CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 30, 2023 04:45 PM UTC

BREAKING: Trump Indicted In Porn Star Hush Money Case

  • 69 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Former President Donald Trump confirms via TruthSocial that he has been “indicated.”

Remember, Trump doesn’t fix typos, he “covfefes” them! We have to call being indicted “getting indicated” now.

We don’t make these rules.

—–

UPDATE: Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver is understandably stoked:

While Rep. Jason Crow reminds us of the historic sadness of this moment:

—–

As the New York Times reports, Stormy Daniels will have her revenge:

Donald J. Trump was indicted in Manhattan on Thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to five people with knowledge of the matter, a historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and forever mark him as the nation’s first former president to face criminal charges. [Pols emphasis]

In the coming days, prosecutors working for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will likely ask Mr. Trump to surrender and to face arraignment. The specific charges will be announced when he is arraigned…

Donald J. Trump responded to the news that he had been indicted in a statement, calling the Manhattan grand jury vote “political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.”

Mr. Trump’s statement echoed what has been an extraordinary and blistering effort to try to prevent the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, from indicting him.

Rep. Lauren Boebert shrieks at the heavens:

It’s the moment former President Donald Trump warned would result in “death and destruction,” calling on his supporters to “PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST.” It’s since been explained to us that these two statements were not expressly related, and Trump attorney Joseph Tacopina conceded Trump was “ill-advised” to have threatened violence.

We’ll update with reactions from all sides as they come in.

Comments

69 thoughts on “BREAKING: Trump Indicted In Porn Star Hush Money Case

    1. 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! 

      1. 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.  

        1. 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.

          1. Fluffy has gotta' scrape an awful lot of icky tangerine pancake pigment off of Ttump and his collar before getting to white.

      2. 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.

      3. Undoubtedly Ttump is just too fucking stupid to take any plea bargain??

        The judiciary has been weaponized for political purposes

        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!

        We are headed straight for a banana republic.

        Established 2016.

        It’s not about Trump anymore, it’s about defending the nation from authoritarian judicial overreach.

        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?)

      4. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

           

      5. 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.

      6. 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"?

      1. "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.

  1. Captain Bone Spurs has some splainin’ to do…

    "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

  2. 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.

      1. 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.

  3. 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).

    1. yes This! yes

      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!

      1. 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…

        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.
         

        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. 

    2. 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. 

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

    3. Marcy at EmptyWheel

      Paying his former sex partners to hide from voters that he cheated on Melania is not, itself, illegal.

      Having corporations pay sex workers for the purpose of benefitting a political campaign is. The company that owned the National Enquirer paid for the first payment, to McDougal; Trump Organization, by reimbursing the payment that Michael Cohen made, eventually paid for the second payment, to Daniels.

      The charges brought against Trump in NY reportedly relate, at least in part, to the second payment — to the treatment of the reimbursement to Cohen as a legal retainer rather than a reimbursement for a political donation. That is, the cheapskate billionaire, who could have legally paid off the women himself, allegedly covered up his cover-up.

      Trump’s eponymous corporate persons have already been found guilty of serving as personal slush funds. In 2019, he admitted the Trump Foundation had engaged in self-dealing. And last year, a jury convicted Trump Organization of compensating employees via untaxed benefits rather than salary.

      The new charges against Trump aren’t so much unprecedented, as they simply charge Trump’s biological person with the same crimes for which his corporate persons have already been convicted.

      But there’s more history here, too. On multiple occasions, agents of Donald Trump reportedly engaged in further attempts to cover-up this cover-up.

      1. 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.

        1.  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.

  4. 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.

          1. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. 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."

      1. 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.

        1. 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. 

          1. 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.
             

            1. I disagreed with VG occasionally and never found myself being targeted by him with contempt.

              I don't need your "blessing" to have credibility.

        2. 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.

           

           

    1. 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.

  7. 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.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

75 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!