Well, mea culpa, I never thought this would happen. Not because I thought Trump was some all-powerful kingpin who runs the courts, but there have been so many trumpian scandals that never morph into anything, I was assuming that would continue to be the pattern.
And Stormy Daniels in 2023 is a bit of a blast from the past. Too bad about her first lawyer, but alas...
Well, mea culpa, I never thought this would happen. Not because I thought Trump was some all-powerful kingpin who runs the courts, but there have been so many trumpian scandals that never morph into anything, I was assuming that would continue to be the pattern.
And Stormy Daniels in 2023 is a bit of a blast from the past. Too bad about her first lawyer, but alas...
Look for at least three other indictments coming down the pike:
Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud in Georgia--this would be a state charge;--
Sedition--a federal charge; and
unlawful possession of classified documents (with obstruction of justice)--also a federal charge.
There might be others elsewhere.
The man is so radioactive.
Probably glows in the dark.
All of which enhances his brand and none of which would stop him being the first president presiding from the jail house. He's 30 points up on DeSantis. He'll save hard working American families $50 bn a year on Ukraine and ensure their supply of AR-15s.
The idea that he could be elected president from prison boggles the brain.
🫣🤯
I think we’re still a fair distance from either scenario. I’m not at all confident of a conviction here—from what I understand, it’s the shakiest of any of the indictments or potential indictments he’s facing.* I hope I’m wrong, as the only thing worse than an unindicted Trump is an acquitted Trump. (Which is why a prosecutor is crazy to seek indictment unless she or he is confident that conviction is a slam dunk.)
As for re-election, I’m not seeing signs in the polling that that’s likely, at least not right now. November ‘24 is a long, long way off.
*That’s going off what we all assume the charges are, as the indictment is sealed.
I’m not at all confident of a conviction here—from what I understand, it’s the shakiest of any of the indictments or potential indictments he’s facing.*
*That’s going off what we all assume the charges are, as the indictment is sealed.
The charges I've seen discussed so far relate to Trump falsifying business records. I can't think of a more plausible scenario. Let's remember that his alleged co-conspirator has already been convicted in this matter, albeit on a federal level.
I’m not at all confident of a conviction here—from what I understand, it’s the shakiest of any of the indictments or potential indictments he’s facing.*
*That’s going off what we all assume the charges are, as the indictment is sealed.
The charges I've seen discussed so far relate to Trump falsifying business records. I can't think of a more plausible scenario.
Yes, but the analysis I’ve heard from prosecutor-types (not the area I practiced in) is that however plausible, convictions on charges like this can be more difficult, and they’d view this as the most challenging of the potential indictments.
Like I said, I’ll be happy to be wrong on this, but I wouldn’t start measuring him for the orange jumpsuit quite yet.
And yes, that co-conspirator has been convicted. He also has a record of not telling the truth. Not an ideal witness.
We Americans always have celebrated some very dastardly persons: Butch Cassidy, Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone. It is no surprise Trump's indictment will incite some, but not all Americans.
Sounds like there can be up to 30 ancillary counts in the indictment. Paying hush money in and of itself is not a crime, but if it involves a cover up, a cooking of the books--we know he has been prone to have two business books--and if the cover up was used for gain, there can be some interesting charges
I seriously doubt Trump will ever see an suit that will match his skin tone, but it may stop him from being able to run for presidency ever again. He will probably die while fighting any conviction.
Sounds like there can be up to 30 ancillary counts in the indictment. Paying hush money in and of itself is not a crime, but if it involves a cover up, a cooking of the books--we know he has been prone to have two business books--and if the cover up was used for gain, there can be some interesting charges.
Thanks to the former President for reminding us what the charges against him, in part, are about: That he cheated to win.
Whether it would have made a difference or not, Donald Trump believed it sufficiently important to lie to American voters about fucking two women– both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels — that both were paid in the last months of his 2016 campaign to prevent voters from finding out.
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.
Wheeler notes that Trump's various organizations have already been convicted in related matters, and says "[t]he 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".
34 charges against someone of his (former) position suggests they seriously expect most of it to stick. They’d look like absolute fools if he was acquitted of all that. And this being the first indictment may have broken the ice for further indictments from others in upcoming weeks and months—I’m really expecting a slow-motion pile-on.m, with several others by the end of the year. IMHO it makes sense for the least grave case to go first. I suspect insurrection/ treason/espionage-related charges will come as the absolute tail end, if they do—and I expect them to stick, as the people in charge of those investigations have a rep for relentlessly detailed and meticulous work. If they think they might not be able to make the gravest charges stick, they’ll reduce to those they are certain of. Nobody dares fuck the big ones up.
Has anyone mentioned that Jack Smith's specialty was a war crimes prosecutor at the Hague? Not that I am suggesting Jack is hunting for Trump war crimes, it's that he brings an interesting still set to the task at hand.
Did I hear right the Georgia Prosecutor is now warning the Georgia Republican Legislature to lay off interfering with here investigation if they do not want to be charged with obstruction of justice?
34 charges against someone of his (former) position suggests they seriously expect most of it to stick. They’d look like absolute fools if he was acquitted of all that. And this being the first indictment may have broken the ice for further indictments from others in upcoming weeks and months—I’m really expecting a slow-motion pile-on.m, with several others by the end of the year. IMHO it makes sense for the least grave case to go first. I suspect insurrection/ treason/espionage-related charges will come as the absolute tail end, if they do—and I expect them to stick, as the people in charge of those investigations have a rep for relentlessly detailed and meticulous work. If they think they might not be able to make the gravest charges stick, they’ll reduce to those they are certain of. Nobody dares fuck the big ones up.
May be it is a scatter gun approach. Something will hit the target
34 charges against someone of his (former) position suggests they seriously expect most of it to stick. They’d look like absolute fools if he was acquitted of all that. And this being the first indictment may have broken the ice for further indictments from others in upcoming weeks and months—I’m really expecting a slow-motion pile-on.m, with several others by the end of the year. IMHO it makes sense for the least grave case to go first. I suspect insurrection/ treason/espionage-related charges will come as the absolute tail end, if they do—and I expect them to stick, as the people in charge of those investigations have a rep for relentlessly detailed and meticulous work. If they think they might not be able to make the gravest charges stick, they’ll reduce to those they are certain of. Nobody dares fuck the big ones up.
May be it is a scatter gun approach. Something will hit the target
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the arraignment on Tuesday is a ruse--an action to deceive someone. A trick, if you will. The New York DA was wanting to arraign DJT on Friday, but the T lawyers came back saying it would take four days for the secret service detail around T to prepare for it. The Secret Service is now saying they were prepared to move on a moment's notice. The four day delay is an attempt for the Don to get as many of his supporters to NYC as possible. Several radical congresspersons have said they will be there. One of them saying if she had been in charge on January 6, there would have been guns, and this indictment would not have happened.
34 charges against someone of his (former) position suggests they seriously expect most of it to stick. They’d look like absolute fools if he was acquitted of all that. And this being the first indictment may have broken the ice for further indictments from others in upcoming weeks and months—I’m really expecting a slow-motion pile-on.m, with several others by the end of the year. IMHO it makes sense for the least grave case to go first. I suspect insurrection/ treason/espionage-related charges will come as the absolute tail end, if they do—and I expect them to stick, as the people in charge of those investigations have a rep for relentlessly detailed and meticulous work. If they think they might not be able to make the gravest charges stick, they’ll reduce to those they are certain of. Nobody dares fuck the big ones up.
May be it is a scatter gun approach. Something will hit the target
A very common approach.
But an extremely unwise one, when you're hunting for the first-ever indicted ex-president of the United States. They'd have to be utter idiots to do something like that with the world watching and T desperate to make something of any failures, real or imagined, on their sides.
To be honest, I really don’t have that much trouble imagining it. And it’s part of why I’m not convinced yet that any of these indictments are a good idea. But we’ll have to see when they’re unsealed.
I could add, though, that it’s not just a scatter gun approach. The falsifying business records charge that has been the primary subject here is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor. The prosecution has surely been looking for felony charges that can be brought, as well as additional misdemeanors that could strengthen their position.
Trump is alleged to use multiple small checks to hide one offense for personal gain. Each of those checks can generate one or two felony counts along with the conspiracy charges. No matter. We will know on Tuesday what the specific charges are and how they relate to each other.
To be honest, I really don’t have that much trouble imagining it. And it’s part of why I’m not convinced yet that any of these indictments are a good idea. But we’ll have to see when they’re unsealed.
So you're convinced that Trump is innocent of whatever the charges might be, despite not knowing what they are?
I suspect it’s more a case of can a prosecutor make a significant indictment stick. You can say that on a balance of probabilities someone committed X or Y offence, but still be unable to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
There are a few instances of claimants succeeding in claims for damages in a civil trial where the defendant was found not guilty in the same evidence in a criminal trial.
There are a few instances of claimants succeeding in claims for damages in a civil trial where the defendant was found not guilty in the same evidence in a criminal trial.
The Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases, for example.
To be honest, I really don’t have that much trouble imagining it. And it’s part of why I’m not convinced yet that any of these indictments are a good idea. But we’ll have to see when they’re unsealed.
So you're convinced that Trump is innocent of whatever the charges might be, despite not knowing what they are?
No. You’re putting words in my mouth.
As @BroJames notes, there are various reasons one could think someone is guilty and at the same time be concerned that indictments are not a good idea.
there are various reasons one could think someone is guilty and at the same time be concerned that indictments are not a good idea.
In this case, would you mean "a good idea" from the POV of seeing that Trump pays for his crimes, or from the POV of damaging him politically?
Because if it's the former, you're kind of in a tight spot between saying "Well, he looks pretty obviously guilty to me, but I don't think he should be tried for what I'm pretty convinced he did."
there are various reasons one could think someone is guilty and at the same time be concerned that indictments are not a good idea.
In this case, would you mean "a good idea" from the POV of seeing that Trump pays for his crimes, or from the POV of damaging him politically?
Neither of those options particularly, though maybe a little closer to the second. The first, is I think, a distortion of what I’m thinking.
Prosecutors choose not to prosecute people they believe to be guilty all the time, and they do so for a variety of reasons. A prosecutor has to weigh a variety of considerations in seeking an indictment. Obviously “Is he guilty?” and “Can I convince 12 people on a jury that he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?”
But that second question involves other questions—“Who are my witnesses? Are they credible? What kind of evidence do I have? What kind of defense will he have?” And then there are questions like “Is this where I need to put my resources?,” or “How confident am I that I can get a conviction, and what are the ramifications if I lose?”
That last question is what concerns me most. I have little doubt T should be in prison for the rest of his life. But the ramifications of losing are about as big as they can be here. From what I’ve seen so far, and relying on opinions from those I think know what they’re talking about, I’m not confident of success here. As I’ve said in this thread, I very much hope I’m wrong.
Or to put it slightly differently, I firmly believe that Trump has done things that warrant indictment. But I also think the only thing more problematic than an unindicted Trump is an acquitted Trump.
Or to put it slightly differently, I firmly believe that Trump has done things that warrant indictment. But I also think the only thing more problematic than an unindicted Trump is an acquitted Trump.
I'd argue that this kind of political calculus shouldn't be involved in the criminal justice system. The only questions the prosecutor should be asking are:
Did this person commit that crime?
Do I have enough evidence to convince a jury?
Alvin Bragg seems to have answered "yes" to both of those questions, at least to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of the grand jury. Refusing to prosecute someone for fear of the political consequences is just as much a perversion of justice as a spurious prosecution for political gain.
I'm not sure a failed Trump prosecution is all that advantageous to him from a political perspective. A two-time popular vote loser, Trump leads a minority faction. As such, he needs to expand his support. Sure, his fanatical base will be energized by any perceived lèse-majesté towards their god-emperor but he's already got their votes. I'm not sure a failed prosecution will make Trump any more attractive to moderate voters.
Or to put it slightly differently, I firmly believe that Trump has done things that warrant indictment. But I also think the only thing more problematic than an unindicted Trump is an acquitted Trump.
I'd argue that this kind of political calculus shouldn't be involved in the criminal justice system. The only questions the prosecutor should be asking are:
Did this person commit that crime?
Do I have enough evidence to convince a jury?
Perhaps so. But that’s not reality as I’ve experienced and observed it, if for no other reason than that prosecutors’ offices (and the courts) lack the resources to prosecute every crime that gets an affirmative answer to these two questions. Or there are the cases where it’s a first offense, and the prosecutor forgoes charges they could bring with something lighter, or a plea bargain. Then there are prosecutors who make a decision—sometimes even a campaign promise—not to prosecute certain crimes, or certain crimes under certain circumstances, because they believe that some criminal laws on the books victimize the defendants without addressing societal issues. Some crimes are prioritized over others.
The reality is that every prosecutor makes decisions all the time about which indictments to pursue and which ones not to pursue, and they do so based on a variety of criteria beyond those two primary questions.
Trump has a very long history of questionable business practices, discriminatory activities, and the like. His organization is allegedly run like the Mafia.
This is the best publicity he could possibly get. Even his second rate opponent is having to support him.
That's because his opponent is trying to get the votes of people who support him. It might help Trump win the Republican primary but it won't help him in the general.
This is the best publicity he could possibly get. Even his second rate opponent is having to support him.
That's because his opponent is trying to get the votes of people who support him. It might help Trump win the Republican primary but it won't help him in the general.
This is the best publicity he could possibly get. Even his second rate opponent is having to support him.
That's because his opponent is trying to get the votes of people who support him. It might help Trump win the Republican primary but it won't help him in the general.
This is the best publicity he could possibly get. Even his second rate opponent is having to support him.
That's because his opponent is trying to get the votes of people who support him. It might help Trump win the Republican primary but it won't help him in the general.
What help does he need? How can he possibly lose?
You said that last time.
Aye. 't'was a close run thing in such a high end second rate democracy. I'm saying it this time too. The tyranny of the constitution being what it is.
Aye. 't'was a close run thing in such a high end second rate democracy. I'm saying it this time too. The tyranny of the constitution being what it is.
If you're going to mention the constitution, and you want to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about its potential influence in the 2024 election , could you specify which parts of the document you think are favorable to Trump's prospects?
I can name the Electoral College. He has already proved that in the first election.
Our judicial system is also loaded in his favor considering he named three conservative justices. One of the other conservative justice is married to one of Trump's greatest supporters.
Trump has been known to exploit the political system through his career. He will continue to do so until the fat lady sings.
Aye. 't'was a close run thing in such a high end second rate democracy. I'm saying it this time too. The tyranny of the constitution being what it is.
If you're going to mention the constitution, and you want to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about its potential influence in the 2024 election , could you specify which parts of the document you think are favorable to Trump's prospects?
I can name the Electoral College. He has already proved that in the first election.
Our judicial system is also loaded in his favor considering he named three conservative justices. One of the other conservative justice is married to one of Trump's greatest supporters.
Trump has been known to exploit the political system through his career. He will continue to do so until the fat lady sings.
It should be noted that these are advantages are not specific to Trump and will likely be enjoyed by any Republican presidential nominee. A lot of you already know my feelingsabout the electoral college, but as far as the Supreme Court goes Trump-appointed Justices seem to be Republican hacks generically, not in any way specifically and personally loyal to Donald Trump. It should also be remembered that Republican-appointed Justices have been willing to tamper with a presidential election before Trump ever came on the political scene. (As a historical footnote, Clarence Thomas is the sole Justice to hear that case still remaining on the high court.)
I have been watching MSNBC to see if there is going to be any significant protest developing. So far it seems there are more reporters and anti Trump people milling around with a 'uge police force. Not many pro Trump people.
Marjory Taylor Green showed up, spoke for a couple of minutes and was then given the "bums rush" out of the park apparently by anti Trump demonstrators and her own security detail.
I also hear DeSantis also showed up, but he did not stay around very long either.
An instructive section from the statement of facts (p. 7-8) on how a $130,000 payment to "Woman 2" (Stormy Daniels) became a $420,000 reimbursement of Lawyer A (Michael Cohen 86067-054).
The TO CFO and Lawyer A agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000. They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another expense for which Lawyer A also claimed reimbursement, for a total of $180,000. The TO CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes. Finally, the TO CFO added an additional $60,000 as a supplemental year-end bonus. Together, these amounts totaled $420,000. The TO CFO memorialized these calculations in handwritten notes on the copy of the bank statement that Lawyer A had provided.
There's that Trump Organization accounting we've all come to know. It's starting to become clear how he could go bankrupt running a casino, a business where the customers essentially walk through the door, hand you their money, and leave.
With Biden wanting another term it's a very sad state of affairs when the USA have to choose between him and Trump.
Biden has yet to toss his hat into the ring. He is in no hurry.
In the mean time, Trump has a busy April calendar of court dates. In addition to todays arraignment, his organization will be sentenced next week for tax fraud. The week after, he will have to testify in the Dominion v Fox suit. And the week after that, he has a civil lawsuit for the raping of a 13 year old back in the 90s.
How does the man have time to campaign for the presidency?
Comments
And Stormy Daniels in 2023 is a bit of a blast from the past. Too bad about her first lawyer, but alas...
Look for at least three other indictments coming down the pike:
Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud in Georgia--this would be a state charge;--
Sedition--a federal charge; and
unlawful possession of classified documents (with obstruction of justice)--also a federal charge.
There might be others elsewhere.
The man is so radioactive.
Probably glows in the dark.
*hooks fire hose to brain bleach supply*
🫣🤯
That is one classy dude!
Not.
As for re-election, I’m not seeing signs in the polling that that’s likely, at least not right now. November ‘24 is a long, long way off.
*That’s going off what we all assume the charges are, as the indictment is sealed.
The charges I've seen discussed so far relate to Trump falsifying business records. I can't think of a more plausible scenario. Let's remember that his alleged co-conspirator has already been convicted in this matter, albeit on a federal level.
Like I said, I’ll be happy to be wrong on this, but I wouldn’t start measuring him for the orange jumpsuit quite yet.
And yes, that co-conspirator has been convicted. He also has a record of not telling the truth. Not an ideal witness.
Sounds like there can be up to 30 ancillary counts in the indictment. Paying hush money in and of itself is not a crime, but if it involves a cover up, a cooking of the books--we know he has been prone to have two business books--and if the cover up was used for gain, there can be some interesting charges
I seriously doubt Trump will ever see an suit that will match his skin tone, but it may stop him from being able to run for presidency ever again. He will probably die while fighting any conviction.
Marcie Wheeler makes much the same point.
Wheeler notes that Trump's various organizations have already been convicted in related matters, and says "[t]he 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".
Did I hear right the Georgia Prosecutor is now warning the Georgia Republican Legislature to lay off interfering with here investigation if they do not want to be charged with obstruction of justice?
Background to previous question here.
May be it is a scatter gun approach. Something will hit the target
But an extremely unwise one, when you're hunting for the first-ever indicted ex-president of the United States. They'd have to be utter idiots to do something like that with the world watching and T desperate to make something of any failures, real or imagined, on their sides.
I don't think they are idiots.
I could add, though, that it’s not just a scatter gun approach. The falsifying business records charge that has been the primary subject here is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor. The prosecution has surely been looking for felony charges that can be brought, as well as additional misdemeanors that could strengthen their position.
So you're convinced that Trump is innocent of whatever the charges might be, despite not knowing what they are?
There are a few instances of claimants succeeding in claims for damages in a civil trial where the defendant was found not guilty in the same evidence in a criminal trial.
The Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases, for example.
As @BroJames notes, there are various reasons one could think someone is guilty and at the same time be concerned that indictments are not a good idea.
In this case, would you mean "a good idea" from the POV of seeing that Trump pays for his crimes, or from the POV of damaging him politically?
Because if it's the former, you're kind of in a tight spot between saying "Well, he looks pretty obviously guilty to me, but I don't think he should be tried for what I'm pretty convinced he did."
Prosecutors choose not to prosecute people they believe to be guilty all the time, and they do so for a variety of reasons. A prosecutor has to weigh a variety of considerations in seeking an indictment. Obviously “Is he guilty?” and “Can I convince 12 people on a jury that he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?”
But that second question involves other questions—“Who are my witnesses? Are they credible? What kind of evidence do I have? What kind of defense will he have?” And then there are questions like “Is this where I need to put my resources?,” or “How confident am I that I can get a conviction, and what are the ramifications if I lose?”
That last question is what concerns me most. I have little doubt T should be in prison for the rest of his life. But the ramifications of losing are about as big as they can be here. From what I’ve seen so far, and relying on opinions from those I think know what they’re talking about, I’m not confident of success here. As I’ve said in this thread, I very much hope I’m wrong.
I'd argue that this kind of political calculus shouldn't be involved in the criminal justice system. The only questions the prosecutor should be asking are:
Alvin Bragg seems to have answered "yes" to both of those questions, at least to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of the grand jury. Refusing to prosecute someone for fear of the political consequences is just as much a perversion of justice as a spurious prosecution for political gain.
I'm not sure a failed Trump prosecution is all that advantageous to him from a political perspective. A two-time popular vote loser, Trump leads a minority faction. As such, he needs to expand his support. Sure, his fanatical base will be energized by any perceived lèse-majesté towards their god-emperor but he's already got their votes. I'm not sure a failed prosecution will make Trump any more attractive to moderate voters.
The reality is that every prosecutor makes decisions all the time about which indictments to pursue and which ones not to pursue, and they do so based on a variety of criteria beyond those two primary questions.
I would say, yes, it is in the public interest.
That's because his opponent is trying to get the votes of people who support him. It might help Trump win the Republican primary but it won't help him in the general.
What help does he need? How can he possibly lose?
You said that last time.
Aye. 't'was a close run thing in such a high end second rate democracy. I'm saying it this time too. The tyranny of the constitution being what it is.
If you're going to mention the constitution, and you want to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about its potential influence in the 2024 election , could you specify which parts of the document you think are favorable to Trump's prospects?
Our judicial system is also loaded in his favor considering he named three conservative justices. One of the other conservative justice is married to one of Trump's greatest supporters.
Trump has been known to exploit the political system through his career. He will continue to do so until the fat lady sings.
See @Gramps49. And this discussion.
It should be noted that these are advantages are not specific to Trump and will likely be enjoyed by any Republican presidential nominee. A lot of you already know my feelings about the electoral college, but as far as the Supreme Court goes Trump-appointed Justices seem to be Republican hacks generically, not in any way specifically and personally loyal to Donald Trump. It should also be remembered that Republican-appointed Justices have been willing to tamper with a presidential election before Trump ever came on the political scene. (As a historical footnote, Clarence Thomas is the sole Justice to hear that case still remaining on the high court.)
Marjory Taylor Green showed up, spoke for a couple of minutes and was then given the "bums rush" out of the park apparently by anti Trump demonstrators and her own security detail.
I also hear DeSantis also showed up, but he did not stay around very long either.
🤣🤣🤣
What a wonderful film that series of sketches would make!!
Two different women plus a doorman at Trump Tower. The latter supposedly had information about an illegitimate child fathered by Donald Trump, Sr.
For those who are interested you can read the indictment here [PDF] and the statement of facts here [also PDF]. The statement of facts is the more interesting of the two.
There's that Trump Organization accounting we've all come to know. It's starting to become clear how he could go bankrupt running a casino, a business where the customers essentially walk through the door, hand you their money, and leave.
Biden has yet to toss his hat into the ring. He is in no hurry.
In the mean time, Trump has a busy April calendar of court dates. In addition to todays arraignment, his organization will be sentenced next week for tax fraud. The week after, he will have to testify in the Dominion v Fox suit. And the week after that, he has a civil lawsuit for the raping of a 13 year old back in the 90s.
How does the man have time to campaign for the presidency?