So says the Editorial Board of the New York Times, in "Donald Trump and American Justice."
That's a free access link, in case you want to search for details about that relentless undermining.
I got there via Mickey Kaus, who tweeted, "@NYTopinion gives zero (0) examples of Trump denying due process to others during his term."[Trump] portrays himself as a victim of an unfair and politically motivated prosecution. That defense is built on lies. Mr. Trump is no victim. He is fortunate to live in a country where the rule of law guarantees a presumption of innocence and robust rights for defendants.
I don't like how the Board is conflating the prosecution and the court and the rule of law. The rule of law is an abstraction. Rights exist within the abstraction, but rights can be violated. The abstraction doesn't guarantee the rights. People exercising power must ensure that those rights are protected, and they may deviously hide behind the abstraction... perhaps with the help of elite onlookers who make abstract pronouncements in print.
Trump's assertion that the prosecution is "unfair and politically motivated" may be true even if the court carries out its duties perfectly. Trump may be "fortunate to live in a country" that has some dedication to the rule of law, but that doesn't deprive him of the reason to complain that the prosecution seems politically motivated. Again, even if the court perfectly carries out its obligation to the rule of law, Trump is motivated to cry out about the onerous prosecutions, which are undercutting his ability to campaign for the presidency.
Trump has made these complaints part of his campaign. And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated? Will anyone change their mind because the New York Times Editorial Board assures them that we've got the rule of law in this country and Trump, the criminal defendant, has "robust rights"?
It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch.
Posts
111 comments:
This is why people hate and distrust the democrat media. They are so blatantly political that their opinion is nothing more than propaganda.
I wouldn’t give the NYTimes even a free click.
Trump is literally the most law abiding potus in decades. Only Carter comes close.
I'm wondering how Trump "relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office"? Any specifics? Maybe I've forgotten them.
What I haven't forgotten is that the sitting President while Trump was campaigning, Barack Obama, used the power of the US Government to spy on Trump, on his people and his campaign. They worked with the Federal Government's DoJ to make up false scenarios, pay for those in dossier form, write up false warrants, and use the courts and the Democrats in the House and Senate to tie Trump down with legal attacks and impeachments.
Of course, the New York Times was part of the process, promulgating the entire thing all the way through from the very beginning. Always there to lend a helping hand to Barack and his team, then to the Dems in the House, and finally to Joe Biden's version of Barack's team.
This is almost beyond belief that the Times would have anything at all to say about any of this. I view the NY Times as NPR with a larger budget and a nice games section.
This is more of the Left's 2 + 2 = 5 argumentation.
Even a caveman or commie could see that all these prosecutions are unfair.
The Left keeps on pushing. The Left wants Trump jailed and then broken out of jail. The Left wants a full-on confrontation. But I don't. Conservatives need to keep their cool.
After Biden's cannibal remarks yesterday, I'm convinced he will be pushed out at the convention. He gives a farewell speech. It's either Kamela or Gavin.
wait a minute (didn't read, even though free.. 'cause i was Already bored)..
Donald Trump is expecting Legal Rights? Even though he is a NOT a democrat?
What THE??!!??
Legals Rights are ONLY for democrats.. Everybody knows that!
Where The HELL does this "Trump" guy think he is? Doesn't he Realize that we are in a fascist dictatorship?
Talking about Joe's corruption on the phone (with leftist spies all about) is illegal.
And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated?
Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?
The prosecutors are the true criminals here, and the NY Times (and the rest of the MSM) is acting as their accessories. None of this would be happening if either the courts or the news media had an ounce of integrity, but that ship sailed long ago.
It's up to the voters this November to stick it up both their asses.
Mickey Kaus, who tweeted, "@NYTopinion gives zero (0) examples of Trump denying due process to others during his term."
The elites think any assertion they make is factual, with no examples needed. Normies (those of us out in fly over land) know everything they say is bullshit.
Rule of Law is fairly specific, e.g.
No extraordinary processes, everyone subject to the same legal system, sanctions, and court.
It can't be ad hoc with respect to individuals.
The tribunal to deny you money, property or liberty has to be impartially constituted. Selection of the decision-makers. Independence of judges.
Fair notice: you have to be told the nature of the charges against you, and why what you did was wrong.
Right to be heard in your own defense.
No retroactive laws.
No restrictions imposed on one class of individuals that aren't imposed on all.
Not very abstract.
Most people don't care. The excitable political junkies behind Trump think the prosecutions are political persecutions of a heroic patriot. The political junkies on the left think that Trump is being under-prosecuted and that his craven criminality has forced government lawyers to do something to enforce the rule of law.
In reality, it's a giant shitstorm sucking up all the media oxygen. The DNC media complex's only play to survive and retain power is to control the Trump is evil Hitler narrative as a smokescreen for their ownership by the Davos billionaires.
NYT editorial board practices the "Big Lie" technique with this one. I mostly remember Trump being constrained when court decisions came down in opposition to his policies.
Do you want to see where a blind devotion to "the rule of law" can take you? Look at Venezuela. Everything done after the return of Hugo Chavez in 2002 was done subject to "the rule of law". Constitution constrains government action? Change the Constitution. Courts rule against you? Change the judges. Need popular support? Launch demonstrations and riots in support of "change" and call it a mandate.
Sounds familiar? Look out USA.
It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch.
Indeed. There should not be a line to be crossed regarding the basic point that abusive political prosecution is a violation of the fundamental principles of justice, but the NYT blew past it long, long ago.
Those people are openly declared fascists.
This is the same times that denied the holomodor which defended castros firing squads and the iranian devouring come on
"This is why people hate and distrust the democrat media. They are so blatantly political that their opinion is nothing more than propaganda.
I wouldn’t give the NYTimes even a free click."
Sums up my opinion. I literally pray for the destruction of the NYT.
"Donald Trump, who relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office and since."
A list would be nice.
Read the waste of time and money Mueller report. There's nothing there. It was all fake.
Lies based on a fake dosier paid for by the camp-Hillary.
Oh wait - Must of been the time Trump asked about Joe's obvious Ukrainian money laundering for family profit. The money laundering verified by Bobolinksi. ...and ignored by the hack-D loyal Stalinist press.
"It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch."
Our host sums up the bulk of commentary found in this forum in two sentences, which can easily be consolidated into one. The people responsible for the NYT piece don't see any of it. Perhaps we DO have the special glasses from They Live, and the shape of coming events are only visible to us. Agitprop like the recent Civil War movie is another attempt to manage the narrative.
If we try to explain, we are seen as under some sort of hallucination that will be managed through a firehose of "information."
Tragic. Painful. Inevitable?
Shorter Elitist Stalinist Freder: 'So what the left use lies to destroy people.'
I had the same reaction as Temujin: where were Trump's egregious violations of people's due process? My husband thought it was maybe when he fired people or some silly non sequitur like that?
But - like the "drinking bleach," the "fine people," the "grabbing the wheel of the Beast," the "suborning governors to make up fraudulent votes," the "inciting violence and insurrection," the execrable NYT continues to fulfill its function: tell those who won't go elsewhere to confirm the stories all manner of things that will get them to conclude that Trump is their atheist equivalent of the antichrist and trump voters are his drooling minions.
"And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated?"
Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?
Really?
That wouldn't be something you'd have a problem with, of it were deployed against your side?
"'And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated?' Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?"
1. You said I made an "assertion," but you need to provide links backing up your assertion that I made an assertion.
2. As for the answer to *your* incisive question "So what?," I'll translate your question into an assertion. You are essentially saying, you don't think it should matter if most Americans believe the prosecutions are politically motivated. And then, like you, I'll answer the imputed assertion with a question: Who cares if you are in denial?
RE: The prosecutions are politically motivated.
Fredor responds: "Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?"
Is this a joke? There have numerous links posted on this blog and elsewhere.
But the best part of your inane response is "so what?" You've devolved into a troll.
Explain to me again how Trump is protected by the Rule of Law in front of DC and Manhattan juries.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/polls-trumps-hush-money-trial/story?id=109145290
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/politics/trump-justice-barr-rule-of-law/index.html
Trump had the privilege of being the victim of a frame job by a corrupt DoJ that resorted to fraud and forgery in an unhinged zeal to persecute the then-President.
And it's painful to watch.
Only if one is an honest law professor, and it’s not as though there seem to be very many of them.
...I got there via Mickey Kaus, who tweeted, "@NYTopinion gives zero (0) examples of Trump denying due process to others during his term..."
I'll take a shot at that, just quickly off the top of my head. If I were preparing a column for publication, I could probably triple the number of examples with some additional research.
~ Trump's personal/political attacks on judges who ruled against him or who otherwise displeasd him. "The Mexican Judge," "Obama judges." (We can certainly have the discussion about progressive complaints against U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaczmarek in Amarillo, but these comments pages have gotten to be really awkward for back-and-forth, so I'll pass.)
~ Trump's wild obstruction of justice with the Florida documents case.
~ Trump's shocking record of dozens of personally and politically corrupt pardons.
~ Trump's courtroom and deposition behavior, including but not limited to the E. Jean Carroll cases.
~ Trump's record of business lawlessness that is actually on display, today, in the course of the Sandoval hearing in his Manhattan criminal trial.
As for the number of Americans who believe that the prosecutions are politically motivated, I'm not sure what to say. Big majorities of Republicans seem to think that the 2020 election was "stolen." They're wrong, and I could not care less about their feelings. If they want to fight about it, I'm game and I'll fight. But I am sure not going to countenance any policy change, and legal change, based upon their irrational propaganda-fueled conspiracy theories.
Left unsaid: Democrats have been investigating Trump for 8 years, and the best they can come up with are these novel and extremely technical violations that no other politician has ever been prosecuted for.
And given that all the trials are taking place during an election year is just confirmation that this is all political.
This is what happens when the party of more government merges with the actual government.
"Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?"
It doesn’t care that most people can see clearly that our legal institutions are being corrupted and perverted to persecute Biden's political opponents. And it whined yesterday about being treated with contempt. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Piling on, I know, but --
"who relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office"
You mean, the guy who was persecuted by Mueller and the deep state while in office? Subjected to phony impeachments? And did what in return? I'm with Kaus.
"and since, is enjoying the same protections and guarantees of fairness and due process before the law that he sought to deny to others during his term."
Again, total BS on the seeking to deny. Lawfare comes from the left. The cases against Trump depend on stretching statutes specifically and exclusively to go after him.
"It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch."
Painful enough to protest by voting for Trump?
In a 'Where Are They Now' we investigate the lives of Christine Blasey Ford and that Hawaiian judge and some of the rest of the corrupt actors of the last 10 years...
...said no media ever...
My guess is like the wiseguys involved in the Lufthansa heist they didn't bother to not spend the money...
More garbage in, garbage out from one of the media outlets that's ensuring democracy dies in the darkness. The little, unwashed people see Bragg et al for exactly what they are.
I remember the time I served as a juror in criminal case, jurors were allowed to ask questions to the judge. I believe it was after the trial. Maybe a juror could ask if the judge believed the trial was politically motivated. Maybe that question would be disallowed, since it was not about the case itself.
The ‘Gotta link?’ challenge is meaningless at this point. Things that happened are not reported. Things that didn’t happen but they wish they did fill the voids.
The NYT impresses me, negatively. They are toddlers holding their breath on the floor of the cereal aisle at the store.
Hey NYT Opinion!
....................../ｴｯ/)
....................,/ｯ../
.................../..../
............./ｴｯ/'...'/ｴｯｯ`ｷｸ
........../'/.../..../......./ｨｯ\
........('(...ｴ...ｴ.... ｯ~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.ｷｴ
............\..............(
..............\.............\
Freder throws in with using the power of government, to persecute political rivals
As predictable as the sunrise.
And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated?' Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?
In a previous post Freder railed about how it is hypocritical of our hostess to bemoan the attacks on Trump supporters by the powerful media when her own, relatively powerless commenters, railed against the people who support the attack on Trump supporters.
And then he writes the above statemen. "So what?" And here he provides the strong justification for the right to rail against the people on the left who do not just turn a blind eye to the breaking of the rule of law and the attempts to deny impartial justice, but rather cheer it on. Cheer on the selective prosecution of their opponents, and try and deny the right to choose their candidate by forcing him to sit in court rooms on bogus charges so that he cannot campaign.
So what? Yeah, we have justification to to be a little miffed at the people on the left who are unwilling to defend justice, and the Constitution because they have some higher law that they have pulled out of their ass. That is what.
Chuck seems to not understand what denying due process means. None of his examples qualify.
I'm curious... does anyone expect anything other than a "Guilty on all counts" verdict from this NYC jury?
Wa St Blogger said...
Chuck seems to not understand what denying due process means. None of his examples qualify
Hey, I have to confess; that’s an interesting comment and a fair point. Thanks for posting it. Presidents leave a lot of legal fingerprints, but practically never on individual prosecutions.
So perhaps we should agree that it is silly to assert that Donald Trump ever personally denied anyone due process. And the only thing more ridiculous would be a suggestion that President Biden ever personally denied anyone due process.
I’ll stand by my comments as they relate to Donald Trump’s general jaw-dropping lawlessness.
Chuck joins the NYT in giving zero examples of Trump denying due process. Not one. Because there are none.
I'm with Temujin here. Can the New York Times editorial board give a single example of Trump relentlessly underming the justice system? I doubt it. More facts, less squalling like a three year old (or a President) denied his or her afternoon bowl of ice cream would be more persuasive.
Trump "relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office?"
Shameless projection. The National Enquirer is a newspaper. The NYT doesn't realize it yet. Without NYT v. Sullivan these fabulists would have been out of business long ago. As a matter of fact, most of what they write about Trump is a product of actual malice, but it is New York where the legal system is as corrupt as the Times.
Maybe a juror could ask if the judge believed the trial was politically motivated. Maybe that question would be disallowed, since it was not about the case itself.
The Judge likely would disallow, using the excuse it was irrelevant.
The Judge would be ignoring the Constitution. Juries have the power to judge the facts, AND the jury has the power and obligation to judge the law, and the application of the law.
Is the Editorial Board saying Trump is lucky to be persecuted in America, because in another country he'd be Alexei Navalny'd or Aung San Suu Kyi'd?
Chucky, nothing you wrote has anything to do with the claim that Trump denied "Due Process to others".
You've simply listed "purported things Trump has done and said that I, Chucky, don't like."
You claim to be a lawyer. Not a chance.
I see Chuck Channeling Schumer (8:38) is confused as usual, regarding both substance and chronology this time.
Haters gotta Hate…
Chuck responds in his usual, fact free style
iowan2 says:
April 18, 2024 at 10:42 AM
Howard, I followed one of your links. sacrificing myself for the good of others, they wont have to read the tin foil hat, rant.
It is a lengthy piece of “breaking norms” and “audacious remarks”
One critical fact was presented. It seems while President, President Trump said “I am actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer.”
CNN also reported
Tuesday, just two days before his friend Stone was to be sentenced, Trump granted clemency or pardoned several people with whom he had close ties.
So there is Howard concerns, he gleaned (not garnered) from reading CNN
President Trump thinks HE is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States
To top it off President Trump obliterated norms by issuing pardons before November of a Presidential election. Audacious indeed.
Haters gotta Hate
Patricians gotta pee. (1980s AI program, starting from thesaurus peer=patrician)
What has gone too far, and what is painful to watch? What are you referring to here?
The NYT represents the considered wisdom of the well educated progressive elements of our society. These are millions of the "best" people, who have cleverly navigated the pathways to success. These are the people who mastered the subtle forms of ingratiation, who possess above average cognitive and communication skills, and who know how to play by the rules. So much so that they are now making the rules.
This NYT editorial is about much more than the NYT. It is about the irretrievable lostness of a huge segment of our society, a segment that has enormous wealth and power. They are not going to change for the better.
Freder Frederson said...
And don't most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated?
Even if true (and you don't provide any links backing up your assertion), so what?
It is just shocking that people don't respect Freder.
I mean look at how respectable he is. He just oozes integrity and fairness.
Hey, I have to confess; that’s an interesting comment and a fair point. Thanks for posting it. Presidents leave a lot of legal fingerprints, but practically never on individual prosecutions.
So perhaps we should agree that it is silly to assert that Donald Trump ever personally denied anyone due process. And the only thing more ridiculous would be a suggestion that President Biden ever personally denied anyone due process.
No, we don't have to agree. Nothing you listed remotely suggests that due process was denied, much less that Trump was involved or set the stage for or even created a general sense that it was tacitly approved with dog whistles and subtle head nods from the shadows.
I’ll stand by my comments as they relate to Donald Trump’s general jaw-dropping lawlessness.
Goalpost shifting at its finest.
And except for the dispute on the classified documents case, another baseless claim. And even in that one, a dispute on rights and privileges of the president vs the bureaucratic archive agency hardly rates as the epitome of lawlessness. First you have to prove he did not have the right to the documents before you can assert obstruction.
Obviously, TDS has blinded you to truth.
Michael Fitzgerald said...
What has gone too far, and what is painful to watch? What are you referring to here?
No matter who wins in 2024 the other side will not accept the result.
That is if they even allow the election to happen.
They are already blatantly signing up illegal aliens who just invaded the country to vote by the millions. They are going to blatantly mail in votes again.
There are maybe 50 million dumbf**k Karens and their simps that will voted for the demented vegetable. They will need more than 30 million mail in votes this time.
The 80+ million people that will vote for Trump are not going to accept the 50 million people adding 30 million illegal votes to their totals.
And the 50 million shitheads like Freder are obviously preparing for another round of BLM attacks on our country if they don't get their way.
“It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch.”
Nonsense. Everyone loves a good train wreck.
Not shocked that NYT editorial board can make this blatantly ridiculous statement with straight face. But still epic embarrassment for our nation, that our former leader of adept and accurate journalism has morphed into propaganda-mongering partisan fish-wrap.
Trump had a history of stiffing his construction contractors. Otherwise, he can't hold a candle to Biden Family's enormous criminal enterprise, cash-grabbing graft. and political corruption. Biden appears to be the most corrupt president in US history. Degree of complicit media and mainstream journalism collusion is breathtaking.
We're living in a Stalinist construct.
So what? Yeah, we have justification to to be a little miffed at the people on the left who are unwilling to defend justice, and the Constitution because they have some higher law that they have pulled out of their ass. That is what.
This.
And regarding Dan the Man’s question about the trial, there is zero chance Trump won’t be found guilty on all counts. Then what? Another emergency appeal to the SC so the left can scream election rigging! when the verdict is nullified? We are so screwed.
"It is just shocking that people don't respect Freder."
Yeah. I'm still trying to decipher his "So what [if the prosecutions of Trump are politically motivated]?". He just got tired of maintaining the facade, I guess.
Local court judges often overreach their jurisdictional authority, rule contrary to state statutes and federal laws, too often selectively ignore facts, and blatantly play politics.
I've seen it here in local Wisconsin county courts, and I see it now with Trump in New York state. Judges overreach, thinking they're not beholden to laws and regulations. "Law" is truly "blind" in court, not always as in accurate and fair enforcement, but rather as willful misapplication of authority and power of said court judge.
Chuck (quoting Ann referencing both Mickey Kaus and the NYT Editorial Board)...
"...I got there via Mickey Kaus, who tweeted, "@NYTopinion gives zero (0) examples of Trump denying due process to others during his term..." (emphasis added)
Chuck, my high school teachers would give you an automatic "F" for both '[F]ailure to follow instructions' and - as others have already pointed out - upchucking fact-free blather similar to what both Ms Althouse and Mr Kaus were commenting upon.
And they would make it an "F-" because this is not the first time you've pulled a tactic like this.
It seems like you generally don't do requests, but an update/follow-up about the comments of the NYT readers would be most welcome by us non-subscribers.
I’m left with the impression that media contributors publishing these kinds of comments are either mentally ill, incredibly dumb or are purposely trying to divide and destroy the country for monetary gain. I haven’t ruled out the possibility that it could be a combination of all three.
Chuck said... So perhaps we should agree that it is silly to assert that Donald Trump ever personally denied anyone due process. And the only thing more ridiculous would be a suggestion that President Biden ever personally denied anyone due process.
--
Gee..
From claiming the examples are voluminous to running preemptive cover for Joementia/Pedo Pete, king of open border "surge".
He's certainly denying millions of illegals due process.
Re election integrity, our favorite LLR once opined "Fraudulent or not, if Trump loses, it's a win for me."
The timing of the prosecutions against Trump is just a little bit suspect.
Ann said...
“It's too far gone. And it's painful to watch.”
Smilin' Jack responded...
"Nonsense. Everyone loves a good train wreck."
Sure, it's all fun 'n games until someone pokes their eye out.
Or you're the school bus that gets splattered by the speeding locomotive. We should get good memes out of it, though.
NYT objects to kangaroo court being identified as a kangaroo court.
"Donald Trump, who relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office and since, is enjoying the same protections and guarantees of fairness and due process before the law that he sought to deny to others during his term."
So says the Editor
If he actually did any of these things, it would be SO easy to list them but they never do. It is all projection, start to finish. Their "fellow traveler" lap up this crap 100% and don't even bother wondering what laws he broke or how he actually undermined justice. For these people whether Trump did or did not isn't even up for debate, it is a given. All discussions start from that position. Meanwhile just about anyone with a (D) after their name can do all of the things Trump is accused of doing and they walk.
Is there a way to schedule an intervention for Federer? He's crying out for help.
Every time I read a Chuck comment I can't help but think "So that's why the Michigan Republican party is such a mess."
"Donald Trump, who relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office and since."
=============
could be some fonts/pixels dropped off / faded out
"Donald Trump, [agaist]who[m we] relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office and since."
Freder,
I would sincerely like to thank you for demonstrating my point of view.
Let's not forget that, after he was elected, Trump said he would not prosecute Hillary, in order to "let her heal".
Trump had a history of stiffing his construction contractors.
This has been repeated as accepted fact so often that I did some (limited) research. I can only find two times that Trump used the cure option to "stiff" the subs on a job. A surprisingly small amount of times considering the size and complexity of the construction projects Trump has been involved in. Purely legal actions. If a sub is not fulfilling the terms of his contract due to time frames or quality standards it is legal to replace the sub and collect damages to finish the work with another subcontractor. Every large construction contract I've seen has a right to cure clause in it. Been there, done that - on both sides of the equation. The sub or general wasn't happy and neither was I. Not a good option, it's costly for both parties, but sometimes it is the only way to rectify a bad situation. Am I missing something? If not then quit promulgating the lie.
Every time I read a Chuck comment I can't help but think "So that's why the Michigan Republican party is such a mess."
I largely quit around 2017, after being shocked and dismayed with where things were going through the 2016 Presidential nomination.
After my bailing out (with some notable exceptions I won't go into here) of MI GOP, the state Party:
~ Lost the Governorship, the state house, the state senate, and majority representation on the state supreme court.
~ Brought in Meshawn Maddock as Co-Chair. She's now facing criminal charges as a fake elector.
~ Nominated election denier Kristina Karamo for Secretary of State. She lost in a near-landslide. She was then promoted to Party chair to replace Meshawn. And she ran the Party into the ground. They were facing bankruptcy and trhe loss of their (donated) headquarters building. She's now a state laughingstock.
~ Nominated election denier Matt DePerno for Attorney General. He lost, badly. And now he's facing felony charges for tampering with voting machines in the pursuit of an election-rigging conspiracy theory.
~ Saw grassroots Republicans primary out Rep. Peter Meijer, in favor of TrumpWinger John Gibbs, who promptly lost what had been a Republican seat for two lifetimes to a Democrat.
~ In 2024, after multiple embarassing lawsuits and competing/simultaneous delegate meetings held on opposite sides of the state, the party finally went to an old time establishment Republican, former Congressman and Ambassador Pete Hoekstra as Party chair. The only problem is that Pete has sold out to Trumpism, so that his effectiveness in fundraising and general election success will be limited.
~ Also in 2024, we have seen the last two Republican State House Speakers indicted on multiple felony charges for financial and election fund corruption. One has already pleaded guilty.
So yeah; I bailed out, along with too many establishment-type Republicans to list. And since then, the Michigan Republican Party has never been in worse disarray. Former Governor Rick Snyder (anti-Trump) is doing his own separate fudnraising for state house Republicans, apart from the Party. But even that is not going real well, since the state house has a large handful of state Reps. who are so culturally crazy that they are intolerable to mainstream voters. The Michigan Republican Party became a total mess after I waved goodbye.
Thanks, NYT, for pointing out in the same piece that we have a presumption of innocence and that the voters should pay attention to the evidence at trial of Trump's disregard for the rule of law. There's no dissonance like cognitive dissonance!
Chuck, how does giving a pardon, corrupt or otherwise, violate due process?
The NY Times gives its customers what they want.
No one else pays attention to them. It’s fanfic for the Karen Klan.
Politico headline: 2 of Trump’s jurors are lawyers. Would they acquit on a technicality?
The technicality that no crime was committed?
Former Illinois Resident who accuses Trump of stiffing contractors during his 50+ years of building around the world.
Go ahead and show some proof of that Democrat Party lie, otherwise stfu, libtard.
"Chuck, how does giving a pardon, corrupt or otherwise, violate due process?"
Are you doubting Chuck? Don't you know he's a lawyer?
>>there is zero chance Trump won’t be found guilty on all counts. Then what?
Let's take for granted the guilty verdict... your question of "then what" addresses appeals but what about the sentence?
1)Trump in jail for what, say, 6 months, effectively prohibiting him from running for office?
2) Another $500 million fine, which he will likely be unable to post so they can seize all his assets, and make him declare bankruptcy?
3) Probation, with an ankle monitor and unable to leave the jurisdiction without permission?
Appealing seems waaaaaay down the road.
Remember that the goal here is to either strike him from the ballot (which the SC has made MUCH harder) or prevent him from speaking.
>>Politico headline: 2 of Trump’s jurors are lawyers.
Go read the jury pool questionnaire. There are specific questions intended to identify conservatives and Republicans.
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-re-jury-selection-4-8-24.pdf
This entire affair shows that the modern left hates America and it's ideals.
ooops
I mean, what were you expecting from the New York Times? They have a license to defame. Even their own employees do not read their newspaper, and apparently the courts will let a newspaper say whatever they want as long as they claim they are poorly informed boobs who are too dumb to lie.
Today the judge gagged the press too. America is no more.
Today the judge gagged the press too. America is now a 3rd world sham.
Blogger Former Illinois resident said...
Trump had a history of stiffing his construction contractors.
Really? Can you name any? Names, people or companies that were stiffed. Not "some guy on Long Island"
After 9 years I've heard of 2. The unnamed architect of the unnamed golf club in Florida, who Trump claimed did a poor job. Hilary mentioned him/her in the 2016 debate.
A finish woodwork contractor for one of the casinos who claimed not to have been paid something like $60m on a job the casino claimed was not to spec. He continued doing other work for Trump projects for several years after. It sounded to me like the typical dispute that anyone who has ever been or hired a contractor has on a daily basis.
If you have a kitchen remodel in your house and the contractor does not do it to agreed specification, do you still pay the full price?
IF he had a habit of stiffing contractors, he might get away with it for a year or two. But word gets around quickly and nobody would bid on his projects. Or, like a friend of mine used to do with govt RFQs, figure out a regular price, double it and hope he was not low bidder. (He was occasionally and hated it)
Has anyone ever looked at his D&B for those years? (I have not) That would tell you if he was a bad payer.
This seems like one of those stories that people believe, not on the basis of any evidence, but merely on repetition and TDS
John Henry
I don’t think it is impossible that Trump beats these charges. I think an acquittal is probably impossible, but a hung jury doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility.
I used to do a lot of business with General Electric plants here. Their standard payment terms were what is called "2 ten/net 30" If they pay within 10 days of invoice date they deduct 2% from the total or they pay 100% within 30 days.
GE company policy, I was informally told by a plant controller, was to pay in 45 days AND take the 2%. He told me I should price accordingly.
They were not even very good about paying in 45 days. And if there was any excuse at all for not paying, they would not pay anything until that was cleared up.
GE called it "good cash management" I called it assholery.
One of the big pharma companies pays standard in 90 days. In full, at the last hour of the 89th day. But, it is all online and they have a Dynamic Discount program. I submit an invoice online, give it a day or two to percolate. Then I can go to my account and they will tell me, "We'll pay you 95% today, click here" and I can coount on a bank transfer that night. If I wait a week, they might offer 95.5% and so on.
1 or 2 other clients have similar programs. One halves the discount if I let them put it on a debit card account that someone manages for them.
OTOH, I am still fighting with a big beverage company for $6m they owe me since December. They've always been like this and I price accordingly.
Only ever been stiffed once since 1985. A friend of mine told me that "everybody knows" that you get your money upfront and make sure the check clears before doing any business with that company. Everybody but me at the time, apparently.
But I've been jerked around an awful lot, by GE, the beverage company and others.
It's the way things work. You deal with it.
John Henry
Blogger DanTheMan said...
2) Another $500 million fine, which he will likely be unable to post so they can seize all his assets, and make him declare bankruptcy?
Pedjt has a net worth of $5-10bn. A $500mm fine would hurt, he would have to sell or mortgage some properties but I don't see how it would put him in bankruptcy.
Explain?
John Henry
@John Henry
Or, like a friend of mine used to do with govt RFQs, figure out a regular price, double it and hope he was not low bidder.
Seems a bit extreme. I loved gov contracts. 30-40% tack on was nearly always enough and my competitors usually followed your friend's model. Most of the time you know you're going to get hosed for 20%, so life is good with that add to the price. Sometimes you could bamboozle them and get fantastic margins. And they loved me because I could always cover the stupid extra shit they came up with that wasn't really in the specs. I only one time had a notice to cure (time frame) against me but worked my way out of it.
The reason I bring this up is the oft repeated lie about Trump stiffing subs that we both addressed. Often its just TDS, but a lot of it is people who have no clue how business operates or a businessman mentality. Trump was so proud of getting quotes for the embassy in Jerusalem for $3b and managing to do it for $300m by using an existing building instead of new construction. I got a kick out of it. Chump change by government standards granted, but it shows how the man thinks. Every nickel comes off the top.
Governments are essentially big businesses, really big. They should be run as such. Right now they seem to be run as personal piggy banks.
~ Trump's personal/political attacks on judges who ruled against him or who otherwise displeasd him. "The Mexican Judge," "Obama judges." (We can certainly have the discussion about progressive complaints against U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaczmarek in Amarillo, but these comments pages have gotten to be really awkward for back-and-forth, so I'll pass.)
~ Trump's wild obstruction of justice with the Florida documents case.
~ Trump's shocking record of dozens of personally and politically corrupt pardons.
~ Trump's courtroom and deposition behavior, including but not limited to the E. Jean Carroll cases.
~ Trump's record of business lawlessness that is actually on display, today, in the course of the Sandoval hearing in his Manhattan criminal trial.
This is absurd. Not one thing in this laundry list even comes close to denying due process to a defendant in a criminal trial. Chuck, you are a contemptible fool.
“2) Another $500 million fine, which he will likely be unable to post so they can seize all his assets, and make him declare bankruptcy?”
How do they go about that? This is a criminal trial. The previous one was civil, and the bond was based on the (absurdly calculated) damages. The value at stake here is peanuts, in comparison to Trump’s wealth, or that $500 million fine. We would be talking more than 1,000x the amount of alleged fraud. I doubt that the judge could justify a $1 million fine or bond. He’s a flight risk? In the middle of a Presidential election? With 24/7 Secret Service protection?
"I don't like how the Board is conflating the prosecution and the court and the rule of law."
I don't like how the Board is continuing to spew CO2. Put a plastic bag over them. Just until they stop.
Darkisland said...
"I used to do a lot of business with General Electric plants here. Their standard payment terms were what is called "2 ten/net 30" If they pay within 10 days of invoice date they deduct 2% from the total or they pay 100% within 30 days."
This is what we would do for our jobbing customers. either one part or 10,000. On those jobs where we had to build a custom machine it was always 50% up front and the balance on proof of performance. We'd generally run a couple of thousand of the customers parts. We'd help them load. And yes. We got stiffed a couple of times.
>>Explain? John Henry
Net worth vs cash on hand, and then stir in a completely corrupt prosecution. Recall that when Trump posted the $175 million appeal bond, the prosecution started adding on additional conditions, such as insisting it had to come from an in-state company, and then the bond company had to agree to an investigation of it's ability to pay, etc.
Add in another $200 million fine, and getting another bond to appeal gets harder. And the criminal conviction bootstraps the civil case by Stormy following the E. Jean Carrol model, and another $500 judgement, ad infinitum.
The goal here is simple: make compliance impossible so they can seize his assets, which will then be sold for pennies. Without a bond, he can't appeal.
All of this is done as battlespace prep. Thinking about running against a Democrat? We will destroy you, so don't take the chance.
I would not be surprised at all if Joe Biden wins reelection, and a few years from now Trump is broke and in jail.
I'm not saying it's the most likely outcome, but, tragically, it may come to pass.
"Trump had a history of stiffing his construction contractors."
**********
A couple months back I asked on this blog whether evidence existed for this oft-repeated claim.
As Darkisland says, you might find one or two instances, but nothing to support a claim that Trump did this routinely.
No even on Google, which definitely would report court cases where "stiffor" Trump was forced to pay up his "stiffees".
One would think the journos who make this claim would get their hands on Trump's D & B reports to confirm his reputation as a "bad payer". It's very telling that none has found the "smoking guns".
A "thank you" to all who brought this issue up. Best to file it under "Anti-Trump Disinformation".
"A finish woodwork contractor for one of the casinos who claimed not to have been paid something like $60m on a job the casino claimed was not to spec. "
Reader note: When John Henry says $60m, he means $60,000 not $60,000,000.
I don't like Trump. I don't like his style, I don't like his performance. Yes, I think he did a comparatively good job as President (compared to Obama and Biden), but not great: I think we all agree that he blew the Covid-scare.
So please give me a cogent reason why I should vote for him (other then that Biden is "beyond-his-sell-date", which I already know).
"So please give me a cogent reason why I should vote for him (other then that Biden is "beyond-his-sell-date", which I already know)."
Why do you need another reason?
There can be only one.
@The Godfather
Here are several:
1. Energy. It's what makes our luxurious lifestyle possible. Cheap and secure is the best kind. Trump is a proven advocate of it and has a track record of supplying it.
2. Foreign policy.
2a. Iran. The cat may already be too far out of the bag on this because of the JCPOA and Biden's giveaways, but Trump at least recognizes the danger of Iran getting a nuke. You think the Mideast is a dangerous place now just wait until they declare they have nukes. Total destabilization of the region let alone terrorism possibilities.
2b. China. I see Biden talking about putting tariffs on their steel, but that looks like a election ploy after 3 years of doing nothing. Trump ran on and was instituting measures across the board to reign in China. IP, trade, jobs, influence in our government and educational system. The list is pretty long and can be summarized best by America first.
2c. NK, NATO, etc. The list gets pretty long here also, but Trump was trying to update policies 70 years old that were long past their working date.
3. Immigration. Probably doesn't need explanation compared to what's going on right now, but this massive influx is going to cause problems for a generation or more. Short of massive deportations we're faced. Trump represents our best chance to at least mitigate some of the damage.
The list is pretty long beyond what I've written but since its just a blog comment that's what I got for you.
Note that I don't care that much for Trump the man either, but I always vote in my self interest. You should too.
>>So please give me a cogent reason why I should vote for him (other then that Biden is "beyond-his-sell-date", which I already know
If Trump doesn't win, your vote won't ever matter again.
The merger of the Democratic Party with the federal government will be complete.
They will nationalize the Pennsylvania model: Dr. Oz won the most counties in PA, and won many counties by 5% or more.
He lost EVERY SINGLE county's mail in vote. The mail in vote went 80/20 to Fetterman.
80% for Fetterman... Add in 10% more and you get Saddam Hussein election results.
You will be living in a world where you will be given the choice of which Democrat to vote for.
Trump is our best chance, and not a terribly good one, of returning at least some integrity to our elections.
The Godfather: "So please give me a cogent reason why I should vote for him (other then that Biden is "beyond-his-sell-date", which I already know)."
You have years of data and results to compare.
If you cant fugure it out by now then just vote for Biden, or 3rd party, or not at all.
Who cares.
While we're on the subject of lies about Trump my pet peeve is the one about Kushner getting a nefarious 2 billion from the Saudis. If you bring this up as an anti-Trump talking point you are (and let me be completely succinct here) a f###ing idiot and don't have a clue what you are talking about.
@Chuck
Quote...I got there via Mickey Kaus, who tweeted, "@NYTopinion gives zero (0) examples of Trump denying due process to others during his term..."
I'll take a shot at that, just quickly off the top of my head. If I were preparing a column for publication, I could probably triple the number of examples with some additional research.
~ Trump's personal/political attacks on judges who ruled against him or who otherwise displeasd him. "The Mexican Judge," "Obama judges." (We can certainly have the discussion about progressive complaints against U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaczmarek in Amarillo, but these comments pages have gotten to be really awkward for back-and-forth, so I'll pass.)
~ Trump's wild obstruction of justice with the Florida documents case.
~ Trump's shocking record of dozens of personally and politically corrupt pardons.
~ Trump's courtroom and deposition behavior, including but not limited to the E. Jean Carroll cases.
~ Trump's record of business lawlessness that is actually on display, today, in the course of the Sandoval hearing in his Manhattan criminal trial.
End Quote.
I'm not going to defend any those actions, but
1) Most of those are not even during his term in office.
2) Insulting judges is very different from using presidential powers to punish them.
3) None of them are about him denying due process to others.
Hassayamper said...
...
...This is absurd. Not one thing in this laundry list even comes close to denying due process to a defendant in a criminal trial. Chuck, you are a contemptible fool.
You're right. I made a terrible mistake. I was talking about Trump's general lawlessness when in fact the narrow topic was "Trump's personal responsibility for depriving due process rights in individual criminal cases."
I have had this same problem before. I was thinking that Trump's liability in the E. Jean Carroll cases had been a pretty big deal. But no; it was only civil sexual assault. Okay; and defamation. And there was the fraud case too. But it was not criminal rape, right?
"I think we all agree that he blew the Covid-scare."
You speak for yourself, not me.
"I think he did a comparatively good job as President (compared to Obama and Biden), but not great: I think we all agree that he blew the Covid-scare.
So please give me a cogent reason why I should vote for him"
--
Depending on interpretation of your wobbly syntax, you likely gave to yourself.
Chuck! placing importance on Mouse House freakazoid Carroll's plagiariazion of her fave tv show and gossip column mentality in a force fed/statute of limitations expanded civil suit sans evidence is classic Chuck! sphincter clenching.
But then..
Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."
3/4/16, 4:46 PM
Post a Comment