Is there going to be a drip, drip, drip of indictments...?

[kentuck]

...until the people finally reach a consensus?

Is Weaselberg just the first of several indictments to come?

To many Americans, the first indictment did not seem like such a big deal. Certainly not that threatening for Donald Trump. But what happens when the next indictment falls?

What if it is Don Jr or part of the Trump family? Do people then begin to pay more attention?

What happens when more and more illegalities are exposed and brought forth to the public?

Does it finally reach a point where the majority of folks begin to look at the head of the Organization?

Is that the danger for Donald Trump? If indictments are leaked out one by one until there is no doubt who was in charge?

Will the drip, drip, drip turn into a gusher?

[brooklynite]

1. Who do you imagine is not paying attention?

[kentuck]

2. Very few Trump supporters are paying attention, in my opinion.

They do not see it as a serious development, up to this point.

[brooklynite]

10. I absolutely disagree...

They’re paying attention and believe it’s the deep state going after their hero.

[kentuck]

12. Oh, they believe it's the deep state alright...

...bu they don't think their guy is guilty of anything. That possibility hasn't drawn their attention yet.

[brooklynite]

15. And more indictments won't change that opinion.

[kentuck]

16. Probably not but....

...it will weaken their argument and their defense. There comes a time when you are standing in the rain, it becomes difficult to argue that the sun is shining.

[CrackityJones75]

3. I would say a lot of people.

There are a lot of people that do not follow the news as closely as we do.

[Rorey]

4. I think (hope) that those are the first of MANY!

I'm a very patient person.

[malaise]

5. Yep

just like his STDs

Happy 4th July kentuck

[kentuck]

7. Happy 4th!

My Friend!

[dawg day]

6. I read somewhere there will be 2 new indictments soon....

But I think probably that will be two underlings.

What might be important is if one or both pleads guilty... then that probably means they will testify.

[CrispyQ]

8. I hope it drips well into next year, so the Trump name is so tarnished

that it hurts the 20-30 new Q-anon candidates that are going to run. We don't need any more nutjobs in Congress.

[KS Toronado]

9. The drip drip drip will be a monsoon some day

Hopefully before the midterms.

[Joinfortmill]

11. 👍

[Sneederbunk]

13. What are Letitia James, SDNY and Garland doing? Vance is done.

[sarcasmo]

14. If Weisselberg received off book cash payments, everyone received off book cash payments.

https://www.justsecurity.org/77331/the-weisselberg-indictment-is-not-a-fringe-benefits-case/



Snip > a This is no mere fringe benefits case. It is a straight-out fraud case, claiming that the defendants kept double books: phony ones to show the tax authorities, and accurate ones to be hidden from view. The question of whether a given company apartment or car might in theory (with appropriate supporting facts) have been an excludable fringe benefit turns out to be almost completely irrelevant. A better analogy to what is being charged here is the following: Suppose that your employer pays you monthly, through automatically deposited paychecks that end up being included on your annual W-2. But suppose that each month you could stop by the front office, request an envelope full of cash in unmarked bills, and have your W-2 reduced accordingly. So your true income would be the same as if you hadn’t stopped by, but you’d be reporting less salary. If your employer kept careful records of all the cash it gave you, and also still deducted it all, we would basically have this case. That is far different from simple failure to pay taxes on fringe benefits, which is how the indictment has been widely misunderstood, thanks in part to Trump’s defense lawyers’ laying the groundwork before the charges were made public on Thursday.