daz28

This is the real big news of the day. There's a reason he doesn't want them testifying.

Would you still believe the case is flimsy if there's solid evidence that the hush payment was tied to the campaign? ie audio recording, etc? I'd also remind you that at one time Bragg had people resign, because he wasn't going to prosecute. There will be specific details coming soon, so maybe it's better to decide how "flimsy" something is after you get the actual facts/details. Doing so beforehand just makes you look as partisan as the people you're accusing.

As tough as it is to listen to the smug, credential-less Jesse Watters, I'm trying to see if Fox could find someone who would accept cash to claim there was no crime. It's not happening. Heck, even Twitter is only sticking to the political aspects. Apparently, people are only interested in how this is either political, or how he can get out of it. The fact that a crime happened seems to be irrelevant to many.

So you believe the federal election law is the law that Bragg is alluding to that he wouldn't say it was tied to? He has to put out specific findings within 15 days, so I guess we will know then.

The DOJ should have taken this case, because they DO have a solid case that he paid the hush money to avoid the political fallout. I don't even think anyone who's super MAGA would discredit that notion. The problem with that is that politicians do this so often, and so much, that it would be obvious that Trump was the only one targeted. Who loses in this scenario? The voters. This is proof that the "weaponization of the DOJ" is actually the DOJ working against the people who's interest it's supposed to be protecting. I'll bet 90% of Americans are against NDA's, especially used in a way to protect candidates from information the people need to know to make an educated vote. I get most of these cases are hard to prove, but they have evidence that they were going to attempt to dupe the client into holding off until after the election to avoid payment. To me this is 'the smoking gun'.

That's not why this is important, though. Trump's defense will try to claim the payment wasn't related to the election. This is proof otherwise. The question is how does a federal election relate to a state law.

I think there's a point you guys are missing. They could have just went out, and arrested Trump, without saying a word. Doing it this way is actually doing him a solid.

I think they realize that both sides are so firmly entrenched, that neither is even interested in that kind of theater anymore. At this point the media isn't swaying independents anymore. If there's anything political about it, it's probably that they want to keep Trump busy in court, rather than running a campaign. If that's true, then dirty politics just got dirtier. I really don't fear the rogue prosecutor thing, though. It won't do anyone's reputation any good to lose, and these rich politicians have stolen enough money from us to have a defense, that we could only dream of. No sympathy for them there, and it might be refreshing if they actually cared about getting caught and prosecuted.

This just means that the script is already written, without any intent to focus on the actual charges and evidence. Very predictable. Heck, they could just read it tonight, because it's going to be exactly what he's already tweeted reiterated, plus a talking point or two that's been added. I seriously hope the judge puts a lid on the nonsense aspect of this fast.

I'm thinking they didn't give it to Trump yet, because he'd leak it, and then accuse them of leaking it.

That the process has an expiration date.

If you're a casual fan, and really haven't been paying too much attention to free agency, then this guy really does bring you up to speed. Seems to be a pretty fair and honest opinion, too.

There could be a few legal issues, but I'm no expert. Ill wait, and listen to the "experts" after the arraignment. I imagine Bragg's team believes the judge would allow the SoL part. He couldn't possibly be dumb enough to allow the DOJ's office to be the defenses star experts, could he? He hasn't been 'charged' yet.

This is the only thing that allows his post to hold any water at all. Too bad the salary cap ramifications make it about impossible.

Depending on how much he can handle, let Cook cook.

The grand jury indictment is sealed, and they will present it to Trump at arraignment. It's possible they've already presented it, but doubtful that information wouldn't have been leaked already. It would be wiser for the prosecution to wait.

If the NY case is basically the same as the federal case, then they've made a massive mistake here. Imagine the defense waltzing in 5 federal prosecutors, with a combined 100 years of experience into the courtroom, introducing them and their credentials to the jury, then asking the simple question of, "why didn't you choose to prosecute these charges?". I can't think of any possible answer they could give other than that they didn't feel that it rose to the level of a crime. Bragg better hope he has EXTREMELY solid evidence and witnesses to overcome what Trump's team is CERTAIN to do.

It's good to hear it from a player, because the fans that know understand that Josh plays smart. He's going to see, and take advantage of your mistakes.

Roscoe?

Can't argue? I assure you there's more clips of him being a leader, than there is this clip that led you to believe that he's not. I respect your opinion, though.

If Von comes back even later than Tre, and is as disappointing, it will be devastating. Tre really needs this offseason to get back to where he was, because it was mostly embarrassing to watch.

I mean if that's how it is, you don't want to be the only guy following the 'unwritten rule'. It's also a division foe, so it makes even more sense.

Obviously, nothing is guaranteed. They do have the pick of the litter, and if they did their scouting right, that puts them in the best position to avoid that happening.

If you consider the value of a good QB on a cheap cap hit for up to a decade, the price really isn't that high.

Absolutely, but not everyone is as smart as you and I. That's why I'd rather have the guys we voted in to do their actual jobs, and not hand it off to a clearly slanted media outlet. It clearly doesn't help security one bit, and some people will believe Fox no matter what they say. People even believe them after it comes out they're lying. It's really quite perplexing. I don't care if the criminal has a R or D next to their name, but you aren't going to get the straight truth from a news source in this subscriber based news cycle