Writes Harvard lawprof Jack Goldsmith, in "The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences" (NYT).
August 8, 2023
"The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor."
"Exaggeration and truth-shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington. Going forward, these practices will likely be disputed in the language of, and amid demands for, special counsels, indictments and grand juries.... Watergate deluded us into thinking that independent counsels of various stripes could vindicate the rule of law and bring national closure in response to abuses by senior officials in office. Every relevant experience since then — from the discredited independent counsel era (1978-99) through the controversial and unsatisfactory Mueller investigation — proves otherwise. And national dissensus is more corrosive today than in the 1990s, and worse even than when Mr. Mueller was at work...."
Writes Harvard lawprof Jack Goldsmith, in "The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences" (NYT).
Writes Harvard lawprof Jack Goldsmith, in "The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences" (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
It will just be Trump. Don't worry, once we are done with Trump, no-one will dare question the regime ever again.
I lost every doctor I'd had for 20+ years after Obama promised me I could keep them. The amount of damage done to the healthcare industry by the ACA is incalculable. Where's his indictment?
French language lessons: Marjorie Taylor Greene extreme makeover.
“May have terrible consequences?” How about “already has and will continue to have terrible consequences.” The left continues its assault on our institutions and norms without considering anything other than its short term advantage. If you think things are ugly now, wait six months.
"The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences"
How so? Progs like terrible. The consequences mostly harm the other side--though even Mueller couldn't make the collusion hoax stick, the process was the punishment. The continual disturbance of the system serves their purpose. What's not to like?
"The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6," the New York Times reported.
Crossfire Hurricane and the fake pee dossier of 2016 had grave consequences -- the Deep State began illegal anti-Trump Kabuki Theater to install Hillary and then cover up and then try to undo the election. EVERYTHING that followed out of D.C. revealed insiders doubling-down on deceit.
Reputations and trust are earned, not given. The USA rode the coattails of now-dead honest-to-a-fault and often naïve Christians, not the social-media-addled psychopaths who run our world today. Pick a religion, any religion, to cleanse this mess. Simple and confused thinkers need simple black-and-white explanations.
"The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws..." How does someone think that is not a terrible idea?
Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent.
No doubt the Watergate investigations had some unfortunate, unintended consequences for American politics. But I just watched Gaslit, and I'm still glad they got the bastards.
A voice of reason. He's likely to lose his career for it.
Shorter: I can’t spin what Biden is doing.
Whenever I see news coverage of President Trump's misdeeds, I'm struck not by those misdeeds but how biased against him such coverage is. The news people don't even make a minimal effort to be fair.....I've no great love for Donald Trump, but I have an abiding resentment against his prosecutors and those who report on his prosecution.
"Dissensus" is a perfectly cromulent word.
I believe that Justice Potter Stewart's observation about what constitutes obscenity ("I know it when I see it.") also applies here regarding what combination of statements and actions by Trump actually constitutes a crime. For the vast majority of normals, anyway. And no amount of lawfare mumbo-jumbo is going to change that, no matter how many serial indictments are manufactured by the Special Persecutor.
If anything, it is confirming and immortalizing the expression "trumped up," as in: trumped-up
[ˌtrəmptˈəp]
ADJECTIVE
invented as an excuse or a false accusation:
"he was arrested on trumped-up charges" · "a trumped-up story"
Lawprof Jack Goldsmith is now persona non grata at Harvard and in Cambridge.
But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent
Really? You must be a mind reader! Tell us, what do you "know" about Biden, oh wise one?
Serious Questions
IF Trump is convicted..
IF (somehow) a republican is EVER President again (highly unlikely since we DON'T have free elections)
...
WHY wouldn't Biden, Hillary! and O'Bama be charged and convicted?
Obviously, this is Just academic, since it supposes that we live in a country with fair and free elections, along with a system of justice..
But, supposing, for the sake of argument, that we DID live in country with those..
WHY wouldn't this sauce be fit for the gander? (or goose, i'm not good with genders)
"But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent.But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
Well, that's a take. By your logic, Biden would welcome hearings into his Ukrainian business dealings, you know, in order to clear his name before the elections.
By your logic, Georgia, Wisconsin, PA, and AZ would welcome detailed analyses of the past two elections, you know, to restore trust in the system.
Of course it's just convenient that rushing to trial will prevent any meaningful discovery to take place for the defense. That has nothing to do with points A and B above, I'm sure.
LLR "Rich"(Wink wink): "Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
LOL
Not even trying anymore, eh Ch...er..
"Rich"?
"But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
WHY?? Because Pelosi told you so?? Go back to sleep.
Rich said...
Typically if you were charged and running for office...
Typically?
Name one other leading opposition candidate for national office brought up on tenuous criminal charged by one of his incumbent opponent's prosecutors. Outside of a Banana Republic, that is.
Isn't that's Goldsmith's point?
We don't have to prove our innocence in this country. At least not yet.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
May as well hand Slow Joe a banana. He's working to make the USA a banana republic. But then he's just continuing a Democrat tradition that goes back to Al Gore and the 2000 election.
Al Gore made Richard Nixon look like a patriot and a statesman. The 1960 election (with the help of Joe Kennedy buying Illinois in a fairly obvious voting fraud scheme) put JFK in the White House. Nixon could have--maybe even should have-complained. Instead Nixon chose not to disrupt the nation. Faced with a much more dubious proposition, Al Gore stamped his little feet and plunged the nation into voting chaos.
The strategy of the planted trolls is changing. Attempting now to be a reasonable conservative who is simply disappointed with Trump and wants to find a better candidate elsewhere rather than the screaming absurdities of some of the previous workers.
The constant is using a familiar, single Americanish name while sowing doubt and raising complaints small and large.
It works better though if you establish your identity early rather than use a brand new signup which will necessarily raise suspicions.
Try harder.
The other thing that is the domestic industry of DC is influence peddling. Trump threatened that and must be destroyed.
"The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences"
Duh.
People used to understand that (and I'm sure a lot of people still do).
“The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws..."
“How does someone think that is not a terrible idea?”
I think that it is worse than that. Ethically, prosecutors cannot do that. There was an interesting podcast a couple of days ago of Megan Kelly interviewing Andrew McCarthy. As a prosecutor, 80%, or so, of criminal defendants threw innovative legal theories back at them. And Kelly, a former white shoe attorney said she saw 50% in civil litigation. But ethically, and legally, it should be 0% for prosecutors. Call it foreseeability, or Due Process, etc, people must know and understand beforehand whether an act of theirs will violate a given criminal statute. Absent that, and we can’t be a nation of laws, but rather a nation of men. They cited to a pair of Supreme Court cases concerning NYS corruption decided last May, where this was pointed out strongly by two of the three most conservative Justices in a concurrence (convictions reversed on other grounds). I expect at least a 6-3 rejection of such novel interpretations by that Court, on that basis alone, even before they get to 1st Amdt issues.
Of course, that is what LawFare is all about - innovative interpretations of criminal statutes that effectively criminalize behavior after the fact. That allows prosecutors effectively prosecute anyone they want, regardles of whether or not a plain reading of a criminal statute would notify their targets of the illegality of their future actions.
These LawFare friendly prosecutors know (or should know) that what they are doing with their novel legal theories, is illegal. These theories will not survive appellate review, esp by well funded defendants, if for no other reason that the foreseeability/Due Process reasons pointed out above. And if they can’t survive that on appeal, then they ethically and legally shouldn’t be filing those charges in the first place. So, why do they do it? Because many defendants don’t have deep enough pockets, and even if they do, they will suffer through the criminal process. Trump, of course, has deep enough pockets to survive the criminal process. He isn’t going to prison, because nothing they are throwing at him can survive appellate review. For those prosecutions, it is purely political - trying to affect the 2024 election through indicting him for crimes that they know they will never successfully prosecute him for.
Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent.
People thinking they know what they can't yet know would be enough to give me reservations about going to trial.
MikeR said, "The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws..." How does someone think that is not a terrible idea?"
I can't see the article, but can you imagine special prosecutors being regularly created by incumbents to investigator political opponents and creating cases using "novel applications of criminal laws" ?
From the little I know of a special prosecutor, this is a creation of the Biden administration that they can't really stop now that its in motion. They can't say prosecutorial over-reach, they can't fire the prosecutor, they can't cancel the charges. They empowered this fiasco and now they've got to let it ride.
And there you have it. Trump behaves like a politician and gets indicted. Democrats behave like politicians rig elections, and get rich with no consequences. Once again, Trump's presence shines a light on the corrupt institution that is the federal government.
The NYT, enabler of Democrat corruption, has noticed that courtesy of the Bidens real and dangerous iniquity is being exposed and so must point out to its bubbleheaded readers that it too is Trump's fault.
Meanwhile, amidst the sea of corruption, Democrat prosecutors indict Trump for exercising his First Amendment rights and failing to return his library books. The amoral Democrat rank and file cheer from the sidelines.
As usual, an Ivy League law prof is available to secure the bubble.
"Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
He did that once. He waited patiently for Mueller to clear him of charges. Trump was not a Russian agent or sleeper etc.
Mueller knew this by summer 2017, and if your'e nice and allow running down every stupid lead (Trump passed documents at a chess tournament!) by December 2017, Trump's lawyers were telling Mueller to end it...Mueller decided to keep playing for obstruction (why? Trump is not a Russian agent, not a traitor, but you're big effort is obstruction?)
This of course influenced mid-terms 2018, but I guess that's now allowable.
Finally Barr gets in and tell them to shit or get off the pot. Weissman and gang then delete their entire phones on purpose...huh, that's weird, and it all goes away.
So, explain again how if you're innocent you want a speedy resolution? What if the democrats don't want one? Democrats appear to rule DC even if they're not in power.
Marcus Bressler claimed: "We don't have to prove our innocence in this country. At least not yet."
Nancy Pelosi on Twitter:
The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 3rd in line to the Presidency.
You are mistaken when you claim we have no need to prove our innocence. We are in fact now required to do that.
The United States that you used to know is DEAD. It's GONE, bro.
Pelosi has also said that the United States itself will END if Donald Trump is elected President. That is a threat to create a dictatorship if US Citizens vote for their preferred presidential candidate in favor of Joe Biden.
Marcus Bressler claimed: "We don't have to prove our innocence in this country. At least not yet."
Nancy Pelosi on Twitter:
The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 3rd in line to the Presidency.
You are mistaken when you claim we have no need to prove our innocence. We are in fact now required to do that.
The United States that you used to know is DEAD. It's GONE, bro.
Pelosi has also said that the United States itself will END if Donald Trump is elected President. That is a threat to create a dictatorship if US Citizens vote for their preferred presidential candidate in favor of Joe Biden.
Marcus Bressler claimed: "We don't have to prove our innocence in this country. At least not yet."
Nancy Pelosi on Twitter:
The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 3rd in line to the Presidency.
You are mistaken when you claim we have no need to prove our innocence. We are in fact now required to do that.
The United States that you used to know is DEAD. It's GONE, bro.
Pelosi has also said that the United States itself will END if Donald Trump is elected President. That is a threat to create a dictatorship if US Citizens vote for their preferred presidential candidate in favor of Joe Biden.
"But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent." ah, the collective we, the royal we, or perhaps the leftist view 'everyone' agrees with we.
“I’ve worked alongside many leaders in my years of service to this Nation. Among them, President Donald J. Trump stands apart,” Kellogg began, highlighting the former President’s “unwavering determination, a deep vision for America, and the courage to take a stand where others wilt.” He hailed Trump’s “bold and dramatic leadership style” that he claims has ushered in numerous achievements for the nation.
Turning his attention to Pence, Kellogg stated, “While I respect his service to our Nation, I must express my disappointment in his recent actions regarding President Trump.
For a period of time in the White House, I served as the National Security Advisor to Vice President Pence. While I respect his service to our Nation, I must express my disappointment in his recent actions regarding President Trump. It is not the decisive leadership that we have seen from President Trump. Where President Trump is bold and unafraid to challenge the status quo, Pence has often chosen the passive route, avoiding confrontation."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/keith-kellogg-former-national-security-advisor-mike-pence/
The neat thing about terrible consequences in politics is they only ever seem to fall in one direction.
And as long as the right contents itself with wagging fingers and insisting that next time there will be consequences, that won't change.
Rich said...
Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent.
We know Trump is not wise. in fact, he's a pathetic loser who spent four years getting his ass kicked by the Deep State on a regular basis.
But we do know he's innocent. Because if he was actually guilty of a single actual crime, the Democrats wouldn't have to put on these show trials with their obviously bullshit "prosecutions"
And Rich, we know you are either a liar or a moron
Smith's case against Trump is so strong and clear that Trump would do better to seek a plea deal than let this go to trial. Trump's own words, recorded or reported by his own cronies, will convict him. An agreement to never run for office again in return for a guilty plea with a suspended sentence would be to everyone's benefit.
Pushing Joe Biden to do mass forgiveness of student loan debt is defrauding the United States under Smith's legal theory. Everyone knows the president has no such power and yet some, like Eliabeth Warren, have demanded he do so anyway, for electoral gain. Those criminals pushing that are lying about presidential authority under the Constitution and exaggerating the the "problem" of student loan debt, which isn't even a problem at all. They've been told numerous times that no such authority exists and yet they "knowingly" insist otherwise. When will Elizabeth Warren be indicted?
The indictments are the continuation of a process by which a clique of like minded insiders are causing those outside the clique to perceive the institutions that they formerly respected as fundamentally illegitimate and thus undeserving of trust. Somehow, the insiders do not regard this evaporation of trust as a significant problem, despite the fact that their power derives from the trust that they are destroying.
The insiders are therefore at least as inept as Trump.
Remember when Biden and his enablers were posturing themselves as the adults in the room? They're acting like three year olds throwing poo at the walls.
This will be the worst election ever.
Trump is about to learn what it means to be a criminal defendant without a friendly judge
“lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor."
Where would environmentalism be without this ability?
I forget where I read billionaire funds give money to newspapers to slant news in their environmentally favorable causes and in many cases completely leave out dissenting voices from scientists expressing skepticism.
But when Trump does it, it’s criminal.
Goldsmith's fairminded regrets at Watergate's long trail of political connivance and abuse are praiseworthy. His concerns are reinforced by the fact that, half a century later, we still haven't quite gotten to the bottom of who did what to whom in that snakepit of malefactors and dupes. James Rosen's excellent 2022 piece summarizes the many open issues. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/06/20/watergate_at_50_revelations_from_newly_declassified_evidence_147766.html
There's no question that this prosecution of Trump poorly thought out. This is exactly the sort of behavior of a corrupt bureaucracy in a failing state that is desperately trying to hold on for their own benefit without giving a damn about what is happening to the country they are supposed to be managing. It is a historical pattern that is seen over and over again in world history. The worst thing about it is from the perspective of the bureaucracy the actions make logical sense, if only from a completely selfish set of assumptions. They have gotten used to a certain level of wealth and they will protect that lifestyle at all costs.
The usual result is catastrophic for the country. A future where all politicians are being prosecuted all the time for lies would be a quaint result. Most likely we are discussing how many zeroes are at the end of the body count.
What a difference a few days make. NYT published a guest editorial on 8/2/23 from Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann which cites real facts in "The New Jack Smith Indictment Is Where Whataboutism Goes to Die."
Donald Trump has now been indicted three times, accused of crimes occurring before, during, and after his presidency. The latest indictment alleges facts from all quarters to prove his criminality: from the vice president to the White House counsel and the heads of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of National Intelligence, as well as many others. All are Republican loyalists.
That charge of obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the United States in the administration of elections is entirely fitting for the conduct alleged in the indictment. In a civil case last year, the Federal District Court Judge David Carter held that Mr. Trump and John Eastman likely engaged in a criminal conspiracy under both those statutes in their schemes to organize false electors and pressure the vice president. Mr. Smith has now said he can prove the same conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Name one other leading opposition candidate for national office brought up on tenuous criminal charged by one of his incumbent opponent's prosecutors. Outside of a Banana Republic, that is.
Benjamin Netanyahu? Silvio Berlusconi? I bet a Google search would reveal more. But I guess Netanyahu wasn't technically charged by his opponents prosecutors since he was fucking Prime Minister when the initial charges dropped.
And really, what level of crime would justify prosecution. Obviously rape isn't sufficient. How about actually shooting someone on Park Avenue? At that point would you admit that maybe he should be prosecuted. Maybe it would depend on how good a shot he was. Maybe a flesh wound wouldn't justify prosecution.
LLR Ch_"Rich"_uck: "Trump is about to learn what it means to be a criminal defendant without a friendly judge"
LOL
Nope.
Trump already knows what it is like to be an innocent person drug before a Soviet judicial system.
That's what the next election is all about for the rest of us.
I forget where I read
You have got to love comments like this. "I don't know how where or when I read this, but I want it to be true, so it must be"
Rich said...
Trump is about to learn what it means to be a criminal defendant without a friendly judge
Rich, if Donnie is innocent, any judge will do. And if he is guilty, any judge will permit negotiations between attorneys designed to keep TFG from dying in prison while washing everybody's dirty laundry.
Jimmy: "But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent." ah, the collective we, the royal we, or perhaps the leftist view 'everyone' agrees with we."
Indeed.
The LLR-democratical leftist "we".
Ride, captain ride upon your mystery ship
Be amazed at the friends you have here on your trip
Ride captain ride upon your mystery ship
On your way to a world that others might have missed
I appreciate Chuck...I mean "Rich" faithfully repeating the Democrat talking points for us. Saves me from having to go into my junk mail folder to find them myself.
Hopefully "Rich" gets some form of remuneration from his Soro-funded handlers. I'd hate to see his unswerving loyalty fail to be rewarded.
Rich said...
"Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
Piss off, Chuck.
Rich said...
"Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent."
Piss off, Chuck.
AND NOW, A HEARTFELT MESSAGE FROM NEW ALTHOUSE BLOG POSTER "RICH":
Hi Everyone!
My name is "Rich" and I am so very pleased to have recently discovered this amazing blogsite run by the very fetching Althouse. She seems a real delight!
I can assure all readers here that I am a republican. In fact I have been all my life. You might even call me a "severely conservative" and "principled" lifelong republican...just like Mitt Romney, Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney!
What's that? I wrote what? Adam Schiff?
Oh, uh, er, that was in error. I meant my OTHER favorite "Adam", Adam Kinzinger.
Wait! I meant to write my ONLY favorite "Adam", Adam Kinzinger.
Whew. I hope that helps clear things up.
Anyway I am certainly anticipating a great run at Althouse blog in the same vein as that other Severely Conservative poster whom I've grown to adore: Chuck I believe his name is.
Now that guy strikes me as one sharp cookie. And completely objective as all True Republicans can be.
And handsome too!...at least he certainly writes the way I assume handsome people write. And probably well endowed too! I mean, uh, in terms of writing skills. Yeah, thats what I meant.
Anyway, its totally great to be a totally new poster here and I'm hoping everyone will make me feel welcome by demanding the removal of Drago and wendybar and Michael K and others who just seem to me, being a new guy and looking at things with completely fresh and objective eyes, to be cluttering up the blog.
Ive already sent Ann..er...I mean "Althpuse" a couple, well, 172, personal notes expressing my displeasure at her blog moderation methods and explaining to her that her failure to improve as I've outlined could lead to my most fervent disapproval.
I mean, I don't mean like disapproval as in advocating for violence or anything like that. That would not be very nice. Thats what my therapist, one of them anyway, told me...so I struck her.
Was that wrong?
Jeez, look at me "Rich", just prattling on. Me, "Rich", which is my totally unique blog handle and is not meant to remind anyone of anyone else here. I mean, how could it, right?
Right?!
And thanks to lonejustice for the amazing welcome message. I appreciate it!
So, hey again. I am "Rich" and I am happy to be here.
Readering said...
"No doubt the Watergate investigations had some unfortunate, unintended consequences for American politics. But I just watched Gaslit, and I'm still glad they got the bastards."
Because a movie is like reality? That's what you're going with?
Unbeknownst to the Watergate burglers John Deans girlfriend was, how can I put this nicely, a hooker. She was on a list of "comfort" escorts for big Democrat voters. John Dean wanted that list at any cost. Hence the break in. Get the list and at the same time get any info on the Democrats.
Only “terrible” if you think elite liberal heads on pikes, tumbrils, and a date with Madame Guillotine for our DC ‘aristos’ is terrible….which normal people certainly would not.
To quote the inimitable Professor Reynolds: "Does this mean that our government — and media/academic establishment, but I repeat myself — is deeply, perhaps hopelessly corrupt and fundamentally illegitimate? Yeah, probably."
There will be a day when they regret this (not soon enough but it will come). Just like Harry Reid nuking the filibuster. They were warned that it would come back to haunt them and it did in spades.
Every inch they take over the line is an inch of ground their political enemies will eventually use against them. The pendulum always swings both ways over time. Sadly the GOP has been horseshit ever since the Bushies got into office. It will be a long wait!
"Smith's case against Trump is so strong and clear that Trump would do better to seek a plea deal than let this go to trial. "
Your sincere concern is noted.
"Trump is about to learn what it means to be a criminal defendant without a friendly judge"
Can't he just switch states? Oh wait, for a second I thought that he had the same legal rights as Hunter Biden... My bad.
How to show you're an idiot fascist in one simple sentence: "Rich said...
Typically if you were charged and running for office you would want your name cleared as soon as possible if you were innocent. But we know Trump is neither wise or innocent." Like most of the left, you know things that aren't true or known except by your bias. Is Rich a French-word meaning Chuck?
"Rich said...
Trump is about to learn what it means to be a criminal defendant without a friendly judge" otherwise known as railroaded.
12:35 Ampersand.
spot on.
In the decades since the Watergate affair, I have observed what a one-way street that whole effort was. The correct word for the Republicans that "did the right thing" in relation to Nixon is: RUBES.
"in many cases completely leave out dissenting voices from scientists expressing skepticism."
You mean like in a grand jury, where the defense has no say? There is a reason why Democrats love grand juries.
Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn 2020 election were “aspirational” in nature according to Trump’s attorney John Lauro. Mr Lauro is a comedian if he thinks his “aspirational” argument will stand up in court.
Thinking something is aspirational. Doing it is doing it. An action. An act. In this case an attempt at election fraud by accusing others of election fraud. I would call that deluded rather than aspirational but the semantics are moot. He actually did what he did, as much is beyond contention, which was actively attempt to tamper with the results to prevent himself from being replaced, after the humiliation of being kicked out after just one term, by the winner of the election, President Joe Biden. And now they want to tamper with the judge as well?
In America speech is free but the lies you have to pay for.
"It works better though if you establish your identity early rather than use a brand new signup which will necessarily raise suspicions."
August 2023. Interesting.
“Smith's case against Trump is so strong and clear that Trump would do better to seek a plea deal than let this go to trial. Trump's own words, recorded or reported by his own cronies, will convict him. An agreement to never run for office again in return for a guilty plea with a suspended sentence would be to everyone's benefit.”
Except that those charges against Trump effectively rewrite those criminal statutes, which means that they violate foreseeability/Due Process mentioned above. For example, in his first charge, Smith tries to expand the definition of “defraud” to cover non economic gain. There is little case law to support this, and what there was, was flatly rejected by the Supreme Court in May. The plain reading of the statute essentially demands monetary gain or loss as a required element.
I understand why you don’t want Trump to win a third time. Heads would certainly roll, and those of prosecutors Jack Smith and Jay Bratt would be some of the first. Smith’s other prosecutors would likely follow - since several worked for the corrupt Mueller and Weissman. No doubt, his first day in office would have EOs allowing gas ranges, revoking 52 mpg ICE requirements, DEI, etc. But just as Smith’s charges violate the 1st Amdt, so would your plea deal.
"And Rich, we know you are either a liar or a moro"
We also know s/he's somebody else masquerading as a new blogger account born yesterday. Wait and see for the reveal.
Michael K said...
The other thing that is the domestic industry of DC is influence peddling. Trump threatened that and must be destroyed.
There is so much chafe spewed in the media, the obvious is obliterated and hidden from sight.
Trump's only crime is exposing the massive amount of grift flooding DC.
Think tanks
lobbyists
NGO's
non profits
charities
Foreign aide is funneled through NGO's and charities, infested with politician's family and hangerons, and 10% is held back for the Big Guy. (you dont believe slow Joe invented this grifting scheme do you?) Joe is a certified idiot, he has NEVER gotten anything right. He is even threatening the grift, by his stupidity of allowing Hunter to be so blatant.
I shouldn't have to say it, but this is the only bi-partisan activity in DC
"Exaggeration and truth-shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington" is true. Trying to swap in fraudulent electoral votes, trying to coerce the Vice President into breaking the law and setting a violent mob loose on the Capitol when you don't get your way is not.
Rich said...
Smith's case against Trump is so strong and clear that Trump would do better to seek a plea deal...
You didn't even read the blurb Althouse put in this post, did you?
“The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws..."
This from a leftist law Prof. Only the leftist are defending Smith, but even the defenders know its going to take a crooked judge to get this trial all the way through to a jury. IF convicted, overturned on appeal is a sure thing. 9-0 if it has to go to SCOTUS
I agree with Jack Goldsmith. Garland should have stopped with the Florida indictment, which was based on well established laws and beaucoup evidence. The DC indictment is imaginative, and I don’t mean that as praise. Durham could easily have indicted Comey for committing fraud on the government under the Smith interpretation of the law, but he didn’t because Barr’s instructions were to only bring charges based on well established rules of criminal liability, supported by mountains of evidence. Apparently, Garland did not give similar instructions to Smith. This will not end well, no matter what happens at the trial.
"The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences"... there is no 'may' Kemosabe... there will be consequences. REAL big consequences.
It's a blizzard of the old Booga-booga, a propaganda full-court press. We're being inundated with story followed by opinion-piece of how reasonable, how ethical, how totally normal and called-for the persecution of somebody famous for what they must have been thinking at the time, when something absolutely cataclysmic and apocalyptic (because we've said so, over and over) happened.
And we get this treatment while this famous person's counterpart, the one currently in office, mumbles and stutters his way through a junk-yard cesspit of worse offenses. They think they can keep it up forever, this bunch, but they're fooling fewer and fewer people.
We have all watched the criminalization of politics. IIR the revelation was that there is a law against everything. The only innocent are the ones that the REGIME finds an excuse to allow it to be done by them. Perfect civil war is the necessary result. And peace only happens when BOTH sides want peace. One is not enough.
Blogger Rich said...
Smith's case against Trump is so strong and clear that Trump would do better to seek a plea deal than let this go to trial.
More bullshit from "Chuck." Smith's "case" is all stuff that is not illegal.
They'll cut down every law to get to Trump, and then he'll turn on them by winning in 2024.
Biden is at 38% in the latest poll, and Trump is at 44%, so look for another indictment, especially since Comer is ready to drop more dirt on the millions foreigners have paid to the Bidens for favors.
Democrats already own the Federal Bureaucracy including the FBI, DOJ, IRS as well as massive advantages in what amounts to a state-run media. They also rake in the majority of corporate and dark money. This doesn't even begin to include all the taxpayer and privately funded voting initiatives (think Zuckbucks) that are designed to advantage Democrats. Now they want to jail their political opponents.
This whole idea that an election outcome cannot be questioned (but only when Democrats win) is quite a shift to Authoritarian side. I noticed you can still question the Supreme Court but I'm guessing this will also change once the Dems have control, which probably won't be long judging by their recent attacks on the court.
At this point, why keep pretending we continue to live under some kind of fair two-party system where everybody plays under the same set of rules? It's just a show to make the rubes believe they still have a say their government.
Trying to swap in fraudulent electoral votes, trying to coerce the Vice President into breaking the law and setting a violent mob loose on the Capitol when you don't get your way is not.
Well it's a good thing that's not what he did then, isn't it.
iowan2: "This from a leftist law Prof. Only the leftist are defending Smith,..."
LLR-democratical Chu...er..."Rich" has always been on the left.
"In America speech is free but the lies you have to pay for."
This statement could have been lifted directly from the pages of Orwell's 1984.
The Left: "We determine what is true and what is false, aka, "mis or malinformation". And what is false should be acted upon by OUR interpretation of the law and the evildoer, uh, I mean the accused, shall be tried and sentenced as we see fit."
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
"The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor." Holy shit, they indicted him for being a politician! I am now in favor of the indictment AND of conviction. And I want every other politician indicted and convicted as well. From the headline, we can also get all the lawyers, as their very job is to shape law in their and their clients favor! Brings to mind the old joke, what do you call 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?!
Post a Comment