It is not selective prosecution to go charge someone for a crime for which you have evidence, even if you don’t charge them for the other, more difficult-to-prove crimes. It is realism. It’s also justified and just....
Because Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue that he didn’t falsify the records or that it shouldn’t be a crime, they’re actually arguing that he should get a pass on crimes they view as minor because he’s a political figure....
Trump wasn't convicted of the crime of falsifying records. That wasn't a felony, and it was barred by the statute of limitations.
Graham never names the felony Trump was convicted of. I won't either. It's too hard to remember. I'd have to look it up, cut and paste text, and puzzle for 5 minutes over the 3 layers of statutory law that got piled together for Trump. Graham purports to say what Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue, but Graham spares his readers the task of facing up to the question whether the long-ago misdemeanor of falsifying records should be transformed into a felony in the way that was done against Trump.
Beyond that, it's simply amazing to read that political prosecution is "justified and just." Is that the America readers of The Atlantic want? Can they set aside their delight at Trump's conviction for a moment and picture their favorite politicians chosen for political prosecution?
Posts
156 comments:
You are much too analytical for the libtard train of thought. Think ASalem witchcraft trials.
A spurious A.
Or think of the emotions at the trial of Jesus. The crowd only wanted one thing. Crucify him.
These people do not even remotely resemble Americans.
They know that they would never be subjected to losing in a political prosecution like Trumps. Even if there was a jury made up of 12 Republicans, 2 or 3 of them would "wimp out" and recognize that the accused has rights and the prosecution was in the wrong.
First of all, I am perfectly willing to argue that Trump didn't falsify any records. And the answer to the question, does it matter if the prosecution is political, is yes. These people don't understand what they are playing with.
Power Line has published the full X thread of the former head of the FEC who was not permitted to testify. Not even a close question. No campaign law violation.
You've seen the meme of Trump with the caption, They're not coming after me, they're coming after you. I'm just in the way
So yeah, it does matter if it's political. Half of America sees it as an attack on them.
If we know in our hearts that someone is guilty, we can dispense with due process. It just gets in the way, and obstructs our goal of justice.
The Atlantic is not sending us their best.
The insatiable ravenous hunger for power consumes everything in its way. It consumes logic,ethics,decency,and whoever blocks their access to total unquestioned domination.
It has never been more obvious.
The answer for too many people depends on whether the accused is Trump.
The Salem trials, and even the Freisler courts in Germany, were far more rigorous and careful than the current stupidity. They mostly targeted widely despised minorities or individuals using laws that weren't outside the statute of limitations.
Not only is the regime going after an incredibly wealthy and powerful opposition candidate, they're doing so with a case that violates at least a half-dozen points of basic and recent American law. For instance, the case is much weaker than the one John Edwards was acquitted for, and Edwards didn't have confessed perjurers admit stealing from his campaign!
Would they cut down every law in the country to get Trump? They have- yet they failed to actually get anyone new to buy into it.
“If the accused is guilty, does it matter that the prosecution was political?
Let’s call this the Trump Rule and use it to go after Biden and his family. I’m sure at least one of them did something illegal in a Red state.
“If the accused is guilty, does it matter…?” —> “If we contrive an intellectually and jurisprudentially corrupt process to torture our political target and succeed in labeling him ‘guilty,’ doesn’t it become self-justified; in which case Shut Up?”
Don't you think that the cost of an NDA and the attendant lawyers' fees could reasonably be comprehended in the term "legal expenses"? If not, prosecute the bookkeeper.
Because Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue that he didn’t falsify the records or that it shouldn’t be a crime, they’re actually arguing that he should get a pass on crimes they view as minor because he’s a political figure....
There so much about this paragraph that's untrue.
1. Indeed plenty of Trump defenders - myself included - are very willing to argue that Trump didn't falsify any records, nor ask then to be falsified - if they were in fact falsified.
2. More fundamentally, why wouldn't payments to your retained lawyer be called legal fees? In other words, we're also very willing to argue that the way those records were recorded wasn't a crime.
3. And we're arguing that if you're not going to apply this same standard to every single person doing business in New York, that it shouldn't be applied to Trump.
4. Furthermore, though I'm inferring this from the quoted portion, we're very willing to argue that if you were to apply this same standard to every other person but that no one but Trump should face prison time if found guilty, you have no claim to "justice."
The real outrage is the selective prosecution and he must know that. So if at every opportunity people don't rush to defend Trump on all the points he wants him to stand undefended on, it's not because they're not defensible points - it's that they're not THE POINT.
Isn’t that what a lynch mob would say?
The Atlantic long ago confused and then abandoned the intelligent for the intellectual-ish.
The end always justifies the means in the quest for dominance. It’s even worth dispensing with the Golden Rule, cuz once you’re dominant, you’re safe.
Seems like these judicial flamethrowers are scared to death of Trump because they know they are guilty of breaking our institutions and he’ll bring retribution for that. Trump is an existential threat to them, so they don’t care about the impact of their actions on our constitution, norms and values. It’s completely crazed. No one on the left dare step out and say “enough” for fear of the flames being turned on them.
How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal, particularly one who does not disown the opposers of justice who are calling for penalties for the jurors. Or does the US no longer believe in law and order?
The American people voted, and Trump attempted to overturn the election. A jury renders a guilty verdict on all counts, and Trump calls the trial rigged and a disgrace. This by a man who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
It's the first week of June. Let MAGA world be the childish crazies foaming at the mouth and shouting insults about this.
Let the idea fester for a while, that Trump is a felon, While the very thought of him going to prison (he won't-IMO) and memory of the humiliation Trump has just experienced drives him crazy. We need more crazy from him. Crazy like the rambling grievance incohence we saw during his presser the morning after he was convicted. More of that please.
Bless you for trying, Althouse. I wish the other people who thought of themselves as Liberal would reject or at least push back on the hard Leftists running the Democrat party and our Executive Branch now. We wouldn’t have a kangaroo prosecution like this if Classical Liberals had the leadership positions. The far Left has no respect for the rule of law or norms or compromise.
Remember when?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent
suffer," said English jurist William Blackstone.
Were the "moralists" bullshitting us 'then' or 'still'?
Our beloved “law and order” dictates that a crime is investigated and the perpetrators are brought to trial or other remedies. In this case, a person was targeted for trial with a contorted made-up crime. So what’s happened here is not our “law and order”. We want that back if that’s even possible.
Trump drove 36 in a 35 mph zone. Maybe.
No man is above the law!
Dems have a history here. They've done Trump worse that they did MLK.
From Clinton thru Biden, irredeemable shite.
It is not selective prosecution to go charge someone for a crime for which you have evidence, even if you don’t charge them for the other, more difficult-to-prove crimes.
Indeed.
Selective Prosecution is when you opt not to charge your star witness of the crime of falsifying records when they admit on the stand of doing so to embezzle $60,000 from the person you claim is guilty. That is selective prosecution and the witness got a get of jail free card so long as he testified against his victim. You can pretend otherwise, but you are begging us to believe you because you and the prosecution failed to make a convincing argument when it counted. You had your chance.
now do non-prosecuting shoplifting and theft and such?
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the non-prosecution is political?"
Not one local or state prosecutor anywhere in the United States has ever charged a defendant with violating a Federal campaign finance law. Not one, according to New York magazine. Any guesses as to why that would be?
Thank you, Rich, for showcasing the circular "reasoning" to which we can all look forward for the next months or years:
How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal
...on a thread about whether it matters that a person is convicted thanks to a political process.
It was also Rich, wasn't it (as well as the other usual suspects), who began floating this same circular "reasoning" as soon as Trump began to be mass-indicted: "How can anyone support someone who has been indicted eight/twenty/seven thousand times?!"
Dude, you can do better, surely.
These guys could rationalize Hitler.
Wait. They've already done that with Hamas.
No, Rich cannot do better.
Does it make the non-prosecution of Hilary political? Or Biden?
Dude, you can do better, surely.
Assuming facts not in evidence, but that's also how Rich rolls, so it's consistent.
Trolls are really bad at it
Byron York and Kaus have helped me understand the Stormy verdict. Many Dems cannot forgive or forget the 2016 election, which was cleaner than 2020. Why didn't Hillary win in 2008, with clever Billy campaigning all-out beside her? Probably only a black, clean and articulate, could have beaten her. By this time, white women have done so well, there is less guilt to assuage over them than over blacks. Obama, of course, was barely African-American.
So 2016 was supposed to be all Hillary. The Met Gala crowd had their ball gowns all picked out. Blacks were promising not to be ghetto, so whites had to promise not to be hick. I'm not sure why Hillary didn't run in 2020. She was old, but so was Biden. Did booze have something to do with it? Did Biden convince Soros or people who counted that it was his turn? I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but God knows she was always likely to be better than Biden.
Have there been some missed opportunities foe the country to heal? Impeaching Billy over Monica was a terrible mistake, and bad for the country.
For those interested, the felonies were attempts to commit additional crimes, along with the underlying bookkeeping misdemeanors. So speeding or Jay walking are probably out. We don’t know what crime the jurors thought that Trump was attempting, and, indeed, they could be different for each juror. That they could disagree as to what crimes were being attempted was explicitly in the jury instructions. Moreover, impossibility is not a defense to an Attempt charge under NY law. So, the fact that Trump couldn’t have violated the NY election law (legal impossibility) is irrelevant.
Which comes back to Trump being convicted for attempting to do something that might have been a crime if the stars had lined up correctly.
No the same people would be in charge see mayorkas sullivan blinken russian nesting doll
How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal
Because the American justice system is perfect and questioning the outcome of any trial is outrageous and incomprehensible? No one has ever been unjustly punished in this country? No innocent man has been convicted here? No citizen has ever been railroaded by police and prosecutors in America? Is that your position?
If it isn't, and I'd guess it isn't, because you're probably a reasonable man in most respects, then you are simply refusing to acknowledge or address the many serious problems with this whole process, problems that are very concerning to numerous prominent legal experts like Ann Althouse and Alan Dershowitz. Do believe they are politically motivated? Are they Trump true believers rendered incapable of objective analysis by their political passions? Perhaps you should stop and think that you are being carried away by your own political passions.
Comey who represented hsbc mueller who took a bribe from banamex and apparently covered up a saudi tie to the hijacker pat fitzgerald who protected michigan state from criminal liability and so on
“Not one local or state prosecutor anywhere in the United States has ever charged a defendant with violating a Federal campaign finance law. Not one, according to New York magazine. Any guesses as to why that would be?”
Doesn’t matter. As noted above, legal impossibility is not a defense to Attempt in NY.
If you close the door on due process, the Devil is certain to walk through it.
Rich wrote: How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal"
Easy. It helps if family members were prosecuted and imprisoned for the crimes of being German living in the US c. 1917. Or charged and imprisoned for being a Communist in 1953. Societal fears. And it helps to remember the case of Sen Ted Stevens. Convicted on Oct 27, 2008, and lost the election a week later. 6 months later a judge threw out the conviction and called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he has seen. The government lied. (Biden was a ranking Senator at the time.) But, as Harry Reid might say; "He lost, didn't he"
There are procedures to follow to run the course. 12 votes should not decide an election.
the fact that Trump couldn’t have violated the NY election law (legal impossibility) is irrelevant.
Could you expand on that?
"Dude, you can do better, surely."
Assuming facts not in evidence, but that's also how Rich rolls, so it's consistent.
Hope springs eternal! I want our lefties to do their best work here. If they just figuratively prosecute the other side for out-of-statute-of-limitations misdemeanor offenses in outrageously unbalanced venues, achieve a guilty verdict by means of withholding exculpatory testimony, allowing irrelevant but salacious testimony, forbidding our defense from discussing whole subjects, and instructing the jury to find us guilty of whatever they please as long as the word "guilty" comes out of twelve mouths... well, how can we know they even believe their own arguments, much less that their arguments have the slightest merit?
It is interesting to be admonished for supporting a convicted felon by people who derive the conviction belief on the testimony of convicted felon Michael Cohen.
It's not the guilt or innocence that's political but the charges (or lack there of)
Iman writes, "These people do not even remotely resemble Americans."
I must disagree. Yes, they do. And not even remotely. They resemble the Americans who cheered the prosecution of the Scottsboro Boys.
The Democratic Party was once known as The Democracy, so when they use the phrase "our democracy", one should know that doesn't include Republicans and anyone regardless of alignment who supports or has sympathy for Donald Trump. The Democracy was responsible for the Civil War (the attack on Fort Sumter was a respectful version of the Pussy March) and the subsequent Age of Jim Crow. The only difference between Our Democracy now and The Democracy then is the white bedsheets worn as robes.
According to the prosecution, the underlying crime was that Trump either committed or attempted to commit a campaign law. I think we can throw out the attempted part: It is accepted as a fact that the porn star did accept payment as consideration for signing an NDA.
So the question is: Is paying for an NDA a violation of campaign law? If it is, it's clear that this was done, so what exactly is the difficulty with charging this crime? So why the whole rigmarole about how a business expense was classified? If the expensing is the underlying crime, how can it just stipulate that a campaign violation occurred? Doesn't that need to be proven in a trial?
At this point, does anybody think that there was some classification of the business expense which would not have been considered by the prosecution as illegal?
"facing up to the question whether the long-ago misdemeanor of falsifying records should be transformed into a felony in the way that was done against Trump"
Easy. Trump. So yes, they should be.
"Beyond that, it's simply amazing to read that political prosecution is "justified and just." Is that the America readers of The Atlantic want?"
Yes. And why amazing? They've been at it for years, as we deplorable commenters have been commenting for years.
"Can they set aside their delight at Trump's conviction for a moment and picture their favorite politicians chosen for political prosecution?"
No, and no. They wallow in their delight, and they are rightly confident that it won't happen to anyone on their side. And they are confident that the nice moderate women of America will stand by--like Althouse, at this late date, correctly observing, but still not supporting either man, because--well, reasons.
"It is not selective prosecution to go charge someone for a crime for which you have evidence, even if you don’t charge them for the other, more difficult-to-prove crimes."
That is not what selective prosecution means. Selective prosecution is charging a particular individual for actions for which you do (or would) not charge anyone else, because of animus toward that individual. Like when someone who criticizes the local chief of police starts getting tickets for going three mph over the speed limit, but no one else does. That is clearly what we have here.
Not with a house not with a spouse
Not with a house not with a spouse
The real predicate for this case is the unceasing narrative that Trump's election is the End of Our Democracy. He is guilty of being Hitler. Every unhinged Democrat believes that, even Bill Maher pays lip service to it whenever he skewers Biden or the Left. Bending the law to convict him of a felony doesn't exhaust the measures that are justified in their minds to save our democracy.
You stand accused of a crime.
The judge's instructions to the jury are:
“Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant harmed the victim, you need not be unanimous as to what occurred. In determining whether the defendant harmed the victim, you may consider the following: (1) murder; (2) kidnapping; or (3) assault.”
Is that justice?
Yes, Donald Trump was indeed convicted of "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony, 34 counts."
That is per the Manhattan District Attorney's Office website.
It was a "First Degree, a class E felony," because the business records falsification was done with the intent to advance "a scheme to conceal damaging information from American voters during the 2016 presidential election."
Anyone who would convict any individual of any crime (let alone a made-up crime) based in the testimony of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen is a lesser human being than I am.
I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Especially with the law.
What is the evidence that Bragg's prosecution of Trump was "political"?
More sepcificially -- because this has become an article of faith in TrumpWorld, which claims that Bragg somehow campaigned on a promise to 'get' Trump -- who can link to statements or messaging by Bragg to that effect? (This seems to be a case where low-information Trump supporters mixed up Bragg and Letitia James, who did make some questionable statements about investigating and prosecuting the Trump Organization. To the best of my knowledge, Bragg did not. Prove me wrong if you can.
To those who say...
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the prosecution is political?"
I would ask...
"If OJ really killed his wife, does it matter that he was framed by that racist Mark Furhman?"
According to the prosecution, the underlying crime was that Trump either committed or attempted to commit a campaign law. I think we can throw out the attempted part: It is accepted as a fact that the porn star did accept payment as consideration for signing an NDA.
@dbp, the underlying crime was that Donald Trump was trouncing Joe Biden in the polls.
I should add to my 9:09 comment; the scheme to conceal information from 2016 voters was an "illegal" scheme per New York Election Law 17-152.
Internet:
“Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.
Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).”
Read more at: https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/
Equal protection under the law should included EQUAL ENFORCEMENT.
And prosecutor descension = political persecution.
Trump's prosecution surely is political and the law was so twisted no one could have even foreseen it was 'illegal' what he did.
Devon Eriksen said it best:
"It does not matter whether Trump is guilty or not... In a free society, we investigate crimes to see who can be charged with them.
We do not investigate men to see what they can be charged with.
Without reading the drivel, the other question is- Guilty of what?
No legal mind has yet explained just exactly what Trump was found guilty of. Nor has the judge or the jurors. Our hostess, a legal professor, herself cannot explain it.
Do you remember "LOCK HER UP!!!!"?
Trump ignored her as just another vanquished foe after he was elected and Hillary! is now irrelevant.
Imagine if the Dems had similarly ignored Trump after the 2020 election.
If the Scottsboro Boys were guilty, does it matter that their prosecution was racist?
"Beyond that, it's simply amazing to read that political prosecution is "justified and just." Is that the America readers of The Atlantic want? Can they set aside their delight at Trump's conviction for a moment and picture their favorite politicians chosen for political prosecution? "
The writers at the Atlantic are not hacks, per se. The Atlantic understands its audience, and knows how to cultivate subscriptions. The Progressive Democrats are understanding, maybe a little dimly, that the persecution of Trump required a tremendous organized effort using the machinery of the Biden Administration, and that such efforts are unseemly, unsupported by the law, and maybe even possibly wrong.
But those dim thoughts can be dangerous. The job of the Atlantic is to nudge those stray inklings back into the mind's underbrush before the indiscretions can be articulated cognitively, and to pat their reader's hand and reassure them that they're still the smartest, still superior, that everyone in 'Our Democracy' likes them, and yes, Trump's guilty. They're reasonably good at it; the formula usually works.
"If Trump Is Guilty, Does It Matter If the Prosecution Was Political?"
Too vague. What prosecutable crime?
Wow. An astonishing claim by Graham:
(1) The ends do justify the means,
(2) Trump was guilty going into the trial.
Even more ridiculous, however, was the claim that Trump defenders don't want to argue about the records themselves being fraudulently labeled. We most definitely do want to argue about this and have done so. Graham writes that precisely because it is the anti-Trumpers who don't want to argue about this.
I pointed out that in the trial the prosecution never actually proved the labels for the payments were wrong- their entire argument rested solely with Michael Cohen's claim that Trump, via Weisselberg, induced him to file falsely labeled invoices for reimbursement. The prosecution called as witnesses accountants who are the ones who actually applied the "false" label and they testified that no one told them to do it, not even Weisselberg. So, the only crime charged was, as a matter of law, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt- this should have been a directed verdict of acquittal by the judge based solely on the prosecution's own witnesses. Michael Cohen's testimony was completely uncorroborated- he didn't even have first-hand knowledge of Trump ordering the "false" invoices according to his own testimony. The problem for Cohen is that Trump apparently had stopped taking any calls from him sometime before the election- this is why Cohen tried to claim the one phone call that lasted 90 seconds had Trump on the line, but that call was to the security guy, not Trump. You basically have to be an idiot or a liar to convict Trump on this evidence.
Convicted felons:
Lech Walesa
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Gandhi
"Even if there was a jury made up of 12 Republicans, 2 or 3 of them would "wimp out" and recognize that the accused has rights and the prosecution was in the wrong."
Republicans (some of them, anyway) will vote their conscience, even if it's not the choice others are making. Democrats will ignore their conscience (if they have one) and vote with the team for "the greater good".
It's the difference between conservatives and progressives- conservatives believe the basic unit of society is the individual, while progressives believe it's the group and that individuals don't matter except as they support the group.
Rhetorical question: What good is a conscience if you don't use it when dealing with the hard cases?
“How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal”
Rich:
Ever hear of Nelson Mandela?
No one is above the law. proclaims the morally superior.
Hillary "had no criminal intent"
Biden is too old, frail and forgetful to be convicted.
Devon Eriksen said it best:
"It does not matter whether Trump is guilty or not... In a free society, we investigate crimes to see who can be charged with them.
We do not investigate men to see what they can be charged with."
Exactly- the entire prosecution started from a blatantly un-American and un-constitutional starting point. Even worse, they charged him with a crime that pretty much no one would have even known was a crime to begin with. And to those who claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, I challenge those people to orally recite from memory the New York State criminal code verbatim.
“Trump wasn't convicted of the crime of falsifying records. That wasn't a felony, and it was barred by the statute of limitations.”
That’s a lie. Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts falsifying business records in the first degree, which is a felony and is not barred by the statute of limitations.
I’ll be charitable. If this misstatement is the best way to frame the complaint about the level of intent that had to be proved to make it felony falsifying business records in the first degree with a five-year statute of limitations rather than misdemeanor falsifying business records in the second degree with a two-year statute of limitations, it’s a lame complaint.
There will be another opportunity to complain about politically-motivated prosecutions. Hunter Biden’s gun charges trial is scheduled to start Monday. Similar to the Trump trial, this trial involves allegations Hunter Biden did, and made a false statement regarding, something that would otherwise be legal but was made illegal by other unlawful activity.
Cohen's testimony is essentially this:
"I committed the crime the defendant is charged with, but he told me to do it and, no, I have absolutely no evidence to prove he told me to do this."
This would be the equivalent of a murderer being allowed to testify that someone else ordered him to commit the murder with no corroborating evidence offered and then be allowing to escape any penalties for the crime itself. This trial was a joke.
According to Mr. Graham, Trump's supporters aren't willing to argue "that it shouldn’t be a crime". More evidence that the left lives in a bubble. Almost all of the conservative commentary I've read about the kangaroo court verdict makes exactly that argument. The main arguments I hear (and occasionally make) is that two misdemeanors out of the statute of limitations + an unspecified 'other' crime do not make a felony.
Yes.
The DA campaigned on 'getting Trump' before he had any idea there was a crime.
That is a perverse standard of justice.
They Rube-Goldberged the charges on top of that.
Not your normal criminal procedure, all designed to take down a single person.
Left Bank,
To prove the falsification of the records in the first degree, the prosecution must prove the element that raises the charge from 2nd degree to 1st degree. They didn't meet that burden at all and didn't even try to, and this is obvious with the judge's instructions to the jury that that element need not be agreed to unanimously by the jurors. This case will get overturned on that issue alone.
I will give you a hypothetical that covers this- hate crime enhancements for violent acts. A jury must unanimously agree that the defendant acted with an element of hate in order to find him guilty of a hate crime, and the prosecution must prove this beyond a shadow of the doubt for the jury to reach that unanimous judgment. It isn't enough for the prosecution to just claim it is true and for the jury to believe it- this why we have verdicts not-withstanding the jury decisions.
(1) The ends do justify the means,
@Yancey, I have lived in deep blue areas most of my adult life. I’ve heard that phrase a lot over the years, though never from a person I’d call conservative or from even a liberal, left-center Republican.
Left Bank:
Help me again with that first degree thing. Did Trump violate NY law which is so vaguely constructed as to require default to federal law, or federal law, which the FEC declined to prosecute.
And this is particularly dense, Left Bank:
"Similar to the Trump trial, this trial involves allegations Hunter Biden did, and made a false statement regarding, something that would otherwise be legal but was made illegal by other unlawful activity."
And the government will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden was using illegal drugs when he signed the form for the gun purchase and the jury will have to unanimously agree that he was using drugs when he signed the form claiming he wasn't. Should any juror doubt he was using drugs when he signed the form, then Biden will not be convicted by the jury nor should he be.
In retrospect, Merchan, in trying to rig the trial, has made it far easier to overturn the verdict by not having the jury declare explicitly which of the elements they were using to find him guilty. Merchan did this, however, because he feared the jury might not unanimously agree on that second violation, so he made it possible for them to violate that need for unanimity by not requiring it at all.
No Republican thinks that this trial was fair. Even some Democrats have expressed reservations. DA Bragg in one fell swoop has managed to cause at least half of the populace to call into question our judicial system. This simply is not a crime you charge an ex-President with., It was already a rancorous election, but this supercharges the bitterness and anger. I don't think nice thoughts when I ponder DA Bragg. He's steadfast in his wish to punish Penny as some kind of subway vigilante and to let a thousand shoplifters free for a thousand times for crimes under a thousand dollars. When injustice becomes this patent, bad things follow.
Ann, Here is the most accurate way to describe the crime Trump was convicted of: he signed some checks where the memo portion of the check was not detailed enough.
G-Pub
It is almost like Rich has never heard of the Begging the Question fallacy. If he had, he would not have so foolishly violated it.
You choose:
(1) Rich is an ignorant fool;
(2) Rich is dishonest.
You don't have to unanimously agree with those two choices for them to both be true.
“If the accused is guilty, does it matter that the prosecution was political?"
Vast numbers of crimes occur every day, and almost all of them go unprosecuted. The theory of prosecutorial discretion, as I understand it, is that the prosecutor will choose which crimes to prosecute on the basis of social impact, in the context of limited resources and difficult cases. Which is to say, all prosecutions are political. It is surprising that it has taken this long for that to be generally recognized. I suppose it's 'cuz Soros peeled away the band-aid. And ripped out the stitches, and tore the wound open, and rubbed salt in it.
"I'm not sure why Hillary didn't run in 2020. She was old, but so was Biden."
I think the Obama people had decided that Harris was going to be the nominee and probably encouraged Clinton to stand down for that reason. Additionally, no one knew COVID-19 was coming except for possibly the CDC and the CIA- things looked better for Trump than they did in 2016 and Shelob didn't want to lose to him again- the first time had been too embarrassing.
The corrupt left systematically went after any and all lawyers who were hired by Trump.
Do not forget they are still being hounded, harassed and their lives ruined... by the corrupot Soviet left.
"Hope springs eternal! I want our lefties to do their best work here."
Uh, Jamie, they are doing their best work.
Alvin Bragg brought the prosecution of and Juan Merchan rigged the trial of Donald Trump for campaigning for president. The Stormy Daniels blackmail payment was just the excuse they used. His real crime is he contested the election of the Witch of Chappaqua and beat her.
I suspect that most of the jurors have never even written a physical check in their lives, much less had the opportunity to select an account to code the check to.
"At this point, does anybody think that there was some classification of the business expense which would not have been considered by the prosecution as illegal?"
Exactly the right question. Let's suppose Cohen had filed the invoices that paid Daniels as "Reimbursement for Consideration Paid in a Non-Disclosure Agreement". The accounting department would have almost certainly still labeled it "Legal Fees" in the accounting software. The accountants actually admitted this under cross when they said the labeling was done because the invoices came from Trump's lawyer and the funds were to be paid to Trump's lawyer. It was that Cohen was requesting the payments that led to the labeling on the books.
Had Cohen done all of that, I think it all but certain the case would have been brought anyway and the argument would have been that Cohen concealed to whom the NDA money had been paid and why it had been paid. The goal posts are just shifted no matter what Cohen/Trump did or didn't do.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
It is almost like Rich has never heard of the Begging the Question fallacy. If he had, he would not have so foolishly violated it.
You choose:
(1) Rich is an ignorant fool;
(2) Rich is dishonest.
You don't have to unanimously agree with those two choices for them to both be true.
6/2/24, 11:15 AM
(1) AND (2). Never forget the power of AND.
Yes, it matters when a mote in a prosecutor's eye leads to political prosecution after entire stacks of beams seen by the public are not only unprosecuted but covered with piles of lies about why they don't exist, and we are told we must stop seeing them.
William said...
No Republican thinks that this trial was fair. Even some Democrats have expressed reservations.
CNN (!) had a legal expert telling why it was not a valid case.
DA Bragg in one fell swoop has managed to cause at least half of the populace to call into question our judicial system. This simply is not a crime you charge an ex-President with., It was already a rancorous election, but this supercharges the bitterness and anger. I don't think nice thoughts when I ponder DA Bragg.
It's possible he has saved Trump's life as the Democrats would stop at nothing to keep Trump out of the White House, even assassination.
For the longest time, I actually believed that Trump had had sex with Daniels. However, after Daniel's and Cohen's testimony, I have come to a different conclusion. I think Cohen, Daniels', and Daniels' lawyer who negotiated the NDA were running a scam, though they might not have known they were working together on a fraud. I think Daniels and her lawyer saw the election as an opportunity to shake Trump down for a couple of hundred thousand dollars and Cohen saw it as an opportunity to file some invoices for extra legal fees, as he fully admitted to actually doing on cross-examination.
I know a lot of people say that if Trump didn't have sex with Daniels, then he wouldn't have paid for an NDA. However, if you have already sunk a couple of hundred million dollars of your own money into a campaign you might well pay $150K to an extortionist threatening to lie about you to the NYTimes. The payment itself isn't really strong evidence that the conduct being hidden was true- it is only evidence that the claim of the conduct is damaging. You might even pay just to keep your wife from hearing a lie. I wouldn't pay a dime to an extortionist, but I am me, not Trump.
"The goal posts are just shifted no matter what Cohen/Trump did or didn't do."
The goal posts are "Convict Trump", all the rest is noise.
For the longest time, I actually believed that Trump had had sex with Daniels. However, after Daniel's and Cohen's testimony, I have come to a different conclusion. I think Cohen, Daniels', and Daniels' lawyer who negotiated the NDA were running a scam, though they might not have known they were working together on a fraud. I think Daniels and her lawyer saw the election as an opportunity to shake Trump down for a couple of hundred thousand dollars and Cohen saw it as an opportunity to file some invoices for extra legal fees, as he fully admitted to actually doing on cross-examination.
I know a lot of people say that if Trump didn't have sex with Daniels, then he wouldn't have paid for an NDA. However, if you have already sunk a couple of hundred million dollars of your own money into a campaign you might well pay $150K to an extortionist threatening to lie about you to the NYTimes. The payment itself isn't really strong evidence that the conduct being hidden was true- it is only evidence that the claim of the conduct is damaging. You might even pay just to keep your wife from hearing a lie. I wouldn't pay a dime to an extortionist, but I am me, not Trump.
Yancey Ward; Occam's razor.
The Stormy Daniels blackmail payment was a nuisance payment. Stormy demanded a payment to not tell the world about an alleged one night stand. Nuisance payments are made all the time as it's cheaper and easier to make the payment than to contest it. Making such payments are evidence of nothing.
It is not selective prosecution to go charge someone for a crime for which you have evidence
It IS "selective prosecution" if you charge someone for a crime that no one else has ever been charged for (unless said crime was just put on the books, which isn't the case here)
It IS "selective prosecution" if you prosecute someone for a crime, when other similarly behaving people are NOT prosecuted.
The WHOLE POINT of the "selective prosecution" defense is that it doesn't matter if they can "prove" the crime, what matters is that the prosecution is corrupt
Yancey Ward; Occam's razor.
It might apply to me were I buying an NDA to keep the truth from coming out- I have no great need to buy off an extortionist, however, even if they are telling the exact same story.
However, if the extortionist can cost me to lose a couple of hundred million dollars of sunk cost, I might feel quite different. People settle claims all the time, Readering, when fighting them is more costly, even when they know the claims are completely without merit. Or do you not believe some people plea to crimes they didn't actually commit, for example?
However, let's use Occam's Razor- why do you think Daniels' stories keep changing? Isn't the simplest explanation that she was lying about the tryst? Truth usually doesn't have several different versions from the same mouth.
Because Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue that he didn’t falsify the records or that it shouldn’t be a crime
Bullshit
1: Trump didn't falsify ANY records. If the "legal expenses" entry was wrong, it was still, as was proved by the prosecution's own witnesses, done by other people, without the knowledge of Trump
2: Here's an easy heuristic for figuring out if "not reporting expense X" is a "camping finance violation":
If it would not be appropriate to spend campaign funds on X, then it's not illegal not to report it
I think we can all agree that it would in fact be illegal to use campaign funds to pay off a blackmailer. Therefore, it wasn't wrong for Trump to not report the payoff
So, the only real question left is: Is David A. Graham (and are his supporters here), an ignoramus, or just another liar?
3: The charge is Trump concealed the payments to illegally influence the election
The payment was made on Oct 27, 2016
Campaign expenditures made in the last 20 days of the election are not reported until after the election
So NOTHING about how it was reported could have affected the election
Therefore, to whatever extent Trump DID "falsify records", etc., it was for personal reasons. It therefore was at most a misdemeanor
Which means it was outside teh statute of limitations, and therefore no longer a crime to be prosecuted
Rich said...
How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a convicted criminal, particularly one who does not disown the opposers of justice who are calling for penalties for the jurors. Or does the US no longer believe in law and order?
How can any free society which believes in the rule of law possibly vote for a politicians who support violations of US immigration law, particularly ones who does not disown the NGOs that aid in those violations. Or does the US no longer believe in law and order?
FIFY, Rich
"I know a lot of people say that if Trump didn't have sex with Daniels, then he wouldn't have paid for an NDA."
How many people would be willing to plead "guilty" to a charge they're innocent of if that got them a suspended sentence instead of the 20 years in prison they'd face by going to trial? You could start by asking the J6 defendants.
Mason G.
Exactly.
>>It's possible he has saved Trump's life as the Democrats would stop at nothing to keep Trump out of the White House, even assassination.
How do you jail someone with lifetime Secret Service protection?
At this point, would anyone be surprised if Trump became another Epstein, while again coincidently the cameras covering his cell happen to fail?
Leland said...
It is interesting to be admonished for supporting a convicted felon by people who derive the conviction belief on the testimony of convicted felon Michael Cohen.
Wow, Leland, I'm kind of embarrassed that I hadn't thought of that. But thank you, I will be using it in the future
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“Trump wasn't convicted of the crime of falsifying records. That wasn't a felony, and it was barred by the statute of limitations.”
That’s a lie. Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts falsifying business records in the first degree, which is a felony and is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Bzzt, wrong.
The "falsifying records" that Trump supposedly did WRT Cohen's payment was a misdemeanor charge. It was barred by the statute of limitations
The prosecutors created a Frankenstein charge by bolting that misdemeanor to another misdemeanor. Except in this case that second misdemeanor was dependent upon jurors finding that Trump committed one of three "crimes", one of which, a Federal capamign violation, a Sate court can't try.
Since teh judge explicitly told teh jury they did not need to pick any of the three charges to all agree on, and the jury never reported which charge it was, the first honest court this gets to will throw out the second charge.
Which just leaves teh first charge, a misdemeanor barred by the statute of limitations.
Just a reminder. This was the first charge against Trump (the other 31 are almost identical).
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
So, the elements of the felony appear to be:
- a (misdemeanor) bookkeeping crime of sorts
- intent to somehow defraud someone or something unknown
- intent to commit another (unspecified) crime
- aided and concealed the intent to commit the other (unspecified) crime.
Knowing what we know now, that the prosecution was never held to specifying what the other crime might have been. They just suggested some sort of election law or bookkeeping crime.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
There will be another opportunity to complain about politically-motivated prosecutions. Hunter Biden’s gun charges trial is scheduled to start Monday. Similar to the Trump trial, this trial involves allegations Hunter Biden did, and made a false statement regarding, something that would otherwise be legal but was made illegal by other unlawful activity.
So, let's just see if I've got this straight:
Left Bank of the Charles is opposed to prosecuting criminals who buy guns illegally.
Thank you for clearing that up, Leftie. It's good to know you're opposed to every single "gun control" law on the books.
Because that's the position you have to take to call this a "politically-motivated prosecution"
The problem with having a political prosecution is that some political people, like David A. Graham, will automatically assume that the defendant is guilty before the trial even starts.
He's just published an article in The Atlantic proclaiming Trump's guilt and he doesn't even really know what Trump was convicted of.
I wouldn't hold your breath for a follow up article in The Atlantic titled, If Trump Is Innocent, Does It Matter If The Prosecution Was Political?
Yancey Ward said...
In retrospect, Merchan, in trying to rig the trial, has made it far easier to overturn the verdict by not having the jury declare explicitly which of the elements they were using to find him guilty. Merchan did this, however, because he feared the jury might not unanimously agree on that second violation, so he made it possible for them to violate that need for unanimity by not requiring it at all.
The Weinstein conviction was just tossed a couple of weeks ago because teh judge let the prosecution bring in women to testify about actions that weren't being charged.
You know, just like Marchan let the prosecution bring in Stormy to talk about the "Trump rape" that wasn't being charged.
Knowing that he'd already established clear grounds for the prosecution to be tossed on appeal, he had no incentive not to double down, and give appeals courts even more reasons to toss the case.
Yancey Ward said...
“You choose:
(1) Rich is an ignorant fool;
(2) Rich is dishonest.
You don't have to unanimously agree with those two choices for them to both be true.”
Well, I don’t think the judge’s instructions to the jury are necessary. I think the jury would still unanimously vote to convict on both charges.
“The prosecutors created a Frankenstein charge by bolting that misdemeanor to another misdemeanor. Except in this case that second misdemeanor was dependent upon jurors finding that Trump committed one of three "crimes", one of which, a Federal [campaign] violation, a Sate court can't try.”
And the NY state election law cited is preempted by the federal law, since it was a national election. But keep in mind that legal impossibility is not a defense under NY law to an inchoate Attempt crime.
One last hypothetical and then I am done. I will use the Hunter Biden prosecution as the basis.
On the federal firearms form there are several questions the buyer is required to answer truthfully in addition to being asked whether or not they are using drugs. Not all of the questions are clear cut lies or truth depending on what the buyer answers and the state can determine- for example, you are asked whether or not you intend to sell or give the gun to someone else who plans to commit a criminal act.
Suppose the DoJ had decided to charge Biden for lying on the form and chose three instances where Biden had lied instead of just the single one with which he is actually charged- three counts of lying instead of one. The DoJ would be obligated to work to prove each one of those instances and the jury would have to unanimously agree on at least one of them to convict on at least one of the counts, but any count where they felt the government failed to prove the lie, those counts would be hung or acquitted. What wouldn't be proper is for the 4 of the jurors to agree on count 1, 4 of the jurors to agree on count 2, and 4 of the jurors to agree on count 3 and the judge to accept that as a guilty verdict on any of the three counts. I can't make it simpler than this. You either understand the need to prove that second crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, or you don't, or you are liar who doesn't really care that the trial was improper.
The reason why this prosecution was done was to paint Trump with the felon label. That label is supposed to be used to shame Trump supporters away from voting for him. The left is effectively trying to separate us from our true wish: to elect Trump in November. They can’t win on their ideas regarding the most pressing issues, so they threw a hand grenade into the democratic process. They are pathetic losers.
“It's possible he has saved Trump's life as the Democrats would stop at nothing to keep Trump out of the White House, even assassination.”
That is predicated on Trump continuing to have Secret Service protection. ‘They Want Trump Dead’ — Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson Pushes ‘DISGRACED Act’ to Strip Trump of Secret Service Protection if He Goes to Prison
The New York Times profiled him and his main opponent in the race, telling us that they were competing to prove how much more effective they would be in getting Trump.
"Getting Trump"--not prosecuting known crimes, but "getting Trump".
There are very few discussions regarding the fact that the leftist prosecutors and the media all discussed how they wanted to "get Trump". It was a part of election campaigns of prosecutors in several states. On MSNBC & CNN panel members would discuss what possible charges could be brought against Trump. If only they could find something on which to charge his. And they admit the NY prosecutors looked and looked through state statues but at first couldn't fine an applicable law. Finally, after Bragg was elected and pressure was applied, he finally found one they could twist into felony charges.
That's not how justice in our nation is supposed to be done. First, you have a crime and then you find the person responsible. In the NY case, they had they guy they wanted to prosecute, THEN they looked for a law that would support them doing so. And even democrat-supporting attorneys admit the charges were weak. But, they knew they had the NY jurisdiction, so hung their hat on the great chance that any NY jury would convict Trump no matter how weak the charges, and no matter how questionable. And, it worked.
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the prosecution is political?"
Democrats gave an emphatic answer to that question, starting about 160 years ago.
If Negro Republicans are our political opponents, and the accused is guilty, then move straight on through to the lynchings!
Because Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue that he didn’t falsify the records or that it shouldn’t be a crime...
Actually, Trump defenders are arguing both of those. Try to keep up.
If you would never prosecute anyone else for the crime, but you are in this case because of politics, you are utterly corrupt.
If you are inventing new legal theories just so you can prosecute someone because of politics, you are utterly corrupt.
If you think is is okay for a candidate for President of the United States should be prosecuted by a D.A. who ran specifically to put him in jail, and an assistant D.A. who obviously was sent by the current administration such that he took a major demotion just to take the case, all presided over by an obviously biased judge who literally donated money to the defendant's opponent in violation of ethics rules and whose daughter is making bank off the case, then you are utterly corrupt.
If you think it is okay for any defendant to be convicted of a crime for which the defendant still does not know what the charge is but is not allowed to actually present a defense against whatever it is, then the corruption is complete.
I am trying to figure out if these sort of people are incredibly stupid, live in bubbles that never allow their ideas to be challenged, are intentionally gaslighting, have serious mental issues, are paid off, or are just evil. If you want to know why AI is going to take their jobs, it is because the real people are making just about as much sense and at least the AI bungling can be entertaining.
Assuming NDAs are crimes this moron has a point. But that is THE hoax as is everything else that pro- Biden MSM mass liars spin.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle:
I hate Trump
I hate felons
Ergo
Trump is a felon.
Q.E.D.
To borrow from Golda Meir, if the Ds and others suffering from TDS loved their country more than they hate Trump, what a great and more unified country this could be. Unfortunately ...
Yancey Ward; Occam's razor.
The most parsimonious explanation for a trial in which the defense was stymied at every turn from:
* knowing what specific crime the defendant is charged with
* presenting evidence that militates against the charges
* objecting successfully to testimony that has no relevance to the matter in question from a witness who cannot possibly have knowledge of the matter in question
* responding to the prosecution's last -minute revelation of the laws that might possibly have been broken so that they could address their closing statement to those possibilities
... is that this prosecution and this trial proceeding were not motivated by a desire to see justice done...
... unless you define "justice" as "convicting someone we're just sure must have done something illegal, but any candidate crime we've found so far hasn't quite panned out with regard to actual evidence, so we'll take something that certainly happened, impute criminal intent to it, and figure out a way to turn it into a felony charge that can't be answered."
Dude, you can do better, surely.
No. He can't. Which is why he's joined the ranks of Chuck as a poster I scroll past without even bothering anymore.
Ok, one more way to think about this trial:
Let's suppose the prosecution had pointed to only one secondary crime instead of three- let's say the federal campaign finance violation (not criminally charged).
Would it be proper for the jury to not be unanimous on that, but still find him guilty of the class one records violation? I am assuming that even Rich and Left Bank would agree that the jury would have to acquit or hang in this hypothetical, right? I mean, even under this Rube Goldberg prosecution, the judge claimed it was enough to for the jury to unanimously believe Trump committed some kind of crime enabled by the false record, even if they didn't agree on which one. But if you do think my hypothetical means acquittal, then what prevents a prosecution from simply pointing to book containing the New York State code and claiming the jury can pick any secondary crime in it as a reason to find Trump guilty? The prosecution picked three- given the conduct of trial, they could have picked a 1000 for the jury to choose from thus making it even more probable of getting a conviction.
You must prove the elements of the crime individually and the jury must agree unanimously on those elements- what you cannot do is design your unanimity from agreement from overlapping sets of elements. Any honest judge with an IQ above 100 is going to understand the fraud the prosecution and the judge performed here and overturn this verdict.
Or does the US no longer believe in law and order?
Well you clearly don't believe in it because you supported this case.
And now tens of millions of Right-Wingers don't believe it either.
Where does that leave us?
Well, it leaves the likes of you in a very dangerous place. I suggest you start supporting the 2nd Amendment because you're going to need it to survive this.
Innocence Project
So the talking points are out. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies! Don't let Trump apologists fool you! They were felonies, not misdemeanors as if 34 misdemeanors were okay!
Except as the testimony proved all 24 counts were standard bookkeeping entries as legal expenses because they were submitted by a lawyer. No explanation was offered as to what they should have been...
Think of how this could be used in other crimes. 34 counts for covering up one affair. Let's say a crook gets caught on video attempting to shoot someone, and empties his 10 count magazine without success. Not one count of attempted murder- but 10! Or with a knife- each swing or lunge as a separate count.
Could do a lot with accounting like that.
The talking points out there seem to missing something. Facts. The biggest fact of all being- there was no crime. Period. 34 counts of guilty without a crime. Much less 34 separate crimes. Even the MSM reported enough to leave T.C. It's catching his head wondering what just happened. And those reading real news know what happened- a Stalinist show trial.
"I am assuming that even Rich and Left Bank would agree..."
As long as they get their precious conviction, they'll agree to anything. Doesn't matter why. Lies are just fine, whatever it takes.
Now, let's investigate Joe Biden for eight years, okay? I'm sure he's got to be guilty of *something*. And we won't even make up shit, we'll just go with actual evidence. Leftards: "Errr... ahhh... ummm..."
Talking about "selective prosecution" -- When Trump took office in 2017, it was well known that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, had illegally used her personal email to conduct Government business, and it was reasonably suspected that she had done so to cover up her use of her Govt position to solicit funds for "The Clinton Foundation". Trump didn't prosecute her, did he?
While President, Trump learned that Joe Biden, while in the Biden Administration, had used his position to derail Ukrainian investigation of his son Hunter's connections with corrupt Ukrainian businesses. Biden PUBLICLY boasted and POSTED about what he'd done, but when Trump, as President, tried to follow up, Biden's allies in the Congress impeached him.
“More sepcificially -- because this has become an article of faith in TrumpWorld, which claims that Bragg somehow campaigned on a promise to 'get' Trump -- who can link to statements or messaging by Bragg to that effect? (This seems to be a case where low-information Trump supporters mixed up Bragg and Letitia James, who did make some questionable statements about investigating and prosecuting the Trump Organization. To the best of my knowledge, Bragg did not. Prove me wrong if you can.“
Look up an NYT article from April2024: How a ‘Nerdy’ Prosecutor Became the First to Try Trump. Hardly “low-information” “TrumpWorld.” But then, “to the best of [your] knowledge,” as usual, isn’t exactly a high bar, is it?
Rich said...
The American people voted, and Trump attempted to overturn the election. A jury renders a guilty verdict on all counts, and Trump calls the trial rigged and a disgrace. This by a man who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
No intelligent person thinks Biden has 81 million voters. Biden did not get more voters than Barrack Obama. It did not happen.
It was a 75-60 million election and they mailed in 20 million ballots. They have already admitted they counted thousands of illegal ballots in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Joe Biden is an illegitimate president and he is acting like it.
He had to turn a misdemeanor that nobody else would prosecute and passed the statue of limitations and turn it into a felon so pieces of shit like you could post this.
Please put a Biden sticker on your car and a Biden sign in your yard so we know who you are.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
There will be another opportunity to complain about politically-motivated prosecutions. Hunter Biden’s gun charges trial is scheduled to start Monday. Similar to the Trump trial, this trial involves allegations Hunter Biden did, and made a false statement regarding, something that would otherwise be legal but was made illegal by other unlawful activity.
Hunter Biden lied on his gun registration purchase form.
He said he was not using drugs when he was obviously doing so.
That actually is a felony and a lot of people are in jail for it.
Readering said...
Yancey Ward; Occam's razor.
The porn star who has had sex on camera hundreds of times watch by thousands of people told many different stories about this encounter now testified she "blacked out" because the sex was so scary.
Occam's Razor: she is lying.
Now, Meade, the NYTimes is a right-wing ragsheet according to Chuck- or is that Cook? Let's go with both.
Mason G said...
"I am assuming that even Rich and Left Bank would agree..."
"As long as they get their precious conviction, they'll agree to anything. Doesn't matter why. Lies are just fine, whatever it takes."
For this lynching Trump is their negro of choice.
Yancey Ward said...
Let's go with both.
Chuck the Cunt Cook
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the prosecution is political?"
If the prosecution is political, how do we know that the accused is indeed guilty?
That makes more sense.
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the prosecution is political?"
Isn't it the purpose of a trial to determine guilt? Or are we past that now?
Rusty at 7:31pm, bravo - a more succinct and powerful statement of THE POINT may be impossible to make.
Agreed with Rusty's formulation. Almost reasonable doubt on its face.
What Rusty said.
It's very 'Beria' when you've got to construct the trial and it's legal underpinnings to come to a predetermined result.
But as a precedent - how many times will we see this referred to in order to gain political advantage or to punish someone who has run afoul of the DC regime?
This has been eye-opening. And not in a good way.
"Is that the America readers of The Atlantic want?"
No-one pays to read this dross. The whole magazine is an activist-funded loss leader to justify talking heads parroting the article on cable news channels.
I thought in 2016, when Hillary Clinton was cleared by James Comey (no reasonable prosecutor, etc), that prosecuting her, even though, on the facts available, she was clearly guilty, would have interfered in the election.
If that was the right decision then, how are the prosecutions of Trump, on clearly political charges, not wrong?
When Alvin Bragg, Letitia James and Fani Willis ran on "Get Trump" tickets, and Jack Smith (and Bratt, his no.2) are clear political attack dogs, and even the NYT says the prosecution in this was was based on a "novel theory" it is clear that the State is persecuting the leading member of the opposition (qv Venezuela). Do you have any idea in the States of how this looks in the UK (and, I expect, elsewhere)? And the damage this is doing to the reputation of the States?
Obviously Bragg is no reasonable prosecutor.
Anyone who wonders or questions whether the Alvin Bragg prosecutions were political can find all the answers here, straight from the mouth of a prosecutor who quit in disgust at how slow Bragg was moving to "get Trump," from the book People vs. Donald Trump written by Mark Pomerantz:
chrisbray.substack.com/p/mark-pomerantz-revealed-the-madness
Some on Bragg's team like Colangelo have said this book published in 2023 was their "roadmap." I'm going to save this and post it on every discussion that devolves into whether they were out to "get Trump" or not.
Mason G said...
"If the accused is guilty, does it matter if the prosecution is political?"
Isn't it the purpose of a trial to determine guilt? Or are we past that now?
We are when it's put on in NYC or DC.
In this case the judge was corrupt, the people who assigned him to the case rather than having a random draw were corrupt, the prosecutor was corrupt, the jury was full of corrupt liars, and the jury instructions and trial were so corrupt and full of reversible errors that the first tiem an honest appeals court looks at it the conviction will be tossed.
Any questions?
tolkein said...
I thought in 2016, when Hillary Clinton was cleared by James Comey (no reasonable prosecutor, etc), that prosecuting her, even though, on the facts available, she was clearly guilty, would have interfered in the election.
The cover-up on the case started in 2015. If the FBI had run an honest investigation from the beginning (they refused to because they're Democrat hacks, and President Obama, by sending his own work emails to her from a private email account was equally guilty), Hillary would never have been able to run, and some other Democrat would have been the candidate.
So unless "no undue election interference" means "you can never prosecute a Democrat politician, no matter how criminal", no, DoJ rules against "election interference" did not apply to Hillary's case
See this comment from The Telegraph - old fashioned conservative newspaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/02/united-states-lurching-towards-civil-war/?WT.mc_id=e_DM334910&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Sub&utmsource=email
Post a Comment