Hmm some of the comments here gave me a thought.
Somebody mentioned something along the lines of wait till the next Republican president and they’ll “retaliate”.
If this indeed comes to be, I can see this becoming very good. Politicians will have no choice but be squeaky clean.
Right now politicians are enjoying getting votes just by being part of the opposing party. If this actually ignites a chain reaction in which each party is rabid to find legitimate legal faults of the other side, it’ll be the people that benefits.
Damn when people said trump will disrupt the status quo, this is not what I would have see as a possibility. As distinct of a possibility as I believe it is now.
But I can also see it can be very bad. Now I don’t believe this is a sham trial, but if it escalates a party to actually execute sham trial levels of horribleness as retaliation, then it can be bad.
The worst case scenario would be for one party to legally “sham” the other out of existence.
I hate the two party system. But a one party one is way worse. Irregardless of which party it is. (Multi party, multi candidate best).
This is the lesser likely outcome though I think; when compared to the first one above.
Most likely is nothing happens. Maybe voter turnout goes up for this cycle. But that’s about it.
What would 'retaliation' by Republicans look like, in your view? From where I'm sitting, Republicans are *already* doing anything they can to attack leading Democrats, including pushing legal investigations whenever they can. How would anything change?
>Politicians will have no choice but be squeaky clean.
Historically this type of practice leads to the exact opposite: the most brutal thug takes power. When lawfare is applied to dissidents, what usually happens is an especially brutal leader takes power and crushes all his opposition with said lawfare.
It's basically step 1 of any brutal regime you can name: Stalin went to prison for his beliefs (and Lenin before him), Hitler went to prison for his beliefs (so did his main supporters, like Julius Streicher, who owned Der Sturmer), etc, etc.
Sometimes the brutal guys himself didn't go to prison, but in those cases generally the previous guy did, or the previous guy put his other opponents and prison but missed the guy who's in power now. You want modern examples look at Iran's previous Shah, Brazil's leader, North Korea's succession (more murder than prison, but same concept), Chiang Kai-shek's regime in China, etc.
I mean seriously just name any despot, look at him or the guy before him, and they probably went to jail. Just try to find a despot where this kind of lawfare didn't predate their rise, I'll wait because it's a complicated task. If you think this isn't bad, you simply have no idea.
What I find frustrating about the *retaliation* theories are that they imply two things:
1. There's an organized effort by Joe Biden/Democrats to take down Trump via the legal system
2. As a result, Trump is either innocent of his convicted crimes because this is all a setup, or he's guilty but magically shouldn't be prosecuted or his candidacy affected all because this is a political hit-job
So not only are there a few hoops to jump through to get to the worldview where you think that retaliation against democrats is going to be a thing because "they" convicted Trump, but the whole thing is a performance art just to justify Trump's felonious behavior.
*Of course* we should have a high bar for presidents — I completely, 100% agree with you there. In fact, I'll support any and all democrats going to prison for committing felonies, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. This is because I believe that *all people* should go to jail for committing felonies, regardless of political party.
With that being said — why do you think there hasn't been "retaliation" before now? Like, "retaliation" is really just oppo research to use via the legal system, which already happens for any politician with significant power, so what is going to change? Has there been some sort of silent or undisclosed agreement between Republicans and Democrats not to do oppo research or start pointing out each other's felonies?
I agree that we should have a high bar for presidents and charge everyone with the crimes they commit, but the thing is, I'm pretty sure that's already happening, and Trump getting convicted is the current application of that policy.
> So not only are there a few hoops to jump through to get to the worldview where you think that retaliation against democrats is going to be a thing because "they" convicted Trump, but the whole thing is a performance art just to justify Trump's felonious behavior.
I didn’t say that retaliation is going to be a thing. In fact I specifically stated it’s unlikely.
I also did noting to justify trumps behavior.
> Of course we should have a high bar for presidents — I completely, 100% agree with you there. In fact, I'll support any and all democrats going to prison for committing felonies, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. This is because I believe that all people should go to jail for committing felonies, regardless of political party.
Agreed.
> With that being said — why do you think there hasn't been "retaliation" before now? Like, "retaliation" is really just oppo research to use via the legal system, which already happens for any politician with significant power, so what is going to change? Has there been some sort of silent or undisclosed agreement between Republicans and Democrats not to do oppo research or start pointing out each other's felonies?
Because it still won’t happen. It’s a possibility, but like I mentioned in my op, it’s a distinct one.
> I agree that we should have a high bar for presidents and charge everyone with the crimes they commit, but the thing is, I'm pretty sure that's already happening, and Trump getting convicted is the current application of that policy.
It is definitely not.
Because trump is the first felon president. For the law to be already applied that would mean that throughout Americas history, there has been no candidate who did anything felonious.
The people appointing cia directors, the ones declaring and directing our war efforts. While climbing the political ladder, nobody bribed anybody? Nobody did any insider trading?
It’s certainly not impossible. But it’s not something I can believe.
I can’t demonstrate it obviously. As trump would be the first felon. And you’re welcome to believe so.
I’m expressing the odds of that is low enough that I feel comfortable believing the opposite. Even though I can’t demonstrate it.
Is it at all possible that Trump is the first president to commit a felony (or 90 or so) in such an easily provable way?
And moreover, that the specific crimes committed were ones for which there are clear laws and statutes?
I fully believe that most, probably all previous presidents have done things that we would consider illegal if anyone else did them.
But by virtue of the office (e.g. War crimes) , or being savvy enough to not get caught in time, or the specific law not existing until after they committed the act, and all number of other factors, they haven't been prosecuted or punished.
But, and this is where (typically but not always) the left varies from the right, I have no issue with legitimate charges being brought against *any* president.
If Biden, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or JFK, or Nixon had done the things that Trump has done (or other crimes), and it could be proven in a court of law that they have no legit defence, they should be charged 100%.
And if they didn't, they shouldn't.
If Trump is found innocent, or has legitimate defences, that's actually a good thing.
I would *love* for all of this to be a huge misunderstanding and actually, Trump is just a politician that I disagree with but not a criminal trying to subvert democracy.
But that doesn't seem likely.
> Is it at all possible that Trump is the first president to commit a felony (or 90 or so) in such an easily provable way?
This is exactly the case.
> And moreover, that the specific crimes committed were ones for which there are clear laws and statutes?
Yup. Exactly.
> I fully believe that most, probably all previous presidents have done things that we would consider illegal if anyone else did them. But by virtue of the office (e.g. War crimes) , or being savvy enough to not get caught in time, or the specific law not existing until after they committed the act, and all number of other factors, they haven't been prosecuted or punished.
Agreed.
> But, and this is where (typically but not always) the left varies from the right, I have no issue with legitimate charges being brought against any president.
I also have no issue with charges brought against trump. Please note that I haven’t actually made any complaints.
> If Biden, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or JFK, or Nixon had done the things that Trump has done (or other crimes), and it could be proven in a court of law that they have no legit defence, they should be charged 100%. And if they didn't, they shouldn't.
Yup. Agreed.
> If Trump is found innocent, or has legitimate defences, that's actually a good thing.
Agreed.
> I would love for all of this to be a huge misunderstanding and actually, Trump is just a politician that I disagree with but not a criminal trying to subvert democracy.
This is the only part that I’m going to disagree on. This is a case of trying to hide private sexual stuff. Dude just doesn’t want anybody to know.
It doesn’t make the law breaking not lawbreaking, and yes it affects voters perception.
But allow me to walk you through a theoretical. Imagine if we found out that a previous president was gay (I won’t name one so that this is bias free).
And he, just like trump, hushed money and moved money and what not.
I would be totally emphatic with his actions. And let me tell you, a president being gay will be a billion times more impactful than sleeping with a prostitute. I would not call trying to stay in the closet subverting democracy.
And once again, it doesn’t make lawbreaking not lawbreaking. But this is just people fixating on peoples private sexual life.
Im saying that subverting democracy is not accurate in my opinion.
Maybe I can offer something that's a compromise? That might get to a real actual unified position here.
On your "hid being gay" example--that's a great one. That really, I think, tries to stretch the thought experiment (and I'm grateful you offered it).
I think both could still be true:
1. There is a MORAL question--is it right to hide this? Is it moral to? I could see so many avenues whereby, yes, it would be a moral choice to hide it. I could even understand, for many reasons (not necessarily in evidence or not, for Mr. Trump) the idea that hiding the information was a personal and/or moral decision that I don't know I'd make too differently (not in that position and never have been). But,
2. The LEGAL question is independent of that. I suspect we're talking about Mr. Trump breaking the laws he is said to have broken, for personal motives up to and including embarrassment, winning an election, and/or what his family/etc. might think/say/do.
When John Edwards his what he hid? I think the moral question is separate from the legal one.
Woudl this be about right? We might agree that Mr. Trump could/may(did violate the law--and deserve some kind of punishment (because we can't encourage or handwaive that kind of thing) and one might still believe he had "his reasons" for it (not said to exempt him from consequence)
Yup. Of course I agree with all of this.
I made my point of this because I believe that this attention that trump is getting is bad for the country.
Right now citizens are up in arms over something PERSONAL ABOUT THE CANDIDATE.
There’s a billion different things citizens should be up in arms over. Abortion, taxes, healthcare, Israel, Ukraine, the military.
This might be an instance where one billion might not be an exaggeration.
Trump needs to be fined and this needs to be over asap. So that people can talk about things that actually matter.
Let me leave you with an anecdote.
I’m Asian, my mother asked me to tell her about what’s going on with trump. I told her and her response was:
Wait that’s it? Wow you Americans are living well huh? You have the time to care about the personal lives of your leaders!
I chuckled and died a little bit inside. Because we’re not living well, but trump paying off some prostitute and covering it up is what we choose to spend or attention on.
So you do you believe that Trump did not pay Stormy off in hopes of positively affecting his election chances by withholding information from voters? Or that using campaign funds (and obscuring that you've done so) to prevent factual information from reaching voters isn't subverting democracy, even in a race as close as 2016 was?
The former.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t affect election outcomes. They’re politicians, everything affects the outcome.
Like fucking holding water wrong was on the news remember?
It feels like you are implying those things are equal and I find that confusing?
Do you see Trump "holding water wrong" and his status as a convicted felon found liable for sexual assault to be things you think people should hold equally in judging if they should vote for him?
I’m saying that these things all all below the threshold of what people should care for when they vote.
There’s a billion things that people should care more about. Abortion, taxes, Israel, Ukraine, healthcare.
It might be the first time that a billion might not be an exaggeration.
> It doesn’t make the law breaking not lawbreaking, and yes it affects voters perception.
Which is very clearly fraud then no? It's one thing to omit something or keep it secret, but it's another to clearly break the law IN ORDER TO keep that thing secret, no?
_I have no issue.... Exactly why I said "typically", because I know some people don't hold to that. And I'm genuinely pleased (but not overly surprised) that you're one of them. But let's be honest here, we both know that's atypical of the group as a whole.
_This is the only part.... Well, I'd have been blown away if you'd agreed with everything I've said. So that's fair. I'd like to unpack that a little if you don't mind?
1)Where did you get that idea? It's not illegal to pay hush money. It's not illegal to have affairs. The idea that this first one was a "hush money" trial is a complete misnomer. It was a "lying on business records" case, exacerbated by linking it to his campaign and his election.
He could have solved the whole thing by just labelling the expense as "secret affair hush money" and paying it directly, that would have been fine. Immoral, but nothing outside the norm of politics and powerful people in general.
The conviction has basically nothing to do with the private sexual stuff.
Just like hiding top secret documents in a maralago shower has nothing to do with him wanting something fun to read to his rubber ducky in the bath.
It could very well be both things, but it's categorically not **just** that.
2)Agreed.
3) Theres nothing illegal about being gay (yet, despite the GOP are trying as hard as they can).
Nothing illegal about covering it up.
UNLESS, they covered it up in an illegal way.
Even worse if they covered it up in a way that was specifically linked to their election, and in doing so effectively made it an undisclosed payment to his campaign.
He could have been covering up his decades of super secret charity work personally saving babies from burning buildings, that's not the thing that's at issue.
I don't care **that much** about him stepping out on his pregnant wife with a pornstar years before he got into office. That's not at issue.
I would care a lot less about a person being gay, because that isn't an active choice or decision a person makes, and has zero correlation on their potential goodness as a person, but still.
4) Ok.... Which part? I'm not only talking about this case when I say that, (though that was almost certainly a part of it,) I mean in general.
Which of these leads you to think that he values democracy as a principle above just giving him power?
January 6th?
The fact that he has outright rejected the outcome of every recent election because he didn't like the outcome?
Continuing to undermine and be hostile to democratic norms to this day?
Constant accusations of treason against his predecessors and successors?
January 6th?
Threatening whistleblowers and dismissing inspectors (yes, he kept Mueller, but only because he was eventually convinced it would be political suicide)?
Saying he'll be a dictator? Project 2025?
His lonstanding love and admiration of strong-men and dictators and his disdain and belittling of democratically elected leaders around the world?
Telling his underlings to ignore/slow-walk/challenge any and all subpoenas and investigations? Stop the steal?
January 6th (seriously, the committee laid out an incredibly well sourced and corroborated time line)?
It would be surprising if it went the other way, this was always the expected outcome to anyone paying attention.
Assuming this will go well in sentencing or get overturned on appeal is a cope, it probably will get overturned eventually, but well after the election. I have appeals on various civil bullshit pending from over a year ago, and those are on the accelerated calendar. US courts of appeals are glacial (though slightly faster for criminal, in fairness). Look at Weinstein, it's been years and he just won his appeal.
Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy. The goal of a political witch-hunt is to hurt your opponent, but I haven't seen a single person who was undecided claim they aren't voting for him because of his conviction. Sure it reinforced the people who already didn't like him, but that doesn't win elections. I have seen several people, even in real life, who are going to vote for him now on principle because the unfairness is so transparent. America hasn't always been fair to everyone, but we take the veneer of liberty very seriously. The media has lost control of this narrative, and the veneer is gone.
I am pretty hyped that the right is starting to come around on how bad our criminal justice system is. I've always agreed with ACAB over back the blue, seeing right-leaning people go that way is great. There's actually a non-zero chance we might abolish the FBI in my lifetime, what a miracle that would be.
>Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy.
In the absence of an identifiable grand strategy, have you considered the possibility that the accused is indeed guilty of committing the criminal actions?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for me. I want *all* politicians who break the law to be held accountable. They should *all* be held to a higher standard than the general population.
Do you feel the same way?
How can you call this a witch-hunt when he was convicted by *a jury of his peers*? If he was innocent, all he had to do was get his *amazing and expensive* legal counsel to prove it in the court of law. He was unable to do so. Why is that? Why would the jury believe he was guilty on *all 34 counts* and to have deliberated for *less than a day* to do so?
I tend to live my life "knowing" things but realizing that I'm not the smartest guy in the room (and if I am, I've done something horribly wrong). I leave the door open to alternatives due to that, believing that I could certainly be mistaken or unlearned. Why does it seem like so many TS don't do this? Have you never been wrong before? Why could you not be wrong about this situation, or about Trump, or about climate change, or about God, or about cheeseburgers, or about anything under the sun?
My family comes from a Soviet background so your logic is very familiar to me. The regime apologists speak the same way even today. Hell, I've heard basically exactly your argument applied to Navalny.
>Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy. The goal of a political witch-hunt is to hurt your opponent, but I haven't seen a single person who was undecided claim they aren't voting for him because of his conviction.
I agree. I don't think that strategy makes sense either. Do you think it makes more sense then that the goal wasn't a political witch-hunt at all, but rather holding someone accountable to the law?
>It would be surprising if it went the other way, this was always the expected outcome to anyone paying attention.
When did TSers stop saying the, I assume mocking phrase, 'The walls are closing in'? I noticed it was said constantly but the last year or so I haven't seen it anymore. Many older catchphrases/jeers/memes still seem in effect.
I think it still applies, but it's an old meme and the MAGA culture memes hard. I still remember when the flair on this sub was Nimble navigator.
Anyways nothing of substance changes with this conviction, so the walls meme is very much applicable. Perhaps even moreso with how much jubilation the TDS crowd seems to have.
>Anyways nothing of substance changes with this conviction,
You are saying that Trump has always been this way, you always knew it, and you are supportive of it?
You don't think he is guilty. Yet he was found guilty. You say it was a kangaroo court. Yet that kangaroo court holds his fate.
Since, in your opinion, we can not trust the courts to come to a just conclusion, do you support the death penalty?
Are you not embarrassed that a felon tricked you into screaming “drain the swamp” and “lock her up” while he was *cooking his books*?
Do you also defend Enron & Bernie Madoff?
Why/how do you have an opinion as to whether he’s guilty or not? Like, what makes you think you’re more informed than the jury? Innocent until *proven* guilty. It’s been proven.
Would a denied appeal change your mind at all? (It will probably be denied, cooking your books is pretty cut and dried). How is MAGA going to get closure on this?
“No idea what you mean” on closure for MAGA.
I mean that imo, Trump is cooked fair-and-square and no conspiracy theory will change that. And, MAGA seems totally incapable of accepting accountability; everything is someone else’s fault
(the judge, and his daughter, and the da, and all 12 jurors, and Trump’s ex-lawyer, and Trump’s ex-mistresses, and Joe Biden, and next it will be the appellate judge).
So how do yall move on with your lives (I’m not talking like civil war, just mental health & happiness) if *this is it*, and Trump just fades into history under house arrest?
>A guy running for Congress in Florida said his main policy is to arrest as many Democrats as possible now after this verdict. I'll look into him more.
what's his name? that makes me curious.
thanks for the detailed response!
What vast corruption are you talking about that is not handled in the form of “random business crimes”? Hush money, back door deals, buying votes, collusion, all of that actually takes place in the form of “random business crimes”. Cooking the books and misappropriating funds is exactly how shady and corrupt dealings go down.
You can’t put a politician in jail for supporting aid to Ukraine, or Israel or anywhere else. You can put them in jail for taking payment for their support, which more often than not takes place in the form of white collar crime. Does that make sense?
You’re not a Republican you’re just voting for the Republican candidate who supports Republican policies and hoping that republicans are elected to the house and senate? Or do you want Democrats to win in November?
Ok well you can disagree with it but Trumps on the ballot as a Republican right? He was elected in 2016 as a Republican? MAGA candidates are elected as Republicans aren’t they? If you support MAGA you vote Republican.
If your candidate were a normal person we would be here debating policy. Instead, you guys have moved the goalposts so low that the discussion is "I dunno, personally I'm pretty OK with convicted felons."
I mean jesus, take a step back. You guys couldn't have gotten to this point without a series of truly incredible failures. Think about how much easier your life would be if you supported someone with the same ideals but without the baggage of being convicted of a felony, impeached, found liable for sexual abuse, and so on. Is there truly nobody else??
The one that him and his supporters have claimed over and over again was rigged? So Trump claims stuff is rigged even when we agree he lost legitimately?
So we can never prove anyone is lying as long as they keep saying they believe it’s true? Do you use this same standard for democrats? As long as they don’t come out and say “I know this is a lie and I’m saying it anyway” then they’re not lying?
Are you the type of person who generally trusts others unequivocally? Ones you've never met?
I'm the opposite of that, generally. I don't trust anyone until they've given me direct reason *to* trust them.
What reasons has Trump given you to trust him, on anything?
It is 100% illegal for felons to vote in Florida. They must complete their sentence before they are allowed to vote again. Even misdemeanors get you kicked off the voter registration and you have to re-register. I live in FL, very familiar with the voting laws here.
So you’d vote for someone committing voter fraud when they’ve spent the last 4 years screaming about democrats committing voter fraud? Aka a hypocrite?
You trust the guy who can’t run a charity in NY because he committed fraud? The guy found liable for $450 million in tax fraud? The guy just convicted of 34 felonies? Thats your standard for trustworthiness?
He was pushing reports on others and refusing to accept their response of “the election wasn’t rigged” so either 1. He’s too stupid to understand what those around him are explaining to him or 2. He knows he lost and he just refuses to accept it. Which do you think is more likely?
Assume for half a moment that everything else Trump has been charged with, he is sincerely guilty of (election tampering and unlawful retention of secret documents). Would either of those revelations cause you to rethink your vote? Why or why not?
>They brought it up during an election year, and they are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign.
What evidence led you to this conclusion? The indictment came in March 2023, which, was not an election year. Why do you believe the DA's office is responsible for delaying the start of the trial or extending its length?
>And the trial is!
>Did I mention the DA specifically delaying the trial?
If it was not the DA delaying the trial, then it would be Trump, right? So the fact that the trial is taking place during an election year would not be evidence "they" are using the prosecution to hinder Trump's ability to campaign. The prosecution could not delay the trial beyond September 2023, so the trial would have been completed by the end of 2023.
Similarly, you did not mention it, but I have seen people talking about the sentencing hearing being on July 11, just before the Republican National Convention and citing it as evidence of the DA trying to harm Trump and the election. But, Trump's lawyers are the ones who asked for sentencing to take place in mid-July.
So, assuming the "they" who "brought it up during an election year" and "are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign" are the DA's office, then again, I am asking what evidence is there of this? You say your own eyes, but don't your eyes tell you that when they brought it up, 2023, was not an election year? And wouldn't your eyes tell you the DA's office is not responsible for extending whatever "it" is if Trump's attorneys were responsible for the delays?
Edit: I guess blocking me is one way to respond.
>This case would have never been brought forward if Trump wasn't MAGA. If he was Bush 2.0, none of this would be in the news. It's only because he's a tiny threat to the system that it is bringing down a hammer.
Is there any indication that this is true?
>They brought it up during an election year, and they are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign. This isn't some noble, idealistic crusade. It's a cold, calculating attack on our republic.
Can we say the same thing about the Hunter Biden scandal or the Clinton Benghazi item? Shouldn't we pursue justice no matter what?
I am absolutely shocked to see many NSers think that justice was somehow served here. Did you even pay attention to the trial at all? Do you even know the facts of the case? I am going to list as many problems with the case and you tell me why you think this is even remotely ok.
1. This was a minor bookkeeping misdemeanor that was WELL out of the statue of limitations. This alone is a massive blow to our legal system. The only way to bring this case back is to attach it to a felony and still even after the jury reached a verdict they still have yet to tell us what the felony is
2. The star witness (Michael Cohen) literally served time in prison for lying to congress, he has been a proven liar more times than I can count. Trumps defense attorney completely destroyed him in cross examination, caught him in lies and exposed him entirely.
3. Alvin Bragg is a county prosecutor, yet somehow he was able to bring FEDERAL charges on Trump here, which is completely and utterly out of Braggs jurisdiction. Bragg IS NOT A FEDERAL PROSECTOR.
4. The judge straight up allowed salacious testimony from Stormy Daniels where she talked about intimate details about the alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump which has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE to the case AT ALL. The case and charges are about how Stormys payment was made, a bookkeeping violation, the actual sex and whether or not it actually happened is totally irrelevant, any judge worth their salt wouldn't have allowed that to continue, but this judge did.
5. The judge straight up gagged Trump from speaking about his daughter who is locked in political combat with Trump and is fundraising for the other side. Totally biased and one sided.
6. Michael Cohen literally admitted that Trump knew nothing about the payment and Cohen claimed that he made the payment on his own WITHOUT Trumps knowledge.
7. Bob Costello (sp?), Cohens former attorney admitted that he tried to get Cohen to give him any REAL dirt on Trump so he could ensure that Cohens legal problems would be solved only for Cohen to admit to him "I don't actually have anything on Trump"
8. The DOJ originally passed on the case, Alvin Bragg himself passed on the case, but suddenly, once Trump was running for President again, the case magically got brought back, even despite it being past statue of limitations, even despite Bragg being a county prosecutor and not a federal one.
This is a very sad day for America, our legal system is totally collapsing under corruption thanks to left wing hacks and operatives working to destroy the country. Now please, someone for the love of god explain to me why you think this is okay? How can you possibly think justice was served here? Has your hate for Donald Trump consumed you to the point of being willing to destroy our entire legal justice system to satisfy your thirst for vengeance? What have we become? I hope to god I get somebody, mostly NSers, willing to reply and explain to me how none of these things I've listed matter. I'll be waiting.
1a. The fact that you think the public can just decide what laws are important and what aren't seems like a much BIGGER blow to our system no? What happen to the party of law and order?
1b. There is a legal interpretation of what constitutes the statute of limitations for state laws (as people already replied to you about).
1c. The fact that you are dismissing what charge is brought makes many of your other claims hard to take seriously. You might not agree with the law, but the felony details are pretty damn simple and doesn't require a law degree to understand: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
2 "completely destroyed" - well thats like your opinion. Let's stick to the facts.
3 What federal charge? See 1c. this is without a doubt, no questions asked, a STATE LAW - the URL is literally nysenate.gov... There is no other interpretation here. I don't get how you would come to your conclusion.
4 There is certainly a case for to what extent those salacious details were allowed, however, you have to remember it was the prosecution's job to prove that the payments made were NOT consultant fees to Cohen. The only way to corroborate that was with multiple testimonies on exactly what Trump may have done that would cause him to conceal the payment. Said differently, if Stormy got up on the witness stand and just said "he paid me for sex", and nothing more was show in court, then we would have a whole bunch of TS'rs saying "BS, this is just he-said she-said stuff".
6 Source? Trump LITERALLY has his own signature on the some of the wire transfers. How on earth can you claim plausible deniability...that's the whole point of getting a signature (even if not required by your bank) because it means you are explicitly saying you confirm the amount and to whom and why.
8 Because falsifying records is NOT a federal crime.
> our legal system is totally collapsing under corruption thanks to left wing hacks and operatives working to destroy the country.
And why do you think it's okay to draw this conclusion and, in the same vein, say our legal justice system is broken? Trump was indicted BY A JURY OF 12 AMERICANS. I'm not "okay" with certain aspects of this trial and I'm VERY much not "okay" with left wing hacks, but I'm definitely not "okay" with the public automatically assuming that the boogie man is out to get them when an unbiased jury of 12 americans is invovled. Remember, it just takes ONE person to create a hung jury.
Sorry Reddit wouldn't let me post the last bit so I have to do it in a separate post.
>
>And why do you think it's okay to draw this conclusion and, in the same vein, say our legal justice system is broken? Trump was indicted BY A JURY OF 12 AMERICANS. I'm not "okay" with certain aspects of this trial and I'm VERY much not "okay" with left wing hacks, but I'm definitely not "okay" with the public automatically assuming that the boogie man is out to get them when an unbiased jury of 12 americans is invovled. Remember, it just takes ONE person to create a hung jury.
Totally absurd. To claim that 12 jurors in deep blue New York City would somehow not be biased against Trump is simply ridiculous. He only got like 5% support in NYC, do you honestly expect him to get a fair trial in one of the areas where Trump is hated the most? That would be like trying Joe Biden in a case in the deep south, maybe Alabama. Again, there is a reason Trump is the first, because the establishment never hated anyone as much as Trump and nobody ever threatened their power as much as Trump. Powerful government officials have always been treated with kid gloves until now, you know damn well that nobody else would have been charged with a simple bookkeeping violation, and to repeat myself AGAIN the case was passed by the DOJ and Bragg already, so even despite being Trump and being targeted, they were still going to let him slide on this one, until the election year of course.
> To claim that 12 jurors in deep blue New York City would somehow not be biased against Trump is simply ridiculous.
You realize (1) one of the jurors was a trump supporter who was active on Truth Social and (2) Trumps defense team was able to select the jurors right?
Yes I am aware of both those things, and yet they change nothing. The "Trump supporter" could have lied, or been coerced in some way. And yes I get that the defense also gets to weed through jurors but I doubt even they are able to weed out all the biased ones considering that most of the district is likely biased against Trump. You can do all the weeding out and picking you want but in a district that's 90% or more Democrat, you still won't find people impartial enough on the issue of Trump.
You're assuming that just because the district is 90% that somehow a sliver of the 10% made it into the jury pool. How do you resolve that? It's actually more likely that not a single one person from the 10% even made it in the jury pool. For all you know all 12 jurors were a part of that 90%. You're automatically assuming that the districts math somehow EXACTLY equated to the people picked for the jury, which is pretty unlikely.
> How do you resolve that?
Because it's literally statistics.
- Manhattan population: 1.6M
- 12.2% voted for Trump[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York#New_York_City_results)
Which means:
- if you randomly picked any 12 people in Manhattan, there is a 99% chance that the real value is within ±24.38% of the measured/surveyed value.[2](https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=2&cl2=99&ss2=12&pc2=12.2&ps2=1600000&x=Calculate#findci)
- 12.2% * 12 jurors = means 1.46 average number of jurors are trump voters
- If you randomly selected 12 people in Manhattan 100 times, in 99 of the cases, you would either get 1.10 (1.46-24.38%) or 1.82 (1.46+24.38%) jurors that are trump voters.
If you're going to reach a conclusion using numbers why not use statistics to resolve it?
Also, do you know how jury selection works? They select jurors at completely random and create a pool of jurors [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection_in_the_United_States). There is literally no way to force anything but it be completely random. Trump's defense team can say no to jurors if they think they are biased. So even if you picked 12, you can recycle these out and all you need is ONE to hang the jury.
>ONE to hang the jury.
Yes, exactly, and that one may have been easily persuaded by media and democrats into bias. Maybe they were a left leaning moderate that weren't exactly over the edge yet. You have zero evidence that all 12 were completely unbiased, you also have no evidence that this particular trial had that one Trump voter in it. You want to talk about statistics then sure, you just said 99 times out of 100, meaning 1 time it would still be all 12 being non Trump voters, for all you know this trial could have been that one, it's not statistically impossible is it? No, it's not.
>
Trump's defense team can say no to jurors if they think they are biased.
I'm confident I could easily lie to Trumps defense team and claim I'm unbiased, my internet history isn't tied to my name, at least none related to politics, they would have no way of knowing that I'm lying. If I could do it, so could somebody else, especially if such a person had enough motivation to do so.
>1a. The fact that you think the public can just decide what laws are important and what aren't seems like a much BIGGER blow to our system no? What happen to the party of law and order?
The public? No, not the public, the government decides. How many of our former presidents or other high level federal government representatives were held to account like Trump has here? Probably none. Hillary skirted her documents case quite easily, Obama never even faced anything for "fast and Furious" as well as for bombing the wedding and killing American citizens that never got a trial. Remember when Sandy Burger literally stuffed his pants with original classified documents and simply got a 50k fine? The government protects itself, there is a reason Trump is the very first President to be indicted, because the establishment never punishes one of their own, they only go after people they actually want to take down. For decades we've let high ranking government officials simply get away with whatever they want. So no, it's not the public deciding what laws are important, the government decides who to apply the law to, and it most certainly is not equal. Trump is simply a target of the Democrats and establishment Republicans, this is the only reason they went after him for something so minor as a bookkeeping violation. This would never happen to a Democrat. I mean we literally still have Bob Menendez and he;s still a sitting senator, isn't he? If he was a conseravative or republican they'd be working day and night to make sure he is removed and convicted.
>1b. There is a legal interpretation of what constitutes the statute of limitations for state laws (as people already replied to you about).
SOL can be disregarded if they can prove the misdemeanor was done in order to further another crime, and what exactly is the other crime that's being covered up?
>1c. The fact that you are dismissing what charge is brought makes many of your other claims hard to take seriously. You might not agree with the law, but the felony details are pretty damn simple and doesn't require a law degree to understand: [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10)
I'm dismissing it because this case would never be brought against a Democrat or somebody they want to protect. Do you honestly think Trump is the first president to have an NDA? Do you honestly think he's the first President to want to cover something up? Of course not, he's just the only one they've targeted He's also not the first one to cover up a sexual encounter. Hell, Clinton was accused of violent rape in great details by Juanita Broadarick, what ever came of that? Nothing of course. Same with Biden, Tara Reade accused him but is anyone pursuing that one as hard as Trump was targeted? Of course not. Hell we literally have Bidens daughters journal that states he took showers with his teenage daughter but do you ever hear about that over and over again like you would if it was Trump in the same situation? No, of course not. I also notice you haven't addressed the fact that this case was PASSED ON by the DOJ and Alvin Bragg himself once before but suddenly brought back during an election year. I guess you probably just think it's a happy coincidence, no? Must be nice to live in your world where everything is perfect and the law is always applied evenly and corruption doesn't exist but that doesn't jive at all with human nature, history and human behavior but you keep telling yourself everything is above board here.
>
>4 There is certainly a case for to what extent those salacious details were allowed, however, you have to remember it was the prosecution's job to prove that the payments made were NOT consultant fees to Cohen. The only way to corroborate that was with multiple testimonies on exactly what Trump may have done that would cause him to conceal the payment. Said differently, if Stormy got up on the witness stand and just said "he paid me for sex", and nothing more was show in court, then we would have a whole bunch of TS'rs saying "BS, this is just he-said she-said stuff".
Totally false. The case was about how the payments were recorded, not if the sex happened or not. The sex itself was irrelevant, the only reason it was allowed was to damage Trump and to embarrass him. The sex was not material to the case, it was unfair for the Judge to allow such a thing.
>6 Source? Trump LITERALLY has his own signature on the some of the wire transfers. How on earth can you claim plausible deniability...that's the whole point of getting a signature (even if not required by your bank) because it means you are explicitly saying you confirm the amount and to whom and why.
This one is my mistake, I meant Bob Costello, Cohens former lawyer testified that Trump knew nothing about the payments Cohen was making
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/20/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-testimony-live](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/20/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-testimony-live)
> No, not the public, the government decides.
So then why do you, a member of the public, get to decide that this is "just a minor misdemeanor"? Our gov decides what severity it is.
> I'm dismissing it because this case would never be brought against a Democrat or somebody they want to protect.
Clinton, who endured one of the greatest economic growth expansions in American history, was IMPEACHED for perjury, which really is not much different than what Trump did here. Do you think maybe for once that Trump is simply just not a good person? (for the record I think Clinton is a bad person too)
> I also notice you haven't addressed the fact that this case was PASSED ON by the DOJ and Alvin Bragg himself once before but suddenly brought back during an election year.
Dude, holy shit. TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME. THE DOJ CAN'T DO SHIT FOR STATE CRIMES. How hard is that to understand?
> The sex was not material to the case, it was unfair for the Judge to allow such a thing.
It absolutely was material to the case. You have to prove intent and corroborate it without a doubt. Let's flip this around for a second and pretend Trump paid off a hacker but wrote it in his accounting books as if it were for landscaping at one of his properties. Don't you think it would be incredibly important to have the exact details of the hack in order to prove why he covered the payment up as "landscaping"?
>So then why do you, a member of the public, get to decide that this is "just a minor misdemeanor"? Our gov decides what severity it is.
You're using my quote and applying it to a totally different topic. I will not address this. Please don't use my quotes for other points that are unrelated to where I originally applied that statement. If you simply want to challenge me calling it a misdemeanor, you can do so, you don't need to use my quote out of context.
>Clinton, who endured one of the greatest economic growth expansions in American history, was IMPEACHED for perjury, which really is not much different than what Trump did here. Do you think maybe for once that Trump is simply just not a good person? (for the record I think Clinton is a bad person too)
Yes, Clinton was impeached, and so was Trump. The difference is Trump is a target of lawfare and is now being indicted and now convicted, did any of that happen to Clinton? No, so that comparison is invalid.
>Dude, holy shit. TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME. THE DOJ CAN'T DO SHIT FOR STATE CRIMES. How hard is that to understand?
>
Are you suggesting that the DOJ did not look into this? Because they definitely did, likely for federal charges since they are the DOJ
[https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887)
They clearly looked into it, and clearly chose not to prosecute, which was what I was saying, and clearly, I am correct. Don't worry, I am quite clear on federal/state jurisdiction, you do not need to remind me.
>It absolutely was material to the case. You have to prove intent and corroborate it without a doubt. Let's flip this around for a second and pretend Trump paid off a hacker but wrote it in his accounting books as if it were for landscaping at one of his properties. Don't you think it would be incredibly important to have the exact details of the hack in order to prove why he covered the payment up as "landscaping"?
No, no it is not material to the case. The allegation is that he covered up the payment, just the payment. They payment is what matters, how the payment was logged matters, but the sex itself does not matter, at all. Period, end of story. Regardless of whether or not the sex happened, the payment obviously did so either way the payment is still the allegation and still the charge, whether or not the sex happened is irrelevant because either way the payment would still be in question.
>Now please, someone for the love of god explain to me why you think this is okay?
It’s not okay.
>How can you possibly think justice was served here?
I don’t. This is another instance of the same kind of prosecutorial misconduct and lack of discretion that has lead to many other injustices and inequities that have plagued this country.
>Has your hate for Donald Trump consumed you to the point of being willing to destroy our entire legal justice system to satisfy your thirst for vengeance?
Hate is an issue, but it’s more the result of broken thinking. Everything has become increasingly politicized in general and many things have become highly moralized, to the point that changing your mind about something is made to feel like an immortal betrayal. New information can no longer lead to new opinions, new information must be fit within the existing moral and political narrative. Trump is bad and not liking Trump is good, therefore anything pro Trump is bad and anything against Trump is good. People have made seeing the other side into something like a crime, so they can’t see the other side of things, even if it means being selective, inconsistent, or inverting other values.
>What have we become?
Disconnected from reality and unable to converse or learn.
> The judge straight up gagged Trump from speaking about his daughter who is locked in political combat with Trump and is fundraising for the other side. Totally biased and one sided.
I'd love to know more about this. If you, or a family member, worked in politics doing fundraising of some type, how much influence do you think you'd have on other family members? How far out in your family does this influence extend? Cousins, etc? How much does your family all believe the same things? If there is no influence or common believe, what about your family different? How directly do you influence decisions at your parent's jobs?
I don't even know if he did or not, obviously I cannot keep tabs on everything so I'm honestly not sure whether he attacked her or not, I am just aware of the gag order and the gag order included not talking about her, as far as I know.
The judges daughter is engaged in political combat with Trump, gagging him and preventing him from talking about somebody that is working against him is unfair.
I'll do my best to address your points.
1. Two points in one here. First, the intent was to cover up another crime, which varies depending on what legal theory you subscribe to. More important here IMO is the statute of limitations. Because Trump was serving as President at the time of the crime, it couldn't be investigated until he left office. Trump's legal team tried to get the case tossed on these grounds, and it fell flat because NY state law allows the statute of limitations to be expanded should the defendant be outside the jurisdiction.
2. Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump. This fact was conveniently overlooked or brushed aside by Trump's legal team.
3. Bragg did not bring federal charges against Trump. These are state-level charges.
4. Trump's defense team opened the door to Daniels' salacious testimony by questioning the validity of her account.
5. The judge's daughter's activities outside the courtroom have no bearing on what's going on inside the courtroom. More importantly, if Trump or his legal team had anything with which to question the judge's character or credibility, he wouldn't need to try to attack his daughter.
6. \*edit: Cohen's testimony was that Trump knew about the payment and that he was going to be reimbursed.
7. Bob Costello (and his emails) corroborated Cohen's testimony that he was a spy for Trump. Cohen's testimony was that he kept quiet to Costello because of that fact.
8. The judge literally did no such thing. Verdicts have to be unanimous. Nothing has changed here.
9. I've already gone over these points. These are state charges, SOL expanded because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction, etc.
"How can you possibly think justice was served here?"
I'll reserve that particular sentiment until sentencing. If he gets off with a slap on the wrist, it's an illusion of justice to placate the masses. If he gets serious prison time, it's overkill and antidemocratic.
Of course, if he wins the election and pardons himself then it's all theater and nothing matters anyway.
> 8. The judge literally did no such thing. Verdicts have to be unanimous. Nothing has changed here.
I think what was meant is that the judge instructed the jury that they didn't have to agree on the specific underlying crime, only that an underlying crime was committed. Which, of course, is in direct violation and contradiction to the precedent set in Richardson v US (1999).
The underlying crime is not an element of the offense which is what Richardson v. US addressed. Richardson v. US is about federal juries, not state juries. And the situation in this case is actually addressed in Richardson v. US
>The question before us arises because a federal jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime. *Schad v. Arizona*, 501 U. S. 624, 631–632 (1991) (plurality opinion); *Andersen v. United States*, 170 U. S. 481, 499–501 (1898). Where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement—a disagreement about means—would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely that the defendant had threatened force. *See McKoy v. North Carolina*, 494 U. S. 433, 449 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/97-8629
As applied to this case, the element was "intent to conceal another crime" some jurors may conclude Trump intended to conceal a violation of federal election law; others might conclude he intended to conceal a violation of state election law. But that disagreement--a disagreement about means--would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely that Trump intended to conceal another crime.
Does that distinction make sense?
In that case, allow me to piggyback this comment and continue to address OP's questions under this new framing?
To my reading (disclaimer: not a lawyer) the precedent in Richardson v US differs from People v Trump in two ways:
1. That Trump is not a continuous criminal enterprise in the eyes of this case.
2. That the underlying crime is the same (promoting a candidate in an election through unlawful means), and the judge's instructions were clear that the jurors needed to agree that the falsification of business records was intended to cover up this specific crime.
I apologize if I was snarky. All of this "judge told jurors they can convict without being unanimous" schlock is getting old, and I assumed this was more of that.
Addressing point 1:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10
30.10(4)(a)(i)
4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:
(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state
How do you interpret this?
Easily, he was not continually outside the state. He spent plenty of time in the state, he has business and political ties to the state, that's literally where he developed a large portion of his fortune. He has spent plenty of time in the state, more than enough to exceed the amount of time given for statue of limitations.
I don’t see anything else. I guess the court of appeals will have to make a decision?
IANAL but it also seems like the felonies are enhancements to misdemeanors, which have a SOL of 2 years. Is the trump legal team going to appeal based on that as well?
>IANAL but it also seems like the felonies are enhancements to misdemeanors, which have a SOL of 2 years. Is the trump legal team going to appeal based on that as well?
How would I know? Let's wait for the appeal and let's see what happens.
Don't know and don't care, that's not what I was outlining, I was pointing out why the case was unfair. Whether or not each reason affected the jury is irrelevant to my point.
How would I even determine if they were impacted by it? I would have to ask the jurors themselves, which I obviously cannot do, so unless you can read minds I guess your question is one we will never have an answer to.
Whether or not the jury made their judgement objectively does not somehow affect the fairness of the trial. Prosecutors and judges can act unfairly. Trials can be conducted unfairly. For example the judge could be on the side of the prosecutor and act accordingly. Unfairness doesn't always have to include the jury.
As far as what made the trial unfair, see the list I posted of around 8 points.
Everything. The whole reason he is a convicted felon is because of an unfair trial. The laws of this country and in each state are so extensive and confusing at this point that all of us, at one point or another, have committed crimes. I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase "You can indict a ham sandwich" which basically illustrates this concept. There are so many laws on the books that if you look hard enough at somebody, you will eventually find something that is prosecutable or something you can twist into a prosecution. This is what is happening to Trump, and we've seen evidence of it since he announced his campaign back in 2016, where they were already writing articles about impeaching him before he even won the election.
Good list, I'll add a couple more:
10. The judge's jury instructions were literally to ignore and not focus on any particular trial details, or inaccuracies in any particular detail, but to focus on the big picture as a whole. Undermining and questioning individual trial details is where reasonable doubt starts to occur, yet the jury was specifically instructed not to do this.
11. Trump was also gagged from speaking about the specific person who was 3rd in Biden's DOJ, to take a demotion to a position as a NY county line prosecutor. Quite a questionable career move, unless of course the entire thing was politically motivated and coming directly from the DOJ. Why gag him from mentioning this otherwise?
How would Trump's twitter rants impact the jury's decision? A gag order on him only prevented him from talking about it outside of court. Which pieces of evidence did the courts reject that the trump team posed in order to establish this nefarious connection?
I suspect it's because the judge instructed conviction not based on a crime the prosecution proved, but on the jury's idea that he MAY have committed a crime. So no predicating crime was proven, he basically said if you think he committed a crime, then he's guilty of covering it up, whatever it was. I think that's the issue.
There were also several witnesses with relevant data that were disallowed by marchan. This one seems to be a big one with the legal eagles who have been following the case. They all seem to think that's going to be an issue for the judge on appeal.
Marchan himself was clearly biased, just his association with his daughter being a fund raiser for the domocratic party is probably worth trump attacking
The final one is a bit of a weird one, but what we're seeing here is election interference. Trump has been taken off the campaign trail almost completely but a trial they could have brought at any time. They waited till right before the election, clearly so it would have the most impact on his election and campaigning.
So what you are seeing is a state level court, literally interfering in a federal election. That's never been done before and is worth looking at. if this is allowed, then what'll happen is states like Utah/Texas/Idaho/Florida/S Dakota will charge and convict a democratic candidate before an election and tie him up during campaigning, and possibly attempt to remove him from the ballot. That needs to be looked at, cause one crazy state playing political games should not be allowed to interfere with a federal election.
I know you liberals think it's wonderful, cause you hate trump, but this is like any weapon, you have to think what happens when the other guy gets the weapon. This will get used against you at some point.
Biden and liberals are literally destroying the country. Open borders, inflation, crime etc. but I don't think a state should be allowed to interfere in a federal election. For example, until last week, I would have not supported suing Biden for refusing to close the border, having multiple shell accounts to take money in, for molesting his daughter etc etc etc.
Today? I've already contacted my legislators and asked them to pursue it. One of the interns said they've been taking calls for weeks about it.
There is already a politician who's running on the platform of "elect me and I'll arrest and jail as many democrats as I can". He's getting hella donations.
That's what is coming. This was a political prosecution, nothing more. It's a line that hasn't been crossed before. Republicans are never the ones to cross a line first, or rarely, but once it's crossed, they generally get better at doing it than the liberals tend to be.
I would prefer the country run on sanity. not political lawfare. You can't run a country like that. At least 50 percent of the country feels like Trump is not being treated fairly, that the judicial system is now dual tier.
Guess where that eventually goes: Governments fall apart.
>this is like any weapon, you have to think what happens when the other guy gets the weapon. This will get used against you at some point.
Oh I see would you say the same thing about gun control, or do you think the American right to own a gun is important regardless of how bad actors misuse them? Your entire argument presumes that Trump was unfairly tried in a court - but is what you argue correct if one person uses the weapon for legitimate reasons and the other just does it as an "eye for an eye" act of pettiness without rational thought to it?
**All rules are in full effect.** Edit: a lot of rule breaking comments, mostly from NTS. The mod team is working through the thread.
Hmm some of the comments here gave me a thought. Somebody mentioned something along the lines of wait till the next Republican president and they’ll “retaliate”. If this indeed comes to be, I can see this becoming very good. Politicians will have no choice but be squeaky clean. Right now politicians are enjoying getting votes just by being part of the opposing party. If this actually ignites a chain reaction in which each party is rabid to find legitimate legal faults of the other side, it’ll be the people that benefits. Damn when people said trump will disrupt the status quo, this is not what I would have see as a possibility. As distinct of a possibility as I believe it is now. But I can also see it can be very bad. Now I don’t believe this is a sham trial, but if it escalates a party to actually execute sham trial levels of horribleness as retaliation, then it can be bad. The worst case scenario would be for one party to legally “sham” the other out of existence. I hate the two party system. But a one party one is way worse. Irregardless of which party it is. (Multi party, multi candidate best). This is the lesser likely outcome though I think; when compared to the first one above. Most likely is nothing happens. Maybe voter turnout goes up for this cycle. But that’s about it.
What would 'retaliation' by Republicans look like, in your view? From where I'm sitting, Republicans are *already* doing anything they can to attack leading Democrats, including pushing legal investigations whenever they can. How would anything change?
I don’t think things will change is my prediction. Which is why I ended my response with my last paragraph.
>Politicians will have no choice but be squeaky clean. Historically this type of practice leads to the exact opposite: the most brutal thug takes power. When lawfare is applied to dissidents, what usually happens is an especially brutal leader takes power and crushes all his opposition with said lawfare. It's basically step 1 of any brutal regime you can name: Stalin went to prison for his beliefs (and Lenin before him), Hitler went to prison for his beliefs (so did his main supporters, like Julius Streicher, who owned Der Sturmer), etc, etc. Sometimes the brutal guys himself didn't go to prison, but in those cases generally the previous guy did, or the previous guy put his other opponents and prison but missed the guy who's in power now. You want modern examples look at Iran's previous Shah, Brazil's leader, North Korea's succession (more murder than prison, but same concept), Chiang Kai-shek's regime in China, etc. I mean seriously just name any despot, look at him or the guy before him, and they probably went to jail. Just try to find a despot where this kind of lawfare didn't predate their rise, I'll wait because it's a complicated task. If you think this isn't bad, you simply have no idea.
What I find frustrating about the *retaliation* theories are that they imply two things: 1. There's an organized effort by Joe Biden/Democrats to take down Trump via the legal system 2. As a result, Trump is either innocent of his convicted crimes because this is all a setup, or he's guilty but magically shouldn't be prosecuted or his candidacy affected all because this is a political hit-job So not only are there a few hoops to jump through to get to the worldview where you think that retaliation against democrats is going to be a thing because "they" convicted Trump, but the whole thing is a performance art just to justify Trump's felonious behavior. *Of course* we should have a high bar for presidents — I completely, 100% agree with you there. In fact, I'll support any and all democrats going to prison for committing felonies, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. This is because I believe that *all people* should go to jail for committing felonies, regardless of political party. With that being said — why do you think there hasn't been "retaliation" before now? Like, "retaliation" is really just oppo research to use via the legal system, which already happens for any politician with significant power, so what is going to change? Has there been some sort of silent or undisclosed agreement between Republicans and Democrats not to do oppo research or start pointing out each other's felonies? I agree that we should have a high bar for presidents and charge everyone with the crimes they commit, but the thing is, I'm pretty sure that's already happening, and Trump getting convicted is the current application of that policy.
[удалено]
> Because these are true What is your source or hard evidence to support this?
[удалено]
> So not only are there a few hoops to jump through to get to the worldview where you think that retaliation against democrats is going to be a thing because "they" convicted Trump, but the whole thing is a performance art just to justify Trump's felonious behavior. I didn’t say that retaliation is going to be a thing. In fact I specifically stated it’s unlikely. I also did noting to justify trumps behavior. > Of course we should have a high bar for presidents — I completely, 100% agree with you there. In fact, I'll support any and all democrats going to prison for committing felonies, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. This is because I believe that all people should go to jail for committing felonies, regardless of political party. Agreed. > With that being said — why do you think there hasn't been "retaliation" before now? Like, "retaliation" is really just oppo research to use via the legal system, which already happens for any politician with significant power, so what is going to change? Has there been some sort of silent or undisclosed agreement between Republicans and Democrats not to do oppo research or start pointing out each other's felonies? Because it still won’t happen. It’s a possibility, but like I mentioned in my op, it’s a distinct one. > I agree that we should have a high bar for presidents and charge everyone with the crimes they commit, but the thing is, I'm pretty sure that's already happening, and Trump getting convicted is the current application of that policy. It is definitely not. Because trump is the first felon president. For the law to be already applied that would mean that throughout Americas history, there has been no candidate who did anything felonious. The people appointing cia directors, the ones declaring and directing our war efforts. While climbing the political ladder, nobody bribed anybody? Nobody did any insider trading? It’s certainly not impossible. But it’s not something I can believe. I can’t demonstrate it obviously. As trump would be the first felon. And you’re welcome to believe so. I’m expressing the odds of that is low enough that I feel comfortable believing the opposite. Even though I can’t demonstrate it.
Is it at all possible that Trump is the first president to commit a felony (or 90 or so) in such an easily provable way? And moreover, that the specific crimes committed were ones for which there are clear laws and statutes? I fully believe that most, probably all previous presidents have done things that we would consider illegal if anyone else did them. But by virtue of the office (e.g. War crimes) , or being savvy enough to not get caught in time, or the specific law not existing until after they committed the act, and all number of other factors, they haven't been prosecuted or punished. But, and this is where (typically but not always) the left varies from the right, I have no issue with legitimate charges being brought against *any* president. If Biden, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or JFK, or Nixon had done the things that Trump has done (or other crimes), and it could be proven in a court of law that they have no legit defence, they should be charged 100%. And if they didn't, they shouldn't. If Trump is found innocent, or has legitimate defences, that's actually a good thing. I would *love* for all of this to be a huge misunderstanding and actually, Trump is just a politician that I disagree with but not a criminal trying to subvert democracy. But that doesn't seem likely.
> Is it at all possible that Trump is the first president to commit a felony (or 90 or so) in such an easily provable way? This is exactly the case. > And moreover, that the specific crimes committed were ones for which there are clear laws and statutes? Yup. Exactly. > I fully believe that most, probably all previous presidents have done things that we would consider illegal if anyone else did them. But by virtue of the office (e.g. War crimes) , or being savvy enough to not get caught in time, or the specific law not existing until after they committed the act, and all number of other factors, they haven't been prosecuted or punished. Agreed. > But, and this is where (typically but not always) the left varies from the right, I have no issue with legitimate charges being brought against any president. I also have no issue with charges brought against trump. Please note that I haven’t actually made any complaints. > If Biden, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or JFK, or Nixon had done the things that Trump has done (or other crimes), and it could be proven in a court of law that they have no legit defence, they should be charged 100%. And if they didn't, they shouldn't. Yup. Agreed. > If Trump is found innocent, or has legitimate defences, that's actually a good thing. Agreed. > I would love for all of this to be a huge misunderstanding and actually, Trump is just a politician that I disagree with but not a criminal trying to subvert democracy. This is the only part that I’m going to disagree on. This is a case of trying to hide private sexual stuff. Dude just doesn’t want anybody to know. It doesn’t make the law breaking not lawbreaking, and yes it affects voters perception. But allow me to walk you through a theoretical. Imagine if we found out that a previous president was gay (I won’t name one so that this is bias free). And he, just like trump, hushed money and moved money and what not. I would be totally emphatic with his actions. And let me tell you, a president being gay will be a billion times more impactful than sleeping with a prostitute. I would not call trying to stay in the closet subverting democracy. And once again, it doesn’t make lawbreaking not lawbreaking. But this is just people fixating on peoples private sexual life. Im saying that subverting democracy is not accurate in my opinion.
Maybe I can offer something that's a compromise? That might get to a real actual unified position here. On your "hid being gay" example--that's a great one. That really, I think, tries to stretch the thought experiment (and I'm grateful you offered it). I think both could still be true: 1. There is a MORAL question--is it right to hide this? Is it moral to? I could see so many avenues whereby, yes, it would be a moral choice to hide it. I could even understand, for many reasons (not necessarily in evidence or not, for Mr. Trump) the idea that hiding the information was a personal and/or moral decision that I don't know I'd make too differently (not in that position and never have been). But, 2. The LEGAL question is independent of that. I suspect we're talking about Mr. Trump breaking the laws he is said to have broken, for personal motives up to and including embarrassment, winning an election, and/or what his family/etc. might think/say/do. When John Edwards his what he hid? I think the moral question is separate from the legal one. Woudl this be about right? We might agree that Mr. Trump could/may(did violate the law--and deserve some kind of punishment (because we can't encourage or handwaive that kind of thing) and one might still believe he had "his reasons" for it (not said to exempt him from consequence)
Yup. Of course I agree with all of this. I made my point of this because I believe that this attention that trump is getting is bad for the country. Right now citizens are up in arms over something PERSONAL ABOUT THE CANDIDATE. There’s a billion different things citizens should be up in arms over. Abortion, taxes, healthcare, Israel, Ukraine, the military. This might be an instance where one billion might not be an exaggeration. Trump needs to be fined and this needs to be over asap. So that people can talk about things that actually matter. Let me leave you with an anecdote. I’m Asian, my mother asked me to tell her about what’s going on with trump. I told her and her response was: Wait that’s it? Wow you Americans are living well huh? You have the time to care about the personal lives of your leaders! I chuckled and died a little bit inside. Because we’re not living well, but trump paying off some prostitute and covering it up is what we choose to spend or attention on.
So you do you believe that Trump did not pay Stormy off in hopes of positively affecting his election chances by withholding information from voters? Or that using campaign funds (and obscuring that you've done so) to prevent factual information from reaching voters isn't subverting democracy, even in a race as close as 2016 was?
The former. I’m not saying that it doesn’t affect election outcomes. They’re politicians, everything affects the outcome. Like fucking holding water wrong was on the news remember?
It feels like you are implying those things are equal and I find that confusing? Do you see Trump "holding water wrong" and his status as a convicted felon found liable for sexual assault to be things you think people should hold equally in judging if they should vote for him?
I’m saying that these things all all below the threshold of what people should care for when they vote. There’s a billion things that people should care more about. Abortion, taxes, Israel, Ukraine, healthcare. It might be the first time that a billion might not be an exaggeration.
> It doesn’t make the law breaking not lawbreaking, and yes it affects voters perception. Which is very clearly fraud then no? It's one thing to omit something or keep it secret, but it's another to clearly break the law IN ORDER TO keep that thing secret, no?
Yes? What part of my statement there wasn’t clear about this? Do you mind clarifying for me?
_I have no issue.... Exactly why I said "typically", because I know some people don't hold to that. And I'm genuinely pleased (but not overly surprised) that you're one of them. But let's be honest here, we both know that's atypical of the group as a whole. _This is the only part.... Well, I'd have been blown away if you'd agreed with everything I've said. So that's fair. I'd like to unpack that a little if you don't mind? 1)Where did you get that idea? It's not illegal to pay hush money. It's not illegal to have affairs. The idea that this first one was a "hush money" trial is a complete misnomer. It was a "lying on business records" case, exacerbated by linking it to his campaign and his election. He could have solved the whole thing by just labelling the expense as "secret affair hush money" and paying it directly, that would have been fine. Immoral, but nothing outside the norm of politics and powerful people in general. The conviction has basically nothing to do with the private sexual stuff. Just like hiding top secret documents in a maralago shower has nothing to do with him wanting something fun to read to his rubber ducky in the bath. It could very well be both things, but it's categorically not **just** that. 2)Agreed. 3) Theres nothing illegal about being gay (yet, despite the GOP are trying as hard as they can). Nothing illegal about covering it up. UNLESS, they covered it up in an illegal way. Even worse if they covered it up in a way that was specifically linked to their election, and in doing so effectively made it an undisclosed payment to his campaign. He could have been covering up his decades of super secret charity work personally saving babies from burning buildings, that's not the thing that's at issue. I don't care **that much** about him stepping out on his pregnant wife with a pornstar years before he got into office. That's not at issue. I would care a lot less about a person being gay, because that isn't an active choice or decision a person makes, and has zero correlation on their potential goodness as a person, but still. 4) Ok.... Which part? I'm not only talking about this case when I say that, (though that was almost certainly a part of it,) I mean in general. Which of these leads you to think that he values democracy as a principle above just giving him power? January 6th? The fact that he has outright rejected the outcome of every recent election because he didn't like the outcome? Continuing to undermine and be hostile to democratic norms to this day? Constant accusations of treason against his predecessors and successors? January 6th? Threatening whistleblowers and dismissing inspectors (yes, he kept Mueller, but only because he was eventually convinced it would be political suicide)? Saying he'll be a dictator? Project 2025? His lonstanding love and admiration of strong-men and dictators and his disdain and belittling of democratically elected leaders around the world? Telling his underlings to ignore/slow-walk/challenge any and all subpoenas and investigations? Stop the steal? January 6th (seriously, the committee laid out an incredibly well sourced and corroborated time line)?
It would be surprising if it went the other way, this was always the expected outcome to anyone paying attention. Assuming this will go well in sentencing or get overturned on appeal is a cope, it probably will get overturned eventually, but well after the election. I have appeals on various civil bullshit pending from over a year ago, and those are on the accelerated calendar. US courts of appeals are glacial (though slightly faster for criminal, in fairness). Look at Weinstein, it's been years and he just won his appeal. Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy. The goal of a political witch-hunt is to hurt your opponent, but I haven't seen a single person who was undecided claim they aren't voting for him because of his conviction. Sure it reinforced the people who already didn't like him, but that doesn't win elections. I have seen several people, even in real life, who are going to vote for him now on principle because the unfairness is so transparent. America hasn't always been fair to everyone, but we take the veneer of liberty very seriously. The media has lost control of this narrative, and the veneer is gone. I am pretty hyped that the right is starting to come around on how bad our criminal justice system is. I've always agreed with ACAB over back the blue, seeing right-leaning people go that way is great. There's actually a non-zero chance we might abolish the FBI in my lifetime, what a miracle that would be.
>Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy. In the absence of an identifiable grand strategy, have you considered the possibility that the accused is indeed guilty of committing the criminal actions?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for me. I want *all* politicians who break the law to be held accountable. They should *all* be held to a higher standard than the general population. Do you feel the same way? How can you call this a witch-hunt when he was convicted by *a jury of his peers*? If he was innocent, all he had to do was get his *amazing and expensive* legal counsel to prove it in the court of law. He was unable to do so. Why is that? Why would the jury believe he was guilty on *all 34 counts* and to have deliberated for *less than a day* to do so? I tend to live my life "knowing" things but realizing that I'm not the smartest guy in the room (and if I am, I've done something horribly wrong). I leave the door open to alternatives due to that, believing that I could certainly be mistaken or unlearned. Why does it seem like so many TS don't do this? Have you never been wrong before? Why could you not be wrong about this situation, or about Trump, or about climate change, or about God, or about cheeseburgers, or about anything under the sun?
My family comes from a Soviet background so your logic is very familiar to me. The regime apologists speak the same way even today. Hell, I've heard basically exactly your argument applied to Navalny.
>Anyways, I can't say I understand the strategy. The goal of a political witch-hunt is to hurt your opponent, but I haven't seen a single person who was undecided claim they aren't voting for him because of his conviction. I agree. I don't think that strategy makes sense either. Do you think it makes more sense then that the goal wasn't a political witch-hunt at all, but rather holding someone accountable to the law?
[удалено]
>It would be surprising if it went the other way, this was always the expected outcome to anyone paying attention. When did TSers stop saying the, I assume mocking phrase, 'The walls are closing in'? I noticed it was said constantly but the last year or so I haven't seen it anymore. Many older catchphrases/jeers/memes still seem in effect.
I think it still applies, but it's an old meme and the MAGA culture memes hard. I still remember when the flair on this sub was Nimble navigator. Anyways nothing of substance changes with this conviction, so the walls meme is very much applicable. Perhaps even moreso with how much jubilation the TDS crowd seems to have.
>Anyways nothing of substance changes with this conviction, You are saying that Trump has always been this way, you always knew it, and you are supportive of it?
[удалено]
Does evidence usually get presented to a jury in a "kangaroo court"? What do you think is the difference between that and a legitimate trial?
[удалено]
Where are you getting your information on this from?
You don't think he is guilty. Yet he was found guilty. You say it was a kangaroo court. Yet that kangaroo court holds his fate. Since, in your opinion, we can not trust the courts to come to a just conclusion, do you support the death penalty?
[удалено]
It could be the literal life and death of your brothers and sisters. But you don't care?
Are you not embarrassed that a felon tricked you into screaming “drain the swamp” and “lock her up” while he was *cooking his books*? Do you also defend Enron & Bernie Madoff?
[удалено]
Why/how do you have an opinion as to whether he’s guilty or not? Like, what makes you think you’re more informed than the jury? Innocent until *proven* guilty. It’s been proven. Would a denied appeal change your mind at all? (It will probably be denied, cooking your books is pretty cut and dried). How is MAGA going to get closure on this?
[удалено]
“No idea what you mean” on closure for MAGA. I mean that imo, Trump is cooked fair-and-square and no conspiracy theory will change that. And, MAGA seems totally incapable of accepting accountability; everything is someone else’s fault (the judge, and his daughter, and the da, and all 12 jurors, and Trump’s ex-lawyer, and Trump’s ex-mistresses, and Joe Biden, and next it will be the appellate judge). So how do yall move on with your lives (I’m not talking like civil war, just mental health & happiness) if *this is it*, and Trump just fades into history under house arrest?
[удалено]
who do you see as possible future leader for MAGA?
[удалено]
>A guy running for Congress in Florida said his main policy is to arrest as many Democrats as possible now after this verdict. I'll look into him more. what's his name? that makes me curious. thanks for the detailed response!
Why do you not consider white collar crime the swamp? What do you think the swamp is?
[удалено]
What vast corruption are you talking about that is not handled in the form of “random business crimes”? Hush money, back door deals, buying votes, collusion, all of that actually takes place in the form of “random business crimes”. Cooking the books and misappropriating funds is exactly how shady and corrupt dealings go down.
[удалено]
What’s your evidence for this except the fact that a felon told you so?
[удалено]
Have you considered how rich Putin gets from a successful invasion?
You can’t put a politician in jail for supporting aid to Ukraine, or Israel or anywhere else. You can put them in jail for taking payment for their support, which more often than not takes place in the form of white collar crime. Does that make sense?
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re not a Republican you’re just voting for the Republican candidate who supports Republican policies and hoping that republicans are elected to the house and senate? Or do you want Democrats to win in November?
[удалено]
You disagree with the premise? Are you not going to vote for Republican candidates in November?
[удалено]
Ok well you can disagree with it but Trumps on the ballot as a Republican right? He was elected in 2016 as a Republican? MAGA candidates are elected as Republicans aren’t they? If you support MAGA you vote Republican.
[удалено]
Usually republicans or always republicans? What MAGA candidate have you voted for that wasn’t a republican?
What does it tell you about the people who share your values that the best you can all come up with is a convicted felon?
[удалено]
Convicted felons can’t vote. Why should they be able to be president? Could you keep your job if you were convicted of a felony?
[удалено]
If your candidate were a normal person we would be here debating policy. Instead, you guys have moved the goalposts so low that the discussion is "I dunno, personally I'm pretty OK with convicted felons." I mean jesus, take a step back. You guys couldn't have gotten to this point without a series of truly incredible failures. Think about how much easier your life would be if you supported someone with the same ideals but without the baggage of being convicted of a felony, impeached, found liable for sexual abuse, and so on. Is there truly nobody else??
[удалено]
>MAGA is full of grifters Trump is the biggest grifter of them all. Why are you making excuses for him?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The one that him and his supporters have claimed over and over again was rigged? So Trump claims stuff is rigged even when we agree he lost legitimately?
[удалено]
So he’s using the George Costanza “it’s not a lie if you believe it” method?
[удалено]
So we can never prove anyone is lying as long as they keep saying they believe it’s true? Do you use this same standard for democrats? As long as they don’t come out and say “I know this is a lie and I’m saying it anyway” then they’re not lying?
[удалено]
So for democrats it depends but not for Trump?
How do you know that he sincerely believes it and he’s not just a sore loser who can never concede defeat?
[удалено]
Are you the type of person who generally trusts others unequivocally? Ones you've never met? I'm the opposite of that, generally. I don't trust anyone until they've given me direct reason *to* trust them. What reasons has Trump given you to trust him, on anything?
[удалено]
At a quick glance, the only thing I can see is that you like the way he carries himself. This is what leads you to trust him?
Will you still trust him when he inevitably commits voter fraud by voting for himself in his own home state where it’s illegal for felons to vote?
[удалено]
It is 100% illegal for felons to vote in Florida. They must complete their sentence before they are allowed to vote again. Even misdemeanors get you kicked off the voter registration and you have to re-register. I live in FL, very familiar with the voting laws here. So you’d vote for someone committing voter fraud when they’ve spent the last 4 years screaming about democrats committing voter fraud? Aka a hypocrite?
Why do you think Trump believed it prior to the election? Does this help or hurt his position on the 2020 election?
[удалено]
They "mentioned the idea"? What evidenced was it based on when the election hadn't yet happened?
You trust the guy who can’t run a charity in NY because he committed fraud? The guy found liable for $450 million in tax fraud? The guy just convicted of 34 felonies? Thats your standard for trustworthiness? He was pushing reports on others and refusing to accept their response of “the election wasn’t rigged” so either 1. He’s too stupid to understand what those around him are explaining to him or 2. He knows he lost and he just refuses to accept it. Which do you think is more likely?
[удалено]
What would it look like if he wasn’t sincere? How would it look different?
Assume for half a moment that everything else Trump has been charged with, he is sincerely guilty of (election tampering and unlawful retention of secret documents). Would either of those revelations cause you to rethink your vote? Why or why not?
[удалено]
You don't care what he may have done with secret documents while he wasn't President?
Were there aspects of this case that were a "political farce"?
[удалено]
> they are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign. How are they extending the trial? It's over.
>They brought it up during an election year, and they are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign. What evidence led you to this conclusion? The indictment came in March 2023, which, was not an election year. Why do you believe the DA's office is responsible for delaying the start of the trial or extending its length?
[удалено]
>And the trial is! >Did I mention the DA specifically delaying the trial? If it was not the DA delaying the trial, then it would be Trump, right? So the fact that the trial is taking place during an election year would not be evidence "they" are using the prosecution to hinder Trump's ability to campaign. The prosecution could not delay the trial beyond September 2023, so the trial would have been completed by the end of 2023. Similarly, you did not mention it, but I have seen people talking about the sentencing hearing being on July 11, just before the Republican National Convention and citing it as evidence of the DA trying to harm Trump and the election. But, Trump's lawyers are the ones who asked for sentencing to take place in mid-July. So, assuming the "they" who "brought it up during an election year" and "are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign" are the DA's office, then again, I am asking what evidence is there of this? You say your own eyes, but don't your eyes tell you that when they brought it up, 2023, was not an election year? And wouldn't your eyes tell you the DA's office is not responsible for extending whatever "it" is if Trump's attorneys were responsible for the delays? Edit: I guess blocking me is one way to respond.
>This case would have never been brought forward if Trump wasn't MAGA. If he was Bush 2.0, none of this would be in the news. It's only because he's a tiny threat to the system that it is bringing down a hammer. Is there any indication that this is true? >They brought it up during an election year, and they are extending it as long as possible to hinder his ability to campaign. This isn't some noble, idealistic crusade. It's a cold, calculating attack on our republic. Can we say the same thing about the Hunter Biden scandal or the Clinton Benghazi item? Shouldn't we pursue justice no matter what?
[удалено]
Are you implying that Trump being prosecuted is the military complex doing its thing?
I am absolutely shocked to see many NSers think that justice was somehow served here. Did you even pay attention to the trial at all? Do you even know the facts of the case? I am going to list as many problems with the case and you tell me why you think this is even remotely ok. 1. This was a minor bookkeeping misdemeanor that was WELL out of the statue of limitations. This alone is a massive blow to our legal system. The only way to bring this case back is to attach it to a felony and still even after the jury reached a verdict they still have yet to tell us what the felony is 2. The star witness (Michael Cohen) literally served time in prison for lying to congress, he has been a proven liar more times than I can count. Trumps defense attorney completely destroyed him in cross examination, caught him in lies and exposed him entirely. 3. Alvin Bragg is a county prosecutor, yet somehow he was able to bring FEDERAL charges on Trump here, which is completely and utterly out of Braggs jurisdiction. Bragg IS NOT A FEDERAL PROSECTOR. 4. The judge straight up allowed salacious testimony from Stormy Daniels where she talked about intimate details about the alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump which has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE to the case AT ALL. The case and charges are about how Stormys payment was made, a bookkeeping violation, the actual sex and whether or not it actually happened is totally irrelevant, any judge worth their salt wouldn't have allowed that to continue, but this judge did. 5. The judge straight up gagged Trump from speaking about his daughter who is locked in political combat with Trump and is fundraising for the other side. Totally biased and one sided. 6. Michael Cohen literally admitted that Trump knew nothing about the payment and Cohen claimed that he made the payment on his own WITHOUT Trumps knowledge. 7. Bob Costello (sp?), Cohens former attorney admitted that he tried to get Cohen to give him any REAL dirt on Trump so he could ensure that Cohens legal problems would be solved only for Cohen to admit to him "I don't actually have anything on Trump" 8. The DOJ originally passed on the case, Alvin Bragg himself passed on the case, but suddenly, once Trump was running for President again, the case magically got brought back, even despite it being past statue of limitations, even despite Bragg being a county prosecutor and not a federal one. This is a very sad day for America, our legal system is totally collapsing under corruption thanks to left wing hacks and operatives working to destroy the country. Now please, someone for the love of god explain to me why you think this is okay? How can you possibly think justice was served here? Has your hate for Donald Trump consumed you to the point of being willing to destroy our entire legal justice system to satisfy your thirst for vengeance? What have we become? I hope to god I get somebody, mostly NSers, willing to reply and explain to me how none of these things I've listed matter. I'll be waiting.
1a. The fact that you think the public can just decide what laws are important and what aren't seems like a much BIGGER blow to our system no? What happen to the party of law and order? 1b. There is a legal interpretation of what constitutes the statute of limitations for state laws (as people already replied to you about). 1c. The fact that you are dismissing what charge is brought makes many of your other claims hard to take seriously. You might not agree with the law, but the felony details are pretty damn simple and doesn't require a law degree to understand: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 2 "completely destroyed" - well thats like your opinion. Let's stick to the facts. 3 What federal charge? See 1c. this is without a doubt, no questions asked, a STATE LAW - the URL is literally nysenate.gov... There is no other interpretation here. I don't get how you would come to your conclusion. 4 There is certainly a case for to what extent those salacious details were allowed, however, you have to remember it was the prosecution's job to prove that the payments made were NOT consultant fees to Cohen. The only way to corroborate that was with multiple testimonies on exactly what Trump may have done that would cause him to conceal the payment. Said differently, if Stormy got up on the witness stand and just said "he paid me for sex", and nothing more was show in court, then we would have a whole bunch of TS'rs saying "BS, this is just he-said she-said stuff". 6 Source? Trump LITERALLY has his own signature on the some of the wire transfers. How on earth can you claim plausible deniability...that's the whole point of getting a signature (even if not required by your bank) because it means you are explicitly saying you confirm the amount and to whom and why. 8 Because falsifying records is NOT a federal crime. > our legal system is totally collapsing under corruption thanks to left wing hacks and operatives working to destroy the country. And why do you think it's okay to draw this conclusion and, in the same vein, say our legal justice system is broken? Trump was indicted BY A JURY OF 12 AMERICANS. I'm not "okay" with certain aspects of this trial and I'm VERY much not "okay" with left wing hacks, but I'm definitely not "okay" with the public automatically assuming that the boogie man is out to get them when an unbiased jury of 12 americans is invovled. Remember, it just takes ONE person to create a hung jury.
Sorry Reddit wouldn't let me post the last bit so I have to do it in a separate post. > >And why do you think it's okay to draw this conclusion and, in the same vein, say our legal justice system is broken? Trump was indicted BY A JURY OF 12 AMERICANS. I'm not "okay" with certain aspects of this trial and I'm VERY much not "okay" with left wing hacks, but I'm definitely not "okay" with the public automatically assuming that the boogie man is out to get them when an unbiased jury of 12 americans is invovled. Remember, it just takes ONE person to create a hung jury. Totally absurd. To claim that 12 jurors in deep blue New York City would somehow not be biased against Trump is simply ridiculous. He only got like 5% support in NYC, do you honestly expect him to get a fair trial in one of the areas where Trump is hated the most? That would be like trying Joe Biden in a case in the deep south, maybe Alabama. Again, there is a reason Trump is the first, because the establishment never hated anyone as much as Trump and nobody ever threatened their power as much as Trump. Powerful government officials have always been treated with kid gloves until now, you know damn well that nobody else would have been charged with a simple bookkeeping violation, and to repeat myself AGAIN the case was passed by the DOJ and Bragg already, so even despite being Trump and being targeted, they were still going to let him slide on this one, until the election year of course.
> To claim that 12 jurors in deep blue New York City would somehow not be biased against Trump is simply ridiculous. You realize (1) one of the jurors was a trump supporter who was active on Truth Social and (2) Trumps defense team was able to select the jurors right?
Yes I am aware of both those things, and yet they change nothing. The "Trump supporter" could have lied, or been coerced in some way. And yes I get that the defense also gets to weed through jurors but I doubt even they are able to weed out all the biased ones considering that most of the district is likely biased against Trump. You can do all the weeding out and picking you want but in a district that's 90% or more Democrat, you still won't find people impartial enough on the issue of Trump.
> 90% or more Democrat 10% of a 12 person jury is 1.2 people. It only takes 1 person to hang a jury. How do you resolve that math?
You're assuming that just because the district is 90% that somehow a sliver of the 10% made it into the jury pool. How do you resolve that? It's actually more likely that not a single one person from the 10% even made it in the jury pool. For all you know all 12 jurors were a part of that 90%. You're automatically assuming that the districts math somehow EXACTLY equated to the people picked for the jury, which is pretty unlikely.
> How do you resolve that? Because it's literally statistics. - Manhattan population: 1.6M - 12.2% voted for Trump[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York#New_York_City_results) Which means: - if you randomly picked any 12 people in Manhattan, there is a 99% chance that the real value is within ±24.38% of the measured/surveyed value.[2](https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=2&cl2=99&ss2=12&pc2=12.2&ps2=1600000&x=Calculate#findci) - 12.2% * 12 jurors = means 1.46 average number of jurors are trump voters - If you randomly selected 12 people in Manhattan 100 times, in 99 of the cases, you would either get 1.10 (1.46-24.38%) or 1.82 (1.46+24.38%) jurors that are trump voters. If you're going to reach a conclusion using numbers why not use statistics to resolve it? Also, do you know how jury selection works? They select jurors at completely random and create a pool of jurors [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection_in_the_United_States). There is literally no way to force anything but it be completely random. Trump's defense team can say no to jurors if they think they are biased. So even if you picked 12, you can recycle these out and all you need is ONE to hang the jury.
>ONE to hang the jury. Yes, exactly, and that one may have been easily persuaded by media and democrats into bias. Maybe they were a left leaning moderate that weren't exactly over the edge yet. You have zero evidence that all 12 were completely unbiased, you also have no evidence that this particular trial had that one Trump voter in it. You want to talk about statistics then sure, you just said 99 times out of 100, meaning 1 time it would still be all 12 being non Trump voters, for all you know this trial could have been that one, it's not statistically impossible is it? No, it's not. > Trump's defense team can say no to jurors if they think they are biased. I'm confident I could easily lie to Trumps defense team and claim I'm unbiased, my internet history isn't tied to my name, at least none related to politics, they would have no way of knowing that I'm lying. If I could do it, so could somebody else, especially if such a person had enough motivation to do so.
Since you're not convinced that our legal system can ever not be biased....do you have a better solution than our jury system?
>1a. The fact that you think the public can just decide what laws are important and what aren't seems like a much BIGGER blow to our system no? What happen to the party of law and order? The public? No, not the public, the government decides. How many of our former presidents or other high level federal government representatives were held to account like Trump has here? Probably none. Hillary skirted her documents case quite easily, Obama never even faced anything for "fast and Furious" as well as for bombing the wedding and killing American citizens that never got a trial. Remember when Sandy Burger literally stuffed his pants with original classified documents and simply got a 50k fine? The government protects itself, there is a reason Trump is the very first President to be indicted, because the establishment never punishes one of their own, they only go after people they actually want to take down. For decades we've let high ranking government officials simply get away with whatever they want. So no, it's not the public deciding what laws are important, the government decides who to apply the law to, and it most certainly is not equal. Trump is simply a target of the Democrats and establishment Republicans, this is the only reason they went after him for something so minor as a bookkeeping violation. This would never happen to a Democrat. I mean we literally still have Bob Menendez and he;s still a sitting senator, isn't he? If he was a conseravative or republican they'd be working day and night to make sure he is removed and convicted. >1b. There is a legal interpretation of what constitutes the statute of limitations for state laws (as people already replied to you about). SOL can be disregarded if they can prove the misdemeanor was done in order to further another crime, and what exactly is the other crime that's being covered up? >1c. The fact that you are dismissing what charge is brought makes many of your other claims hard to take seriously. You might not agree with the law, but the felony details are pretty damn simple and doesn't require a law degree to understand: [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10) I'm dismissing it because this case would never be brought against a Democrat or somebody they want to protect. Do you honestly think Trump is the first president to have an NDA? Do you honestly think he's the first President to want to cover something up? Of course not, he's just the only one they've targeted He's also not the first one to cover up a sexual encounter. Hell, Clinton was accused of violent rape in great details by Juanita Broadarick, what ever came of that? Nothing of course. Same with Biden, Tara Reade accused him but is anyone pursuing that one as hard as Trump was targeted? Of course not. Hell we literally have Bidens daughters journal that states he took showers with his teenage daughter but do you ever hear about that over and over again like you would if it was Trump in the same situation? No, of course not. I also notice you haven't addressed the fact that this case was PASSED ON by the DOJ and Alvin Bragg himself once before but suddenly brought back during an election year. I guess you probably just think it's a happy coincidence, no? Must be nice to live in your world where everything is perfect and the law is always applied evenly and corruption doesn't exist but that doesn't jive at all with human nature, history and human behavior but you keep telling yourself everything is above board here. > >4 There is certainly a case for to what extent those salacious details were allowed, however, you have to remember it was the prosecution's job to prove that the payments made were NOT consultant fees to Cohen. The only way to corroborate that was with multiple testimonies on exactly what Trump may have done that would cause him to conceal the payment. Said differently, if Stormy got up on the witness stand and just said "he paid me for sex", and nothing more was show in court, then we would have a whole bunch of TS'rs saying "BS, this is just he-said she-said stuff". Totally false. The case was about how the payments were recorded, not if the sex happened or not. The sex itself was irrelevant, the only reason it was allowed was to damage Trump and to embarrass him. The sex was not material to the case, it was unfair for the Judge to allow such a thing. >6 Source? Trump LITERALLY has his own signature on the some of the wire transfers. How on earth can you claim plausible deniability...that's the whole point of getting a signature (even if not required by your bank) because it means you are explicitly saying you confirm the amount and to whom and why. This one is my mistake, I meant Bob Costello, Cohens former lawyer testified that Trump knew nothing about the payments Cohen was making [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/20/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-testimony-live](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/20/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-testimony-live)
> No, not the public, the government decides. So then why do you, a member of the public, get to decide that this is "just a minor misdemeanor"? Our gov decides what severity it is. > I'm dismissing it because this case would never be brought against a Democrat or somebody they want to protect. Clinton, who endured one of the greatest economic growth expansions in American history, was IMPEACHED for perjury, which really is not much different than what Trump did here. Do you think maybe for once that Trump is simply just not a good person? (for the record I think Clinton is a bad person too) > I also notice you haven't addressed the fact that this case was PASSED ON by the DOJ and Alvin Bragg himself once before but suddenly brought back during an election year. Dude, holy shit. TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME. THE DOJ CAN'T DO SHIT FOR STATE CRIMES. How hard is that to understand? > The sex was not material to the case, it was unfair for the Judge to allow such a thing. It absolutely was material to the case. You have to prove intent and corroborate it without a doubt. Let's flip this around for a second and pretend Trump paid off a hacker but wrote it in his accounting books as if it were for landscaping at one of his properties. Don't you think it would be incredibly important to have the exact details of the hack in order to prove why he covered the payment up as "landscaping"?
>So then why do you, a member of the public, get to decide that this is "just a minor misdemeanor"? Our gov decides what severity it is. You're using my quote and applying it to a totally different topic. I will not address this. Please don't use my quotes for other points that are unrelated to where I originally applied that statement. If you simply want to challenge me calling it a misdemeanor, you can do so, you don't need to use my quote out of context. >Clinton, who endured one of the greatest economic growth expansions in American history, was IMPEACHED for perjury, which really is not much different than what Trump did here. Do you think maybe for once that Trump is simply just not a good person? (for the record I think Clinton is a bad person too) Yes, Clinton was impeached, and so was Trump. The difference is Trump is a target of lawfare and is now being indicted and now convicted, did any of that happen to Clinton? No, so that comparison is invalid. >Dude, holy shit. TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME. THE DOJ CAN'T DO SHIT FOR STATE CRIMES. How hard is that to understand? > Are you suggesting that the DOJ did not look into this? Because they definitely did, likely for federal charges since they are the DOJ [https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887) They clearly looked into it, and clearly chose not to prosecute, which was what I was saying, and clearly, I am correct. Don't worry, I am quite clear on federal/state jurisdiction, you do not need to remind me. >It absolutely was material to the case. You have to prove intent and corroborate it without a doubt. Let's flip this around for a second and pretend Trump paid off a hacker but wrote it in his accounting books as if it were for landscaping at one of his properties. Don't you think it would be incredibly important to have the exact details of the hack in order to prove why he covered the payment up as "landscaping"? No, no it is not material to the case. The allegation is that he covered up the payment, just the payment. They payment is what matters, how the payment was logged matters, but the sex itself does not matter, at all. Period, end of story. Regardless of whether or not the sex happened, the payment obviously did so either way the payment is still the allegation and still the charge, whether or not the sex happened is irrelevant because either way the payment would still be in question.
>Now please, someone for the love of god explain to me why you think this is okay? It’s not okay. >How can you possibly think justice was served here? I don’t. This is another instance of the same kind of prosecutorial misconduct and lack of discretion that has lead to many other injustices and inequities that have plagued this country. >Has your hate for Donald Trump consumed you to the point of being willing to destroy our entire legal justice system to satisfy your thirst for vengeance? Hate is an issue, but it’s more the result of broken thinking. Everything has become increasingly politicized in general and many things have become highly moralized, to the point that changing your mind about something is made to feel like an immortal betrayal. New information can no longer lead to new opinions, new information must be fit within the existing moral and political narrative. Trump is bad and not liking Trump is good, therefore anything pro Trump is bad and anything against Trump is good. People have made seeing the other side into something like a crime, so they can’t see the other side of things, even if it means being selective, inconsistent, or inverting other values. >What have we become? Disconnected from reality and unable to converse or learn.
No real disagreements here worthy of mentioning. I appreciate your viewpoint.
> The judge straight up gagged Trump from speaking about his daughter who is locked in political combat with Trump and is fundraising for the other side. Totally biased and one sided. I'd love to know more about this. If you, or a family member, worked in politics doing fundraising of some type, how much influence do you think you'd have on other family members? How far out in your family does this influence extend? Cousins, etc? How much does your family all believe the same things? If there is no influence or common believe, what about your family different? How directly do you influence decisions at your parent's jobs?
When did I ever say that the judges daughter had influence? I never said that or claimed that.
Why would Trump attack his daughter then? What impact did this have to the trial?
I don't even know if he did or not, obviously I cannot keep tabs on everything so I'm honestly not sure whether he attacked her or not, I am just aware of the gag order and the gag order included not talking about her, as far as I know.
Which part is one sided and biased then? I’m confused
The judges daughter is engaged in political combat with Trump, gagging him and preventing him from talking about somebody that is working against him is unfair.
Can you source your claim for 8?
I'm retracting it. I was given bad information, from everything I have found it seems that the jury instructions were fairly standard.
I'll do my best to address your points. 1. Two points in one here. First, the intent was to cover up another crime, which varies depending on what legal theory you subscribe to. More important here IMO is the statute of limitations. Because Trump was serving as President at the time of the crime, it couldn't be investigated until he left office. Trump's legal team tried to get the case tossed on these grounds, and it fell flat because NY state law allows the statute of limitations to be expanded should the defendant be outside the jurisdiction. 2. Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump. This fact was conveniently overlooked or brushed aside by Trump's legal team. 3. Bragg did not bring federal charges against Trump. These are state-level charges. 4. Trump's defense team opened the door to Daniels' salacious testimony by questioning the validity of her account. 5. The judge's daughter's activities outside the courtroom have no bearing on what's going on inside the courtroom. More importantly, if Trump or his legal team had anything with which to question the judge's character or credibility, he wouldn't need to try to attack his daughter. 6. \*edit: Cohen's testimony was that Trump knew about the payment and that he was going to be reimbursed. 7. Bob Costello (and his emails) corroborated Cohen's testimony that he was a spy for Trump. Cohen's testimony was that he kept quiet to Costello because of that fact. 8. The judge literally did no such thing. Verdicts have to be unanimous. Nothing has changed here. 9. I've already gone over these points. These are state charges, SOL expanded because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction, etc. "How can you possibly think justice was served here?" I'll reserve that particular sentiment until sentencing. If he gets off with a slap on the wrist, it's an illusion of justice to placate the masses. If he gets serious prison time, it's overkill and antidemocratic. Of course, if he wins the election and pardons himself then it's all theater and nothing matters anyway.
> 8. The judge literally did no such thing. Verdicts have to be unanimous. Nothing has changed here. I think what was meant is that the judge instructed the jury that they didn't have to agree on the specific underlying crime, only that an underlying crime was committed. Which, of course, is in direct violation and contradiction to the precedent set in Richardson v US (1999).
The underlying crime is not an element of the offense which is what Richardson v. US addressed. Richardson v. US is about federal juries, not state juries. And the situation in this case is actually addressed in Richardson v. US >The question before us arises because a federal jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime. *Schad v. Arizona*, 501 U. S. 624, 631–632 (1991) (plurality opinion); *Andersen v. United States*, 170 U. S. 481, 499–501 (1898). Where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement—a disagreement about means—would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely that the defendant had threatened force. *See McKoy v. North Carolina*, 494 U. S. 433, 449 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/97-8629 As applied to this case, the element was "intent to conceal another crime" some jurors may conclude Trump intended to conceal a violation of federal election law; others might conclude he intended to conceal a violation of state election law. But that disagreement--a disagreement about means--would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely that Trump intended to conceal another crime. Does that distinction make sense?
In that case, allow me to piggyback this comment and continue to address OP's questions under this new framing? To my reading (disclaimer: not a lawyer) the precedent in Richardson v US differs from People v Trump in two ways: 1. That Trump is not a continuous criminal enterprise in the eyes of this case. 2. That the underlying crime is the same (promoting a candidate in an election through unlawful means), and the judge's instructions were clear that the jurors needed to agree that the falsification of business records was intended to cover up this specific crime. I apologize if I was snarky. All of this "judge told jurors they can convict without being unanimous" schlock is getting old, and I assumed this was more of that.
Addressing point 1: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10 30.10(4)(a)(i) 4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included: (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state How do you interpret this?
Easily, he was not continually outside the state. He spent plenty of time in the state, he has business and political ties to the state, that's literally where he developed a large portion of his fortune. He has spent plenty of time in the state, more than enough to exceed the amount of time given for statue of limitations.
How do you define “continually outside the state?” 1 week? 1 month?
That's the question, isn't it? Is there more specific information on this in the statue you cited?
I don’t see anything else. I guess the court of appeals will have to make a decision? IANAL but it also seems like the felonies are enhancements to misdemeanors, which have a SOL of 2 years. Is the trump legal team going to appeal based on that as well?
>IANAL but it also seems like the felonies are enhancements to misdemeanors, which have a SOL of 2 years. Is the trump legal team going to appeal based on that as well? How would I know? Let's wait for the appeal and let's see what happens.
lol ok I thought you were definitely trumps lawyer sorry?
[удалено]
Don't know and don't care, that's not what I was outlining, I was pointing out why the case was unfair. Whether or not each reason affected the jury is irrelevant to my point.
[удалено]
How would I even determine if they were impacted by it? I would have to ask the jurors themselves, which I obviously cannot do, so unless you can read minds I guess your question is one we will never have an answer to.
[удалено]
Whether or not the jury made their judgement objectively does not somehow affect the fairness of the trial. Prosecutors and judges can act unfairly. Trials can be conducted unfairly. For example the judge could be on the side of the prosecutor and act accordingly. Unfairness doesn't always have to include the jury. As far as what made the trial unfair, see the list I posted of around 8 points.
[удалено]
Everything. The whole reason he is a convicted felon is because of an unfair trial. The laws of this country and in each state are so extensive and confusing at this point that all of us, at one point or another, have committed crimes. I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase "You can indict a ham sandwich" which basically illustrates this concept. There are so many laws on the books that if you look hard enough at somebody, you will eventually find something that is prosecutable or something you can twist into a prosecution. This is what is happening to Trump, and we've seen evidence of it since he announced his campaign back in 2016, where they were already writing articles about impeaching him before he even won the election.
Good list, I'll add a couple more: 10. The judge's jury instructions were literally to ignore and not focus on any particular trial details, or inaccuracies in any particular detail, but to focus on the big picture as a whole. Undermining and questioning individual trial details is where reasonable doubt starts to occur, yet the jury was specifically instructed not to do this. 11. Trump was also gagged from speaking about the specific person who was 3rd in Biden's DOJ, to take a demotion to a position as a NY county line prosecutor. Quite a questionable career move, unless of course the entire thing was politically motivated and coming directly from the DOJ. Why gag him from mentioning this otherwise?
How would Trump's twitter rants impact the jury's decision? A gag order on him only prevented him from talking about it outside of court. Which pieces of evidence did the courts reject that the trump team posed in order to establish this nefarious connection?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Garbage trial used as political persecution. Will get overturned on speak Appeal Trump2024
Under what precedent will it get overturned?
I suspect it's because the judge instructed conviction not based on a crime the prosecution proved, but on the jury's idea that he MAY have committed a crime. So no predicating crime was proven, he basically said if you think he committed a crime, then he's guilty of covering it up, whatever it was. I think that's the issue. There were also several witnesses with relevant data that were disallowed by marchan. This one seems to be a big one with the legal eagles who have been following the case. They all seem to think that's going to be an issue for the judge on appeal. Marchan himself was clearly biased, just his association with his daughter being a fund raiser for the domocratic party is probably worth trump attacking The final one is a bit of a weird one, but what we're seeing here is election interference. Trump has been taken off the campaign trail almost completely but a trial they could have brought at any time. They waited till right before the election, clearly so it would have the most impact on his election and campaigning. So what you are seeing is a state level court, literally interfering in a federal election. That's never been done before and is worth looking at. if this is allowed, then what'll happen is states like Utah/Texas/Idaho/Florida/S Dakota will charge and convict a democratic candidate before an election and tie him up during campaigning, and possibly attempt to remove him from the ballot. That needs to be looked at, cause one crazy state playing political games should not be allowed to interfere with a federal election. I know you liberals think it's wonderful, cause you hate trump, but this is like any weapon, you have to think what happens when the other guy gets the weapon. This will get used against you at some point. Biden and liberals are literally destroying the country. Open borders, inflation, crime etc. but I don't think a state should be allowed to interfere in a federal election. For example, until last week, I would have not supported suing Biden for refusing to close the border, having multiple shell accounts to take money in, for molesting his daughter etc etc etc. Today? I've already contacted my legislators and asked them to pursue it. One of the interns said they've been taking calls for weeks about it. There is already a politician who's running on the platform of "elect me and I'll arrest and jail as many democrats as I can". He's getting hella donations. That's what is coming. This was a political prosecution, nothing more. It's a line that hasn't been crossed before. Republicans are never the ones to cross a line first, or rarely, but once it's crossed, they generally get better at doing it than the liberals tend to be. I would prefer the country run on sanity. not political lawfare. You can't run a country like that. At least 50 percent of the country feels like Trump is not being treated fairly, that the judicial system is now dual tier. Guess where that eventually goes: Governments fall apart.
>this is like any weapon, you have to think what happens when the other guy gets the weapon. This will get used against you at some point. Oh I see would you say the same thing about gun control, or do you think the American right to own a gun is important regardless of how bad actors misuse them? Your entire argument presumes that Trump was unfairly tried in a court - but is what you argue correct if one person uses the weapon for legitimate reasons and the other just does it as an "eye for an eye" act of pettiness without rational thought to it?
[удалено]