Subject: Re: 34 Felony Counts
There's others out there. And the fact that the Times is willing to lend editorial space to a conservative critic of the indictment isn't an indication that the NYT editorial board thinks this is a bad idea - just that they're a bit more "fair and balanced" than some other news organizations are.

Reading this guy, I don't know that I would call him a "conservative".

Let me be perfectly clear - I think it is inarguable that Trump committed a misdemeanor violation of the NY penal code six years ago. That does not mean I support the indictment, and I actually think it was a risky idea unless: i) Bragg's got some actual tax crimes up his sleeve that he can make stick; ii) he's got some real good prior case law on the scope of federal pre-emption of election regulation; or iii) he can document that Trump was continuously out of New York State for at least four years.

On point (iii) he can't, as Trump visited Trump tower numerous times while he was President (Barron IIRC was staying there instead of the White House). Point (ii) is shot because of the Federal Election Campaign Act's clear pre-emption provision *and* the fact that the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation. Point (i) is covered by the fact that this was *internal* reporting.

You can't charge somebody for tax evasion on an internal document.

But I don't think is that these indictments are opening up Pandora's Box the way you've been arguing in this thread - there's more there there than critics are acknowledging, which really limits the circumstances in which the GOP could try to do the same thing back to a national Democrat.

We have norms and standards for a reason. This effort by Bragg throws a lot of that out the window, and democrats may not like where it leads.