2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

As I said yesterday, when you are bucking federal criminal charges you are playing against the house.

 

That said, in vindictive prosecutions I would think it a rare precedent that the prime vindictor was the US President.

Al Capone

On 10/24/2025 at 4:17 PM, worgeordie said:

There are several in Trump's cabinet that could face the same charges,

but as their MAGA that won't happen , only Trumps perceived  enemies 

are the ones facing Trumped up charges ,pun intended ....

 

regards worgeordie

 

They don't call Washington DC "The Swamp" for nothing.  Most of the swamp critters probably could be charged with some sort of a crime with "Insider Trading" probably topping the list.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

How did James come up with Trump?

Michael Cohen’s Congressional Testimony (2019).

39 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Al Capone

AI quickie (Gemini)

 

While not legally defined as "vindictive prosecution," the conviction of Al Capone on federal tax evasion charges is widely seen as a pretextual prosecution where less serious charges are used to jail someone when more serious ones fail. Local authorities had been unable to convict Capone for his more violent crimes due to his intimidation of witnesses and corruption of law enforcement. 

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie (Gemini)

 

While not legally defined as "vindictive prosecution," the conviction of Al Capone on federal tax evasion charges is widely seen as a pretextual prosecution where less serious charges are used to jail someone when more serious ones fail. Local authorities had been unable to convict Capone for his more violent crimes due to his intimidation of witnesses and corruption of law enforcement. 

Ask AI about President Hoover (?) asking the AG every day "Did you get that Capone fella yet"

1 hour ago, candide said:

Michael Cohen’s Congressional Testimony (2019).

A perjurer. Got it.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

A perjurer. Got it.

You have nothing! Got it! 😅

6 minutes ago, candide said:

You have nothing! Got it! 😅

No I have something. My candidate won. Trump is your Boss too. Yall aint got much else

50 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Ask AI about President Hoover (?) asking the AG every day "Did you get that Capone fella yet"

I did. There was plenty effort from on top to get Capone for something but that is not comparable here. The vindictiveness in this and other cases is getting back at someone who went after or 'crossed' the President first.

 

But just playing the odds I would say both James and Comey have a better chance of winning on the Halligan dq motion as that is more a strict interpretation of appointment law rather than a judgment call as with vindictive/selective prosecution.

42 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

No I have something. My candidate won. Trump is your Boss too. Yall aint got much else

Lame deflection! 🤣

30 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I did. There was plenty effort from on top to get Capone for something but that is not comparable here. The vindictiveness in this and other cases is getting back at someone who went after or 'crossed' the President first.

That of course depends on how you see the issue of vindictiveness. We of course agree to disagree Im sure.

 

Didnt the Biden admin and their legal satraps play the Capone game? Lets get Trump for something?

33 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

But just playing the odds I would say both James and Comey have a better chance of winning on the Halligan dq motion as that is more a strict interpretation of appointment law rather than a judgment call as with vindictive/selective prosecution.

You wont be betting the long shot.

 

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Lame deflection! 🤣

Winners dont need to deflect. We won.

Just now, Yagoda said:

That of course depends on how you see the issue of vindictiveness. We of course agree to disagree Im sure.

 

Didnt the Biden admin and their legal satraps play the Capone game? Lets get Trump for something?

You wont be betting the long shot.

 

No, I think that was Trump going after Biden..............

We all know Trump's campaign was based on acting and telling porkies..........

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Winners dont need to deflect. We won.

"We"...........

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You wont be betting the long shot.

 

Anytime you are challenging a federal criminal indictment you are playing against the house. But that's what's on the docket. I don't have hopes one way or another for the actual parties involved.

 

I way back when suggested the James civil matter against Trump while maybe legal was ill advised.

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Anytime you are challenging a federal criminal indictment you are playing against the house. But that's what's on the docket. I don't have hopes one way or another for the actual parties involved.

 

I way back when suggested the James civil matter against Trump while maybe legal was ill advised.

What I find distrubing is the lack of action on the appeals. Unprecedented.

On 10/27/2025 at 3:50 PM, Yagoda said:

Ask AI about President Hoover (?) asking the AG every day "Did you get that Capone fella yet"

Did Capone lead a criminal prosecution of President Hoover?

23 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Winners dont need to deflect. We won.

That means that all your comments criticizing Joe Biden's during his tenure  were losing arguments.  Or, just maybe, your comment is intellectually vacuous.

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

That means that all your comments criticizing Joe Biden's during his tenure  were losing arguments.

Who says we cant critisize. And you know, we were right.

 

Maybe your comment is the cry of the one whose ideology is based on hate and whose standard bearer was the drooling idiot that was Joe Biden.

 

Boy, did we get f'd by the Dems.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Who says we cant critisize. And you know, we were right.

 

Maybe your comment is the cry of the one whose ideology is based on hate and whose standard bearer was the drooling idiot that was Joe Biden.

 

Boy, did we get f'd by the Dems.

No one says you can't criticize. That wasn't the point you raised.

You claimed that you won the argument you were having  because your team won the election. I was just pointing out the if that's the case, then when Biden was president. all your arguments were losers. You seem to have a problem with grasping even simple logic.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You claimed that you won the argument you were having  because your team won the election.

Exactly. Our policies are right, yours are wrong.

When Trump was indicted for what seem like obvious crimes---though innocent until proven guilty---MAGAs screamed that it was politically motivated.

 

An honest and rational look at the indictments, suggests otherwise. Trump has zero right to the classified documents he had at Mar-a-Lago, and all evidence says he lied about returning them all....until the FBI was forced to do a search and seizure, where they recovered hundreds of documents in plain sight. ANYONE else found to have such a wide range of documents would be in jail pending trial. If a real judge had been put on the case, a conviction would have been likely, as the case was truly a "slam dunk".

 

There is similarly gross appearance of criminality in the Georgia indictment ("Just find me...11,780 votes") and the case against Trump related to 6 January 2021.

 

The cry now among MAGAs---per the James case and others---is "nobody is above the law".

 

Trump was above the law.

 

Also, these new cases are clearly retribution, or "lawfare" as it is now called. A prosecutor was fired because he would not bring charges against James or Comey, but the insurance lawyer with zero courtroom experience "somehow" found reason to indict after a mere 3 days in office. To any rational person, that smells like retribution. Of all possible crimes committed in her jurisdiction, she chose one right off the bat that was hardly the most egregious possible crime in her district. If it walks like a duck.......retribution.

 

Re James, the case is weak to non-existent. The law, of which she is accused of violating, says that her mortgage prohibited her NOT from renting the property, but rather using a third party---such as an RE management company---to rent it. James hired no such firm, and the "renter" was her niece. Even if she declared rental income ($1350 in 2020, used to compensate James for utility costs), there is no violation of any law. It looks like the insurance lawyer is not only unqualified, but is going to look like a clown.

 

Elsewhere, the Comey case is based on a Comey associate who stated under oath he has no knowledge that Comey revealed anything classified to unauthorized persons, so Comey stating he revealed nothing while under oath in front of Congress is called "the truth".

 

Both lawsuits appear frivolous, which means the prosecutors who brought the indictments could be in danger of being disbarred.

 

Now let's have SC Jack Smith appear under oath in an open Hearing before Congress (Republicans will not allow this to happen, as Smith would reveal all of what led him to the indictments).