Angelia

A zasto su porezi i troskovi zivota u tim drzavama najvisi? Da nije mozda zbog fiskalne politike i socijalnih davanja onih na vlasti? BTW sele se i zbog porasta kriminala - direktno povezano sa politikom onih na vlasti. Onaj u CA hoce da naplacuje "exit tax", da zaustavi masovno bezanje. Sad naplacuje i mansion tax, pa je i Hollywood poceo da bezi. Ostace mu beskucnici na kraju, njima je lepo. Nama je recimo bilo lepo dok je Nater bio gradonacelnik (Demokrata ali stari dobri liberal), od kako su ovi progresivci zaseli - unistili grad.

roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union. (see Table 3 below) https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/new-initiative-explores-deep-persistent-divides-between-biden-and-trump-voters/

Skoro 50% na obe strane podrzava razdvajanje na blue I red states. Ali to razdvajanje je pocelo pre oko 10 godina. Jedan od kljucnih momenata je bilo kada je Hilari nazvala sve koje podrzavaju Trampa "deplorables", tu je komplet izgubila izbore, jer neke stvari koje je on promovisao, misle I nezavisni. Tipa konzervativna fiskalna politika, kontrola granica, manje ratova.... Demokratska stranka, koja je nekad bila stranka srednje klase, je postala elitisticka, I sada na obicne ruralne gradjane gleda sa visine. Republikanci koji su nekad bili stranka velikog kapitala se okrenula obicnim ljudima. Ono gde obicno ljudi grese je da misle da su republikanci samo konzervativci, ili da Dems samo liberali (mislim na prave liberale). Obe stranke su do skoro imale spektrum. Dems su sada otisli suvise levo, izgubili kontakt sa obicnim covekom, a Reps su jos uvek spektrum, iako su se I njima uvukli extremisti. Zato Tramp nije toliko cudan, sto dokazuje preletanje iz jedne stranke u drugu umerenih. Nije bilo potrebe da bude konzervativac, sve dok im nudi konzervativne planove. Desantis je konzervativac, klasican, ali nije showman. Ako je plan bio da se Desantis izbaci iz igre, uspeli su. Medjutim, mozda su zaboravili da on moze da se vrati kao VP uz Trampa. A to sto si video taj jeziv iskaz, veruj mi na rec da I Dems imaju I jezivijih primera. A problem je I sto normalni ljudi cute, jer se plase extremista. Iako levi su agresivniji, niko jos nije izgubio posao zato sto su ga proganjali konzervativci. sad videcemo kako ce proci, kad su izgubili Twitter, a I drugi big tech bi trebali da budu zabrinuti. Pre neki dan, naidjem na komsiju ispred kuce, gleda moje radnike, renoviram kucu, prodajem da se selim. I caskamo tako, uvedem ga da vidi sta sam radila. Ja zivim u extra blue kraju, konzervativce samo lupom da trazis...I pita hocu li se vracati u kucu, reko da ali prodajem, selim se na Floridu. Nasta ce "mislis da ce te primiti kao imigranta?" Pazi mene 🙄i onda on skonta sta je rekao i kao nista, nista necemo o politici...advokat, savrseno normalan covek. Nemam pojma sta je mislio, da emigrante Desantis jede za dorucak?

Iskreno receno nemam pojma o cemu pricas. Niko ne gubi veru u institucije zato sto im je neko rekao, nego kad te institucije rade stvari koje podriva poverenje ljudi.

Kelly nije Trampov fan uopste, ali republikanci staju sad iza njega.

Ima, zove se sud javnosti. I njegov rastuci rejting to odrazava. I nemam pojma sta je tebi smesno, gubitak poverenja u institucije sistema? Ja ovde zivim I veruj mi, nije smesno. Povecana polarizacija drustva, isto nije smesno.

Kakve to veze ima sa onim sto si rekao? Da ako on prica da je proganjanje onda je to smesno? btw mislim da ti ne razumes izraz politicko proganjanje, ako ti je smaranje kako Obama treba da pokaze dokaz da je rodjen u Americi isto. Napravi razliku malo izmedju twitovanja i koriscenja institucija sistema za politicko proganjanje. Tramp je u kampanji pricao za Hilari, ali nije iskoristio nista da je kasnije zakonski proganja.

ljudi koji znaju kako zakon funkcionise, nisu u dubiozi. Nemaju predjasnji da uporede, jer se radi o izmisljenom presedanu, a ja neexpertski znam da slucaj ne postoji, i da je izmisljen za Trampa, zamisli kako sam specijalno pametna??? procitala sam par misljenja i otkrila da takav slucaj ne postoji, i da je protiv svih prethodnih. Hippy hippy hooray, kako sam extra pametna. Ti nisi skontala da je presedan? Pa pise u svakom clanku

Ja kazem "nisam expert" a ti to zoves samopohvala 😄 U pravnoj komunikaciji, "jako tesko da dokazu" obicno znaci "nemas slucaj" I "ako do njega dodje" znaci nemas dokaze. Takve stvari obicno ne idu na sudjenje osim ako nije ubistvo ili neki slican kriminal. Ne za poreski prekrsaj. Pa to, kad mediji koji su bias protiv Trampa kazu ovo ne drzi vodu, sve ti je jasno.

Ja se pravom i zakonima bavim duzi niz godina, ne mislim da sam expert, ali znam malo vise nego obican laik koji nikad nije dotakao sistem. nema potrebe da ja ucim Ny tuzioce, uce ih njihove kolege. Koji ocigledno misle da nemaju pojma, i da su politicki motivisani.

Ok samo sam zaboravila da ti odgovorim na ovo, znaci nesto sto se moze smatrati za licni trosak ne moze da se podnesu pod kampanju. To ce biti Trampov argument, da je platio da zastiti svoj imidz, porodicu i slicno, a ne zbog kampanje. Zato je DOJ odustao od optuznice. Ako kandidat direktno za benefit kampanje plati odelo za pojavljivanje recimo u debati, to je trosak kampanje, ali ako on to odelo zadrzi za sebe, onda postaje licni trosak. Znaci ne mora da prijavi to sto je platio porno zvezdi ako nije direktno vezano za kampanju, znaci mora da se uzme u obzir kad i kako, i stanje uma. Ali opet - to bi bio federalni slucaj. Tj da je platio Stormy iz kampanje to bi bio prekrsaj, jer bi on licno imao beneficiju. DOJ je razmatrao da ga optuzi za to sto je Cohen platio, kao nelegalnu kontribuciju (sto ne sme da radi) ali posto je on Cohenu kompenzovao - nema slucaja.

Moje licno misljenje, pravnog entuzijaste, ako obidjemo pricu o krsenju federalnih zakona o finansiranju kampanje, za sta Bragg nema jurisdikciju, sta ce biti njegovo objasnjenje: Samo za Stormy slucaj: Placanje je zavedeno u Trump Organisation (TO) kao legalni trosak, umesto u trosku kampanje, time je TO dobio neku poresku beneficiju (ako jeste, a recimo nije Tramp nadoknadio troskove), pa je time pocinio utaju poreza. Ni to naravno nije posao Bragga nego IRS, ali ajde da ubacimo tu teoriju u pricu. To naravno mora da prati da je Trampova namera bila da ima poresku olaksicu umesto da plati sa kampanje, sto bi naravno bilo kontraproduktivno sakrivanju isplate, tako da za dokaz namere imaju cistu nelogicnost. Ispada da je platio 130k svojih para, umesto od tudjih da bi ustedeo - sta znam 27k, to nema smisla. To se nikad ne procesuira kao utaja poreza, to se naplati kazna, to uradi IRS i to je to. Kakav DA i bakraci. (Edit: nisam jasno napisala - nije platio 130k od tudjih para, nego 100k od svojih, ko to radi? Potpuno besmisleno) Za ova druga dva slucaja nemaju bukvalno nista - to je Pecker platio, to moze samo da bude prekrsaj na federalnom nivou, finansiranja kampanje. Slucaj sa vratarom je cak cisto ucena, jer se ispostavilo da prica nije tacna.

I misljenje za koje sam bila sigurna da ce izaci, sve trampista do trampiste tvrdi isto, a o pravu pojma nemaju. ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We've seen the laughably flawed indictment - and it was a body blow to American justice. But now if a jury with Trump Derangement Syndrome unfairly convicts Donald… our nation may never recover Ukratko: The most anticipated indictment in modern history has been released. And, believe it or not, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg found an alleged crime. Only it's not the supposed offense that he's prosecuting. The only potential criminal wrongdoing identified after months of investigation by experienced professional prosecutors appears to be extortion. But I'm talking about extortion of Trump, not by Trump. That's what it's called when an individual threatens to release damaging information about someone else unless they're paid to keep quiet. Now, of course, I'm not calling for Stormy Daniels to be prosecuted. I wish her only the best. But this indictment speaks to how laughable and blatantly political this prosecution really is. It's a tragedy. ...... Now look closer. All 34 counts are relatively similar. Bragg has sliced the salami very thin. In essence, this is a case about book-keeping. Trump is accused of not accurately recording hush money payments on public financial documents. Consider how ridiculous that is. As I've written before, while immoral, such payments are legal and, in fact, common among high-profile people. It is also not uncommon to withhold why the actual hush money is paid. Obviously, to do so would be to disclose that which the hush money was paid to keep hush. And in order to turn these questionable financial misdemeanors into even more questionable felonies, Bragg has alleged that the reason Trump made the false entries was to cover up other crimes. Here the indictment is at its weakest. ..... In the end, the revelation of his consensual adulterous affair with Daniels got out anyway - but it did not turn the election to Hillary Clinton. I wish it had. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I voted for her, and I contributed to her campaign. But Trump won. ...... I challenge you, DA Bragg. Find me one example of someone prosecuted for paying hush money and not having recorded it on business records. The case doesn't exist. Why? Because responsible prosecutors generally don't prosecute crimes where there is no victim. Stormy Daniels is not a victim. She willingly accepted Trump's money. The American people are not victims. They elected Trump regardless of his behavior. Ironically, Bragg - who has failed to go after criminal predators in the streets - has devoted time and resources, which could have been spent going after real killers and rapists and Ponzi schemers to instead go after a man for a victimless, alleged crime. ...... The American legal system took a body blow yesterday. Trump's appearance in a courtroom to become the first former president and the first current presidential candidate ever to be indicted, arrested and charged marked a sad departure from precedent. And this deeply flawed indictment will now create a new precedent under which elected prosecutors of both parties will search for possible crimes against their political opponents. Whatever the outcome of this Bragg prosecution, Trump should eventually prevail. An appeals court should never uphold such an obvious misapplication of the law. But I don't know if the American legal system can come back from this as easily. This is a perversion of justice. And if Trump is convicted, it will be a travesty of justice. Americans everywhere now have cause for concern, because today it is Trump - but tomorrow it could be you.

Kakve veze ima da li on to prica? Znaci ako Tramp kaze da je zemlja okrugla, mi cemo da teramo kontru

Izvini Baby ali tvoje nerazumevanje pravnih koncepta, I logike u pravu, te manje vise diskvalifikuje u raspravi pravnih slucajeva. Reci "puni su zatvori ljudi koji su falsifikovali poslovne dokument, lagali na taxama..." je potpuno besmisleno, ako se ne uzme u obzir koji su to prekrsaji, ko je tu bio ostecen, I ko je imao koristi. To je jedna od osnovnih stvari u pravu. Sto ne znaci da nema mnogo glupavih zakona, I kontradiktornih, I rupa. I razlicitih tumacenja, to je uvek work in progress. Ali generalna logika u krivicnim zakonima mora da postoji. Poreski zakoni su druga prica, tamo cesto nema logike.

OPINION GUEST ESSAY The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment April 5, 2023 Credit...Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photograph by Octavio Jones/Getty Give this article 108 By Jed Handelsman Shugerman Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Fordham and Boston University. Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors. This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms. The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election. Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus. Let’s start with the obvious problem that the payments at issue were made around six years ago. The basic facts have been public for five years. There are undoubtedly complicated political reasons for the delay, but regardless, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., had almost a year to bring this case after Mr. Trump left office, but did not do so, and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department also declined. To address the perception of a reversal and questions of legitimacy, Mr. Bragg had a duty to explain more about the case and its legal basis in what’s known as a “speaking indictment,” which the team of former counsel Robert Mueller made famous in its filings. Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Astonishingly, the district attorney’s filings do not make clear the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony. Neither the 16-page indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts specifies, though the statement of facts does drop hints about campaign laws. In a news conference, Mr. Bragg answered that he did not specify because he was not required to by law. His answer was oblivious to how law requires more than doing the minimum to the letter — it demands fairness, notice and taking public legitimacy seriously. As a result of all this, Mr. Trump and the public still know shockingly little about the case — not which particular statute he allegedly violated or whether it is a state or federal campaign crime, a tax crime or something else. That’s why the indictment really contains only 34 half-counts. This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime, yet it is also standard when charging some cases to specify “crimes in the alternative.” Giving only partial notice might be standard operating procedure in Manhattan, but that standard procedure — suddenly in the bright lights yesterday — seems like a systemic infringement of a New Yorker’s right to know “the nature of the charges and evidence against you,” a normalized Sixth Amendment violation. On the bright side, maybe the backlash will force Manhattan prosecutors to end this general practice. Still, it is hard not to ask whether Mr. Trump was actually treated worse than other similarly situated defendants, because after so many years of delay, surely a Manhattan prosecutor would have informed another defendant of at least the basic underlying crimes and their statutory basis. The public could be forgiven for imagining that Mr. Bragg has not settled on his own theory. Unfortunately, he has given fodder to those who would portray this case as a political prosecution still in search of a legal theory. Even based on the half-felony that we do know — the false business filing with “intent to defraud” — it remains unclear whether a court has ever allowed a false-filing conviction based on an entirely internal business record that no other party, like a bank, insurance company or customer, would have relied on. I am yet to see any legal experts who have argued for this statute as a basis for the case against Mr. Trump who has identified a New York case along these lines. In my own research, I have not yet found one. That hole in the case should have given prosecutors pause: What, in practice, is the meaning of “intent to defraud”? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it. Even if one can argue that the statute should apply to internal records, this is not the ideal time to test a seemingly novel (or even a very rare) application. Because of pre-emption, it’s entirely possible that the State of New York cannot prosecute a state case based on a federal election filing violation. The underlying crime, as best as we can tell from Mr. Bragg’s news conference and a statement to the press, is a campaign finance violation — spending money for a campaign cover-up without reporting it. However, for a federal election, there is what one might call “double pre-emption” or “confirmed pre-emption”: Both Congress and the State of New York agree that cases about federal campaign filings are for federal courts only, not for states. The Federal Election Campaign Act has a broad pre-emption clause: “the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.” New York State law confirms that state “filing requirements and the expenditure, contribution and receipt limits” under state law “shall not apply” if there is a federal requirement and a federal filing (in other words, they don’t apply to federal elections). Federal pre-emption applies most strongly when the subject is the candidate’s own campaign conduct (as opposed to donors’, for example) and when it relates to core issues like filing rules (as in this case against Mr. Trump). Some defenders of yesterday’s indictment cited some examples of federal courts allowing states to proceed based on state law, but those cases were not about basic campaign filing rules but about a fund-raiser funneling money to his own for-profit business, or they were about rules for donors’ contributions or political action committees, as opposed to the candidates’ conduct. These legal experts did not specify any case allowing a state to prosecute a candidate for his or her own behavior in a core area of campaign regulation like filing requirements. Federal courts allow for states to regulate the “times, places and manner” of elections, voter registration, ballot theft and the like. They allow exceptions for pre-emption when the state laws are “more tangential to the regulation of federal elections.” This state filing law is not tangential to federal campaign filing law, nor is this allegation tangential to the field of federal campaign law. But federal courts have emphasized that the federal law applies most strongly to candidate behavior, especially on filing questions. The application of this state filing law overlaps much more closely with the federal law’s field of campaign finance and filing. There is good reason for pre-emption for federal campaign finance: the danger of local prosecutors bending state law against federal candidates of the opposing party. Congress and New York have traditionally agreed that federal campaign finance and filing law are for federal courts. Pre-emption, abstention and federal jurisdiction are complicated. Even if there is a valid argument that somehow the state statute and this case are only tangential to federal election law or that federal courts should abstain from taking it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers still can go back to the game book from their tangle with the previous Manhattan district attorney, Trump v. Vance, and the subpoena for tax returns. Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed for an injunction in federal trial court, took the appeals up to the Supreme Court and delayed the subpoena for about a year. This case is headed up the same road. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of federal pre-emption in cases with less clear pre-emption language, and Mr. Trump has a substantial chance of winning, given the clarity of the federal pre-emption language and confirmation of pre-emption in New York State law. Even if Mr. Bragg prevails, would a trial eight or more years after the underlying events, either at the height of the 2024 election or soon after, really be a win for the rule of law? Perhaps Tuesday was really an indictment of the Department of Justice under William Barr and Merrick Garland. If anyone should have brought this case, it was one of them. And if the Garland Justice Department should bring a case, there are stronger, more recent and much more serious charges to bring. Jed Handelsman Shugerman (@jedshug) is a law professor at Fordham and Boston University. Ili biraj: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/31/trump-indictment-progressive-sloganeering/ Zamisli kad se levi mediji slazu ... https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg Medjusobno, i samnom. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-felony-charges-legal-experts-indictment-falsifying-business-records/ Znaci, cak i ta dokumenta koje je "lazirao" su interna, znaci nisu nigde bila podnesena za neku korist. Ako nakon toga to nije politicko proganjanje, ne znam sta jeste, zatvor za izdaju i otrov?

Poenta je da se za ovako nesto ni lokalni kriminalac ne odvlaci na sud, pa da je i silovatelj, pljackas, ili ubica. Za to se napise kazna. A ne da povlacis bivseg predsednika i najverovatnije kandidata suprotne stranke sa sve njegovim secret Service, sa 300 policajaca da obezbede ulazak u sud, i da budes vidjen kao neko ko proganja politickog protivnika. Nakon sto je najavio kandidaturu, radi se o cirkusu koji se nece dobro zavrsiti. Da nije u pitanju Tramp, DA ne bi ni bio zainteresovan, i to zna svako ko ne pati od TDSa, samim tim Dems izgledaju smesno, bez obzira da li se ogradjuju ili ne - to je DA koji je dobio izbor zbog retorike protiv Trampa. Sad kao cekalo se objavljivanje optuznice da se vidi da je suplja. Meni uopste nije jasno kako su Dems dospeli tu gde jesu, da im komanduju extremisti.

Znaci da nema dokaza. Pravila finansiranja kampanje za predsednika su federalna. Cohen se nagodio zbog utaje poreza, pa su mu dali da prizna nesto zasta se ne dobija velika kazna.

The core of the indictment’s 34 felony charges against Trump relate to recording hush-money payments made via his attorney Michael Cohen as “legal fees.” Under New York state law, if you falsify your own business records, that’s a misdemeanor, a minor crime. To make it a felony, the government needs to prove that the falsification of the record was intended to commit and hide another crime. The indictment doesn’t say specifically what that other crime was. But the DA’s statement of facts seems to indicate that it was violating election law by hiding what was, in effect, a contribution to his campaign. The first thing that makes those charges legally weak is that Trump can defend himself by saying he ordered the hush money recorded as legal expenses to avoid upsetting his wife, not to conceal the way the payments helped his campaign. That might sound like a shaky defense, especially because prosecutors can say that Trump’s efforts to delay payment until after the 2016 election prove it was about the campaign, not his marriage. But it wouldn’t take 12 jurors to believe it. If even one juror believes it, then the jury would hang and a conviction would not be possible. Because it is vanishingly unlikely that the district attorney would attempt to retry Trump, the resulting mistrial would be almost as great a victory as would be an acquittal. The further legal problem is that an appeals court might conclude that the underlying election-related crime can’t be the basis for a New York state crime because Trump was running for president, not for a New York state office. If so, an appeals court might conclude, Trump can’t be found guilty of a New York state felony based on an attempt to affect a national election. Even if Trump loses in the New York courts, he would be able to appeal his case to the US Supreme Court, which might consider the issue one of federal law and reverse the conviction. And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal. He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him. To se Baby zove pravna akrobatika. I svi pravni experti govore isto, da ne ulazimo u statute of limitation i slicno. Sa jedne strane Bragg tvrdi da je falsifikovao knjige, jer je isplate Cohenu zaveo pod legalne troskove (420k) a da je Cohen od toga isplatio Stormy 130k - znaci nema campaign contribution, i definitivno mogu da kazu da je deo legalni troskovi. Za Peckera mogu da tvrde da je campaign contribution, ali gde je onda falsifikovao knjige? Ali to je onda prekrsaj na federalnom nivou. To se zovi throw everything on the wall, and see what sticks. Cak i da jeste zaveo tih 130k pod legalne troskove to je misdemeanor. I ovo sam ti izvadila sa Bloomberga, zamisli kad oni sto su protiv Trampa priznaju da je to problem.

Zato sto je ceo slucaj bogus, DOJ je odbio da ga istrazuje za isto. Zato sto ne mogu da dokazu da je bilo sta bilo kriminalno. Ono sto DA u NY radi je kreativno izmisljanje krivicnog dela, koji nije u njihovo jurisdikciji. Radilo se o federalnoj kampanji, a ne drzavnoj.

Nije svaki slucaj isti. A ti se u sudstvo i pravo uopste ne razumes. Ovde su presli granicu, a ako tebi nije jasno kakve veze ima ideologija s time, problem je do tebe.

Sledz Hummer je bio super.

Nista tu nije po pravu. Ako je Hilari prosla bez optuznce, ovo je potpuno besmisleno. Znam da ljudima koji mrze Trampa ovo godi, ali ne kontaju koliko je stetno. Zakoni se ne prave za jednu osobu, ili sve tretiras isto, ili unistavas sistem. Sa ovim su osigurali da Tramp dobije podrsku kozervativaca koji ga btw nikad nisu ni smatrali svojim. Ovo je otvoreno napad na politickog protivnika, nije cak ni pitanje Trampa ili ne, ako otvoreno ne osude politicko proganjanje, Dems su se smestili u totalitarni klub. Znaci nista zakon, nista Ustav, pobeda po svaku cenu, ono za sta su Trampa optuzivali. Oni koji su tvrdili da stite demokratiju, su totalitarni. Znaci Dems su alt-right, potpuno isto.

Jbte kad nalazite vremean da gledate sve govore Kako god - gledacemo reality show. Lose za US. Sta god da su Dems planirali ili nisu, losa izvedba. Katastrofalna

Vidi moguce - ali nije da se samo "trampisti hajpuju", dosta ljudi sa vrha Dems su izrazili "podrsku", izokola ali jesu. Njemu je bulls eye, ali za US je jako lose. I da videh sta je @Baby napisala da je DA "morao" da ga optuzi zbog Grand Jury, to je potpuno netacno, pravno. DA iznosi najcesce pred Grand jury, kad ne pricamo o situaciji gde se zna da je Grand Jury bias, slucaj da bi video da li ima dobre dokaze. To je obicno pokrice za DA, ali ne znaci da mora. Preletela sam par strana optuznice, nemam vremena za vise, ali deluje komplet suplje. Uz to reality show koji ce da traje do izbora, znaci Tramp je dobio besplatnu reklamu na svakoj televiziji. Da bi se vrh demokratske stranke oprao od ovoga, treba direktno da kaze da su protiv, i DOJ treba da kaze da se kosi sa federalnim zakonima. Nije Bragg tek tako samoinicijativno to odlucio, znamo kako je Cuomo prosao kad se oteo kontroli stranke. To nije nikakva teorija zavere, nego realnost politike.