As I recently posted, The indictment debates are coming to an end, The trial debates will begin.

[fightforfreedom]

I don't know who will indict Trump first, Bragg or Willis. Garland and Smith are also close to the end of their investigations.

After Trump is indicted I believe the judges in these cases should put in a Gag order for everyone involved in the trials. There are going to be security issues. Trump should not be allowed to attack the prosecutors, calling them racists. He should not be allowed to call the judges, investigators, corrupt. Trump should not be allowed to incite more violence. Prosecutors, investigators, jurists, need to be protected. Gag that fucking traitor.

[gab13by13]

1. Pomerantz and Dunne were also ready to indict Trump 1 year ago,

Pomerantz and Dunne were going to indict Trump for felonies, plural. I will give Bragg the benefit of the doubt, maybe he got Weisselberg to flip on Trump or some more evidence?

Bragg absolutely has to do more than indict Trump for a misdemeanor or this will be a disaster. No jail time for a misdemeanor, 4 years for campaign finance violations and more for other financial crimes.

I did not think that Bragg would indict and it for sure appears that he is.

In the words of Barbara McQuade, it is unusual for the state to come to the aid of the feds to prosecute the same crime, it is usually the other way around. Indicting Trump for campaign finance violations would have been much easier at the federal level because of the way the law is written.

Good luck Alvin.

[fightforfreedom]

2. Hopefully one day we will learn why SDNY did not reopen the individual 1 case.

As someone recently said on the news. There is a GAP between what is going on in all the investigations and what the public knows. This has led to endless speculations. We simply do not have a lot of the answers, yet!

[dem4decades]

3. So DOJ had the easier case and did nothing? Great.

[fightforfreedom]

4. We know Barr sabotaged that case.

We don't know why SDNY did not reopen the case after Trump and Barr left office.

[gab13by13]

5. Barr did not sabotage the individual one case,

Mueller did not indict Trump because of the DOJ memo that claimed a sitting president could not be indicted. Mueller teed the case up for Garland, an unindicted co-conspirator, Garland had 6 months to pull the trigger before the statute of limitations expired.

[fightforfreedom]

6. Michael Cohen was prosecuted by SDNY, where individual 1 was named. This was a SDNY case.

SDNY choose not to go after Individual 1, not Garland. There have been many news reports Barr interfered in the SNDY investigation. SNDY did not need Garlands permission to reopen their own case. You like to blame Garland for everything.

As far as Mueller teeing up the case for Garland, I do not know what you are talking about. Mueller was investigating Obstruction of Justice charges that Barr buried.

I think you are getting the investigations mixed up, which is understandable. Trump is being investigated for about 10 different things. It must be a record.

[gab13by13]

10. There are so many things in your post that will take me time to answer.

Mueller investigated Michael Cohen the evidence was used at SDNY to prosecute and convict Cohen.
Mueller investigated Trump for the same offense and did not send the case to SDNY to indict because of the DOJ memo that says a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mueller did put in his report that "individual one" was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Stormy Daniels campaign finance crime. Mueller laid out the evidence but because of the memo did not send the case to a grand jury.

Donald Trump loses the election which means that he is no longer president and that DOJ memo does not apply to him, he can be indicted for a crime. Merrick Garland is confirmed in March of 2021, he has 6 months to use the evidence that Mueller gathered up and tied neatly in a package with a bow on top before the statute of limitations expires. For political reasons Merrick Garland does not give the OK to SDNY to indict Donald Trump. If you believe that prosecutors at SDNY could have indicted a former president without the approval of the Attorney General I have a bridge for sale. Jack Smith is not allowed to indict Trump without Garland's approval.

Mueller also gathered evidence for 10 obstruction of justice possible crimes that Trump committed.

Barr obstructed Mueller but not for what you are claiming. Mueller was given a narrow window for what he could investigate for starters,
Mueller was told by Barr that he didn't need to follow the money because SDNY prosecutors were doing that, Barr lied, they were not.

Barr then lied about Mueller's final report and redacted a big part of it so that he could mislead everyone about the report.

[Beastly Boy]

7. Indictment Debates coming to an end? You are kidding yourself!

We already see where the goal post is moving next. Its trajectory is so predictable, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon (or is it brain genius?) to see it.

This is the trajectory, and each stage was accompanied by panic and fears of dire consequences that have yet to materialize, and faulting DOJ (or FBI, or various district and state prosecutors in charge) for sitting on their hands:
- No indictments
- No indictments of "big fish:
- No indictments of Trump's "inner circle"
- No indictments of Trump

Now, for the next move of the restless goal post:
- What took them so long?
- No felony indictments for Trump
- Indicting Trump is not enough - his inner circle must be indicted as well
- Indicting Trump and his inner circle is not enough- the Republican Party must be disbanded.

And we are not even talking about trials, convictions and sentencing yet.

Don't know about you, but I see no end to this nonsense any time soon.

[fightforfreedom]

9. Your post fooled me for a moment.

I get what you are saying. My point is after the indictments come down people will then start to debate the trials. Yes, some will do what you listed. The naysayers of indictments will become naysayers of the charges and trials.

[gab13by13]

15. What are you talking about?

What changed? I was wrong about Bragg indicting Trump, bravo Alvin. Bragg has a good case to indict Trump for a felony but the way the law is written in New York it is harder to prove a campaign finance violation than it would have been had Garland chose to indict individual one. Those are just the facts.

I get confused by personal attacks of me, I am not an enemy of the wait and see crowd, I do not name call, I talk about the issue on the table. Reputable former prosecutors are talking about what Bragg has to do to turn a misdemeanor crime into a felony. He must have a good case with good evidence to do that, and apparently he does, but apparently my critics do not want to discuss this. So be it.

Can I even ask the question, doesn't everyone agree that an indictment of Trump by Bragg must be a felony? Does anyone want to discuss that or will that be considered moving the goal posts?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

24. Don't understand personal attacks?

Like calling anyone who supports Garland a Trumper and a disrupter?
That sort of personal attack?

[fightforfreedom]

31. My post was not directed at you. I did not attack anyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My #9 post was in response to post #7 which is not your post, it's someone else's post.

[ecstatic]

14. It's not nonsense

Holding the people who are supposed to keep us all safe accountable is not nonsense. I'm sorry that you feel that way.

[Beastly Boy]

19. The moving of the goal post does nothing to hold anyone accountable.

It creates endless false narratives that pretend to call for accountability, but cannot even be consistent in what they mean by it, let alone be rational about what it takes to keep us safe and who is in charge of it.

Especially when the people who are subject of these endless false narratives have accumulated a long and impressive record of doing their jobs exceptionally well.

[fightforfreedom]

32. I think your post #7 is confusing some people.

I had to look at a second time and then I got it.

[Kingofalldems]

8. I see the goalposts already being moved.

[gab13by13]

11. How so?

[Beastly Boy]

12. See Post #7. Like I said, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where the

goal post is going.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Yep.

[gab13by13]

17. Yep what?

I don't understand his post #7, can you explain it to me?

[Kingofalldems]

18. Not my job.

[Beastly Boy]

21. What exactly don't you understand about post #7?

Do you have specific questions or concerns? Nothing would make me more happy than to address them.

[gab13by13]

23. How did I move the goal posts?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. Sea lions, man

[Beastly Boy]

28. The lady dost protest too much, methinks!

Post #7 does not mention you moving the post. The fact that you think you were its target is pretty telling.

And now that you have included yourself among the suspects, here's my answer to your question: by switching the narrative from insisting that Trump must be indicted to insisting that Trump must be indicted for a felony, you have moved the goal post. Just follow the list I provided in post#7. It did not only predict this move, but you can follow it to see what your next move will be.

It's no rocket surgery.

[gab13by13]

16. Why do you never answer my question but I answer yours?

Do you not believe that if Bragg indicts Trump it must be for a felony? Are you afraid to debate that question because you believe it is moving the goal posts?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. Sea lions, man...

[Beastly Boy]

26. Show me one question of yours that I didn't answer.

As for your post,

- No, I don't believe Bragg must indict Trump for a felony. It's an option but not a requirement. Bragg must indict Trump for what he can successfully prosecute in a court of law.

- No I am not afraid of any debate, and that includes the question you raised. But how can I possibly determine whether I am afraid to debate a question that you have yet to ask?

-Now that you asked the question, though, yes your question is definitely moving the goal post. It's not what I believe, it is what you have done.

[gab13by13]

29. Thank you for answering my question,

I respectfully disagree that only indicting Trump for hiding his hush money that he paid to Michael Cohen will be a disaster.

The former prosecutors who I listen to agree with me. When you go after the king you have to go big and take him down.

Merely indicting Trump for a misdemeanor will embolden Trump to claim witch hunt and all of his other victim cards.

[Beastly Boy]

30. So I DO answer your questions! And you CAN't find one that I didn't answer!

Glad we settled that.

And none of the above signify that the goal post hasn't been moved.

[gab13by13]

27. I never ever said that Trump or his inner circle would not be indicted.

I did say that I thought that Alvin Bragg would not indict Trump, he was the only one and I had good reason to think that when he shut down Pomerantz and Dunne.

I believe that time matters, not as much in the state prosecutions, Fani investigated Trump in March of 2021, but more so in the federal prosecutions.

I believe that Merrick Garland has a record that he can be judged on. I believe that he is an honest, respectable man, but I believe he was too slow to investigate Trump and his inner circle. I have faith in Jack Smith, I believe he will indict Trump. I also believe Garland should have prosecuted the Cyber Ninjas, the Big Lie is at the heart of the insurrection.

Those are the main issues that I am criticized for and I stand by them.

[fightforfreedom]

33. I never said you did.

What are you doing? You are attacking me for no reason.

[Scrivener7]

34. Do tell us where, in that post, you find an attack against yourself.

Interesting that you think you see one.