The NY prosecutor who has made a name for himself by charging felonies an misdemeanors, and announcing that he won't incarcerate people for crimes that aren't "serious", has scrounged up an indictment of Trump. There's an old legal saw that says that "A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.", so the bar that's been cleared so far is pretty low. In the grand jury process that prosecutors aren't bound by the same evidentiary rules they are in court, and there is no opportunity for the defense to present exculpatory evidence or question the credibility of the prosecution's case. Again, the bar for indictment is pretty low. Let's also consider that NY is a city that voted 75%-25% against Trump i 2020, which would seem to suggest that NY grand jury members might be more inclined to indict based on political views. So, what's the point?
IF Trump has actually committed the crimes he's been charged with then he should be tried convicted and punished.
What I hope will happen is that Trump is so determined to clear his name that he will fight this tooth and nail, while the prosecution's goal of keeping him from mounting an effective 2024 campaign is achieved. Anyone who believes that there isn't a political component to these charges is simply deluded. As someone who hopes the GOP nominates someone other than Trump, this could help that happen.
What I'm afraid might happen is that Trump will force this to a speedy trial, and will either get acquitted or hand the jury. This puts him in the position of being able to run in 2024 as someone who's beeen victimized by a political prosecutor and who has vanquished said prosecutor in court.
I suspect that if this case against Trump were strong, that it wouldn't have taken years to finally get an indictment, which leads me to believe that Trump might not be convicted or that he'll be convicted of some minor offense. I also suspect that this has the potential to help Trump in 2024 by convincing some of the folks who had not supported him in 2020 to vote for him in sympathy.
Finally, since this case is essentially about an alleged violation of campaign finance laws, wouldn't it be wise to look at how other violations of campaign finance laws were handled when other candidates for federal office were found in violation? It seems like if (hypothetically) there was a DFL candidate for president who has violated campaign finance laws sometime in the last 20 years, that we could expect Trump to be judged in a similar fashion.
No matter what, this is going to be a cluster #### and it's likely to help trump as much as it hurts him. Much like my post where I talked bout how foolish it would be for the GOP to stoop the the DFL level and start politically motivated impeachment proceedings against Biden, I think that this prosecution is equally foolish and rife with potential unintended consequences.
Not that this is earth shattering analysis, but for the next few months we're going to see Trump haters making it sound like He's been convicted of mass murder or some such nonsense, and we're going to see the MAGA crowd screaming that he's done nothing wrong and the he's being persecuted. In other words, it'll be a mess until this is settled.
19 comments:
"wouldn't it be wise to look at how other violations of campaign finance laws were handled when other candidates for federal office were found in violation? It seems like if (hypothetically) there was a DFL candidate for president who has violated campaign finance laws sometime in the last 20 years, that we could expect Trump to be judged in a similar fashion."
Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but of course...
"The last time a grand jury criminally charged a presidential candidate for payments made to a mistress, John Edwards faced up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. That was in 2011. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/john-edwards-last-presidential-candidate-charged-with-campaign-finance-violations-2023-3%3famp
https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/
Dan
It seems like if (hypothetically) there was a DFL candidate for president who has violated campaign finance laws sometime in the last 20 years
It seems as if John Edwards was charged with a similar crime and was facing time in prison for it, we should of course treat Trump the same.
I'm not calling for any especially harsh treatment for Trump. Just that justice is served as the laws call for it. If the typical punishment for a similar crime is 60 days in prison and a $10,000 fine, then that's what Trump should face if he's convicted. Because why would we give him any more privilege or loopholes than he's already exploited and taken advantage of?
The problem is in our nation (and much of the world), in the words of Larry Norman...
"You say all men are equal,
all men are brothers,
then why are the rich more equal than others?"
From what I've heard, though not having seen it myself, polls are suggesting this is adding to Trump's support base. And why not? This is a guy who has been "oppressed" by the left, their media lapdogs who should be investigating his "crimes" as if he's just another American...true enemies of the people they are and have been long before Trump justly used the term against them...and of course the "establishment" RINOs of his own party. Real Americans don't like this kinda crap, and it'll be interesting to see how many such people exist among the Dem party and their voters. Lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, both Democrats, have been outspoken AMERICANS for their objectivity with regards all the legal abuse directed at Trump over the years. They both are opposed to this action by the Soros goon Bragg, and demonstrate they put America and its ideals above partisan BS so common to the rest of the party they may no longer support.
As to the charges currently against Trump, it'll be interesting to see if any are legit, still actionable, or if the presiding judge simply tosses it all as the crap sandwich it no doubt is.
As you say, this asshat should be prosecuting real criminals instead of doing the Stalin thing to Trump. The fact he has yet to answer the invitation of Congress more than suggests there's some connection to the Dem party, if not the current administration. This is another case of something mentioned by former IL governor, Rod Blagojevich on Tucker Carlson's show last night: the side that covers up the truth is the side that's lying. Can you say, 40,000 of Capitol video? That's simply one example. Also, Blago, being a Dem who supported moron Obama and hag Pelosi, he called upon other Dems to protest the abuse of power so evidently being perpetrated by Bragg. Who on the left with stand with him for country over party? Bueller?
GOP to stoop the the DFL level and start politically motivated impeachment proceedings against Biden,
A bit presumptuous of you, don't you think, to say that ALL of us who recognized the great historical atrocity of Trump are simply "politically motivated..."? Why is it not possible we're acting on our sincere concern for Democracy and opposition to tyrants and corruption and perversion? You know you can't prove your slander... wouldn't it be the better part of decency to admit that good people of good will may actually have found Trump to be the corrupt pervert he presented himself as, one who committed actually impeachable offenses?
Be a better man, Craig.
Dam,
It's a little shocking to see you mostly agree with anything I say, so I see no reason to deal with that.
As far as your last, neither of the alleged offenses Trump were impeached for seemed to rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and the second farce was ridiculous. just because you think that Trump is a vile and horrible person, doesn't mean that the impeachments weren't politically motivated. Just like a hypothetical Biden impeachment would have been/would be. Anything is possible, but you're not in congress, so I fail to see how your hunches fit into the conversation. Again, anything is possible, but the people who control the impeachment process are politicians. Many of whom fully believed that the Steele dossier represented reality, and many of the other things we later learned were false as well.
Art,
Yes, it appears that this Soros DA had driven increases in Trump's fundraising, and support. ultimately, the question that they need to answer is whether or not they want to help Trump get elected in '24 or not. I firmly believe that if Trump beats this before the election, that this will be the thing that tips people who otherwise wouldn't have voted for him, to do so. As much as I want Trump to fade into the sunset, I think it would be hilarious if this indictment is what gives him the support he needs to win.
I saw Dershowitz last night, and I tend to agree that if he thinks that this is a nothingburger, then three's a decent chance it is. I suspect that they will set the Trial date for Nov 15, 2023 so that they'll be able to run attack ads up until election day shouting, "TRUMP WAS INDICTED". Unfortunately, there are probably a large number of Trump haters who think that indicted means guilty.
Art,
An alternate scenario is that they try Trump before the election, and he gets off with a conviction on a minor charge, pays a minimal fine, and strolls into the White House.
Dan,
Much like OJ, Weinstein, and a host of other rich folks, money does allow people to afford the best possible defense attorneys. I'm not sure how to prevent that, especially since the state has virtually unlimited funds and staff to support the prosecution. The problem is that it seems constitutionally questionable to legally limit a defendant from hiring the best attorneys to represent them.
As far as your last, neither of the alleged offenses Trump were impeached for seemed to rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and the second farce was ridiculous.
I get that YOU, in your human opinion, as well as the opinion of die hard Trump fans, may not think they rose to the level of impeachable offenses. But you all are not the whole nation, are you?
Indeed, huge swaths of people of good faith disagree with your little opinion. It's telling when most of the people who don't think behavior rises to the level of impeachable offenses are all from the offenders' party. Hyper partisan opinions that ignore the opinions of fellow citizens is not especially compelling. Doesn't that seem reasonable?
Historians disagree with your collective partisan opinions, by the way. They nearly universally agree that Trump was/is/has been a disaster. But by all means, listen to the opinions of "maga" true believers. They're the ones who matter.
"But you all are not the whole nation, are you?"
Nope. Unlike you, I only speak for myself. I've never thought that referring to myself as "we" or other nonsense made any sense. You should try it some time, stop hiding behind the anonymous, unidentified "we" and just speak for yourself.
"Indeed, huge swaths of people of good faith disagree with your little opinion. It's telling when most of the people who don't think behavior rises to the level of impeachable offenses are all from the offenders' party. Hyper partisan opinions that ignore the opinions of fellow citizens is not especially compelling. Doesn't that seem reasonable?"
Strange, you seem to think that these alleged "large swaths of people" you attempt to speak for are NOT all in the same party as you. Perhaps you were unaware of a couple of facts. First, Truth and Falsehood/right and wrong are not decided by vote. Second, acting as if only one side is partisan is simply idiocy. Third, we don't do anything in this country based on a plurality in an opinion poll with a sample size of 1,500-2,000 people. Thank YHWh that we don't live in a country like that.
Historians disagree with your collective partisan opinions, by the way. They nearly universally agree that Trump was/is/has been a disaster. But by all means, listen to the opinions of "maga" true believers. They're the ones who matter.
"It seems as if John Edwards was charged with a similar crime and was facing time in prison for it, we should of course treat Trump the same."
If Dan was honest...always in doubt due to his constant lying...he would be aware that the Edwards case failed because there was no way to prove his payments to his tramp was for election purposes. In both cases, that's a tough charge to prove when both were married with families and naturally would want to shield them from such a scandal. A major difference between the two is that Edward's attempt to pretend it never happened was difficult given the child he fathered with the tramp. He couldn't deny it after that.
With Trump, he maintains no affair took place. Few believe a guy like him, but here's the thing no one seems to care to answer: So what if he did and so what if he paid off the whore? More to the point, what if he in fact did pay off the whore for the benefit of his campaign? This is where the vile want to make hay. But the reality would be that whether the affair took place or not, to suppress anyone from speaking of it publicly doesn't so much improve his chances of winning the election, but prevents the whores and tramps from harming those chances. And that's assuming it would have or could have. Don't forget...he was running against an evil hag who would have continued the harm done to the nation by the previous administration. Those who care about their fellow Americans wouldn't let womanizing interfere with preventing that. We all benefited by his election.
What I'd like to know is, how did these payoffs even become public knowledge. They were contractually required to never speak of it. Seems to me a breech of contract suit is in order against both women paid off by Cohen.
"Because why would we give him any more privilege or loopholes than he's already exploited and taken advantage of?"
I don't know about Dan and his head lice (the "we" to whom he refers), but in this country, one's past crimes have no relevance to the crime for which one is currently indicted...unless they're directly related. We Americans also have no problem with anyone "exploiting" one's privilege and "loopholes" are legal aspects of law or tax codes. Both are available to anyone willing to put in the effort to avail one's self of them and to criticize anyone for doing so is rank covetousness.
"You say all men are equal,
all men are brothers,
then why are the rich more equal than others?"
They're not. Those unwilling or too stupid to do what it takes to be rich only like to believe they are.
"A bit presumptuous of you, don't you think, to say that ALL of us who recognized the great historical atrocity of Trump are simply "politically motivated..."?"
Not at all presumptuous except when one considers how all who regard Trump in this way are simply really stupid, ignorant, liars or some combination of the three. What currently stains the Oval Office now is the true historical atrocity. And it only takes a shred of honesty to know that's the fact, not partisanship.
Truly, anyone who makes such a statement about a president who did more to improve the nation than Obama before him in half the time is rank liar. That's our Dan.
"Why is it not possible we're acting on our sincere concern for Democracy and opposition to tyrants and corruption and perversion?"
Because you're a lying lefty who's projecting the evil of your party onto better people without just cause or a shred of evidence. If you gave a flying rat's backside about "democracy" or this republic, you'd be a conservative who votes for the party which comes the closest for caring as well. That's not the people you support.
"...wouldn't it be the better part of decency to admit that good people of good will may actually have found Trump to be the corrupt pervert he presented himself as, one who committed actually impeachable offenses?"
They wouldn't be "good people of good will" to make such an assertion. They'd be liars like you who ignore the far greater evils perpetrated as a matter of routine by those you support.
"I get that YOU, in your human opinion, as well as the opinion of die hard Trump fans, may not think they rose to the level of impeachable offenses. But you all are not the whole nation, are you?"
I'm not even sure the false charges for which he was impeached were actually impeachable if they were true. But as we've seen...in spades...since Trump became president, there's no lie about Trump or his associates or supporters the Dems are afraid to treat as if true.
"Indeed, huge swaths of people of good faith disagree with your little opinion."
Actual people of good faith deal in facts, reality and truth and as such couldn't disagree with us. People of good faith who don't pay attention to those who deal only in facts, reality and truth might disagree, but then it's hard to assert they're demonstrating "good faith" by not paying attention.
In the meantime, Dan...you're not what any honest person would call "a person of good faith". You lie too much for that.
"Historians disagree with your collective partisan opinions, by the way."
Not good, honest historians of honorable character. Only the leftists and Trump-haters you've presented before in their nonsensical annual presidential ranking report. What a freakin' joke that was, but without the slightest display of discernment on your part, you cling to it simply because those asshats ranks Trump so low (lower than a guy who served for one month, which is proof of partisan Trump hatred). "Good faith"??? Don't make me laugh.
So as it stands, I've cited three knowledgeable Democrats who regard this case as crap political abuse of power. There are also Federal Election Commission people who have likewise attested no crime on Trump's part. So when these types of people speak, Dan ignores them because they don't hate Trump like grace embracers are supposed to.
Art,
It seems clear that Dan chooses not to look at anything related to Trump through a lens that isn't clouded by his partisan views.
What's interesting is that he's ignoring the fact that the Clinton campaign was found to be in violation of campaign finance law along with the DNC for their role in facilitating the manufacture and dissemination of completely false information about Trump, yet he seems unaware of this or content to ignore it.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93
With the left, and the laughingly self-titled "progressives", all that matters is that which aligns with what they want to be true, not what actually is true. Thus, all crimes by their own...and there are so many, including those of Dan himself against God...are goodness and light, and anything they can twist for the purpose can be used to "indict" their opponents. When I say that all leftism is just varying degrees of marxism, they prove it all the time. This indictment is a Stalinesque abuse of power.
Ya know, the left...like Biden and other moron leaders of the movement...like to pretend the greatest threat to the nation comes from "white nationalist extremism". The ploy is to color those on the right, particularly those who support the most positively and beneficially effective president (thus making him competent and fit for duty once again should he still win the nomination---far more so than either his predecessor or successor ever were or could be) since Reagan as dangerous in a violent sense. Well, the more the left perpetrates this level of abuse of power, the more they disregard truth, facts and reality to increase their power, the more likely they will also have provoked their self-fulfilling prophesy should the people totally lose their patience. The irony should this horror come to pass is that they will have sealed their own fate, as they are least likely to win any such confrontation given their spinelessness. All the warriors are of the right. Few are of the left. Most look like Dylan Mulvaney or Sam Brinton. They might want to keep that in mind.
It seems clear that Dan chooses not to look at anything related to Trump through a lens that isn't clouded by his partisan views.
Historians, political scholars and common folks from across the political spectrum recognize Trump's great ineptitude, his corruption, his unfitness-for-office, his complete lack of any moral compass or reasoning. It's not unique to Democrats, so there's no real sense that you can say that my vision of Trump's correction is clouded by partisan views, since these are non-partisan opinions.
However, if SOME who are only (primarily) from the GOP/conservative side of things find it worthwhile to defend the single most overtly corrupt, dishonest and just plain inane president in our lifetimes and probably in our nation's history, then literally, they are the ones whose vision is partisan-clouded.
Of course.
Still with the "historians" crap? Not one of your little historian/political science presidential rankings spoke of anything which matters in a president...like track record. We've been through this and you do your childish "nyuh uh" thing in lieu of any intelligent consideration of the work any president has done. Trump has not only proven his competence, not only demonstrated what competence as president looks like, he's contrasted his competence with the empty suit who preceded him. You couldn't prove this false if I helped you lie. He's far more than fit, you lying sack, he's demonstrably fit for office. Look what your choice has done to the nation!!
But why bother with this moron anymore? He lies constantly, he mocks God by calling himself Christian, and he supports the death of innocents. Partisan? Dan's far worse than merely an ignorant partisan hack. He's a vile example of a boy. Just a name caller. He's bound for perdition if anyone of us is.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion. The fact that you cherry pick some "historians" to validate your biases, doesn't mean that you don't look at anything Trump related through partisan lenses.
Post a Comment