the 5th, and not answer questions. Even the contempt charge is minor, and likely wouldnt be enforced unless Trump got arrested for something else. 

[el midgetron]

While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.

Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. The campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget. Yet, there was no hue and cry for this type of prosecution in Washington or New York.

A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3906498-get-ready-for-manhattan-das-made-for-tv-trump-prosecution-high-on-ratings-but-short-on-the-law/

[acidhead]

38 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If seeing Trump arrested for paying hush money to a woman he paid for sex (while being married) as to not make him look bad when running for president makes people want to vote for him then our nation truly has no soul.

Your comment is also sexist. You're upset with her for being a prostitute but not Trump for paying for one.

Jesus 

Did Trump actually pay her for sex? In her CBS interview she said they had sex once.  I'm busy ATM to read the transcript.   I'm genuinely curious because paying an individual not to tell anybody is different. Though paying a woman for sex is what anybody who's ever had a girlfriend or been married to a woman. At the end of the day you are paying no matter how to try to justify or spin it.

[spartan max2]

9 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Though paying a woman for sex is what anybody who's ever had a girlfriend or been married to a woman. At the end of the day you are paying no matter how to try to justify or spin it.

Oh look more sexism. And boomer ****.

When my wife and I were dating we normally split the check. And now she even makes slightly more money then me. Being married or having a girlfriend is not paying for sex.

You all are ridiculous. 

[DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Irrelevanet, if they didn't also use camapaign money to buy her scilence. Also, ****-shaming isn't a great look. 

Who said they used campaign money? Did Trump admit to that?

From what I remember Cohen paid her, and Trump paid him. None of that money came from a campaign fund, or donation. Cohen pled guilty because HE intended the payments to influence the election. Good Luck getting Trump to agree that's why he paid Cohen.

So not campaign money. It was election influencing that was the reason for the charge.

FYI, accusing others of shaming is the very lowest of arguments. You might just as well have started throwing out "Hitler", and "Nazis", in your argument.

[spartan max2]

40 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Team Misogyny is going to bat for “women”? 

Even a porn-star-loving Trump can get people to stand up for actual women, ….The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Sexism is when people judge woman for being porn stars or prostitutes and then don't judge men for using porn or prostitutes. 

For the record I don't see anything wrong with someone being a porn star. (Or a prostitute if it's truly voluntary and not sex trafficking)