"We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists."
I would like someone to ask Trump, during an interview preferably, to define each of the 4 "ists" above, and state the key differences between each one. Bet he can't.
Also worth adding, if the country preemptively places a criminal wrongdoer above the rule of law based solely on considerations that have nothing to do with whether crimes were committed or can be proved, that country is not abiding by the rule of law either.
Gee, I it sure seems like everyone writing these pieces forgot that tfg's 34 counts of guilt is about election interference. And yes, he broke the law. And yes, he's like any other white collar criminal (and the only exception is that he is a former president and current Republican presidential candidate). And yes, the rule of law that applies to any person in NYS was broken by him and 12 jurors found him guilty.
The rule of law is the bedrock of our democracy. No one, of any persuasion, can deny that. Trump thinks he is immune from the law. That’s where the messaging needs to steer. If republicans can’t trust the outcome of this proceeding, then they are not to be trusted with their public offices. I remember when civil discourse was common. No matter the current polarization, we have to close ranks on trust in our democracy. That’s the hill worth dying on.
Indeed, it is sad for any country to have a former and possibly re-elected President to be found guilty of felony criminal charges.
However, it is now much too late to mourn such a sullen state of affairs when the majority of citizens and both major political parties turned a blind eye to the mountains of corruption, excessive greed, hate of 'the other', Political chicanery and criminality exercised over the past 2 hundred plus years that is "now" considered the norm, simply because these behaviors benefit certain section of the populace at any one time.
Humility and recompense for society have never been foundational qualities of American character, when the rich and famous - even by any means - were worshiped and emulated as models for goals of life. Therefore it was foreseeable that Donald Trump would fit into that glorified class.
In today's NY Times, an 82 years of ago Trump voter lamented how Biden and Democrats falsely charged and convicted Trump on 34 felonies, without regard for "fact" that all witnesses against him in the case, except Stephanie Clifford were Republicans and others in his Presidential circle or recording civil servants.
Thus, the destruction of reasonableness, intelligent thinking. honesty and reverence for truth has been completed, at least for half or more of the populace.
This edition of Decency and Sense references an incumbent state representative in Colorado. The phenomenon is of course prevalent among Republican office holders at all levels of government across the country.
A brief excerpt appears below the link. Click through for the damning case.
*****This past Friday, a jury convicted the 45th president of having falsified business records as part of a scheme just before the 2016 election to prevent the revelation of an alleged 2006 sexual encounter with a porn star. That night, the current representative of Colorado House District 39 registered her objection to the verdict by changing her official Facebook profile picture to an inverted United States flag – the sign of distress that some of the January 6 insurrectionists carried as they rallied outside the Capitol and assaulted police to gain unlawful entry. After a Facebook user commented enthusiasm for her adoption of the symbol, she replied with an image that stated, “I am more MAGA now than ever.”
This response is puzzling. Over the last several years the civil and criminal justice systems have made abundantly clear what a loathsome individual the 45th president is. His felony conviction is only the latest official legal marker of his turpitude.
Consider some recent developments.
[...]
I am confident that the decent and sensible people in House District 39 who oppose the 45th president outnumber those who, for whatever reasons, thirst for his restoration. Perhaps someday – perhaps in retrospect – the current representative of House District 39 will reconsider her own position.*****
It's a good thing that the MAGA/GOP is so transparent with its "Projection Attack Strategy." Sensible and moderate Americans never take these extremists seriously. Alas, this Party is deadly serious about prevailing at all costs. Their accusations serve as justification for radical, extremist 'defensive' actions.
Republicans say the trial was a disgrace but they never actually give any reasons, because they can't. If Judge Merchan were biased that bias would have shown itself somehow in the judge's running of the trial. Trump and MAGA can't point to anything Judge Merchan said or did that actually showed bias (at least not without making stuff up, e.g., "The Judge won't let me testify," "They're treating me differently than any other defendant," etc., etc.)
And if Stormy had said "I don't want your money!" and taken her story to The Post - trump would have got off that escalator and fallen flat on his face. . .
I disagree with Kinzinger: Our standing in the world was not damaged by this verdict, or that the case was brought. It was damaged by the behavior of the defendant, and the willingness of too many Americans to ignore that behavior. As for respect for our justice system, it would be worse if he were not convicted. This is not a sad occasion.
Here is what makes not sense if Trump was so confident he was going to win in 2020 why did he try to find Dirt on Joe Biden? What Biden should do is point to things like this as to how weak Trump is. It also doubles as Donald Trump tried to use the legal system to defeat a political rival. What I do not understand is why Joe Biden doesn't point to the long time between infrastructure bills and blame infrastructure for the inflationairy cycle we went through and point out countries that went the auserity route like the UK had inflation without spending money.
Honig's argument is about prosecutorial discretion in pursuing cases. Like Bill Barr's choice to tell the SDNY to drop any cases against "Individual 1" (Trump) when it was a serious enough issue that Trump's bagman Michael Cohen ended up in jail.
Or Barr's whitewashing of Mueller's report and the 9 or 10 obstruction charges that (Garland) should have taken up upon Trump's leaving office.
Maybe Bragg's charge was bespoke. But given that the bureaucrats and judges in the Federal System decided that the rule of law shouldn't apply to Trump, I'm happy to see him have to face some sort of accountability.
I think Honig makes a few points worth thinking about, and is at least making criticisms in good faith. But I see three main problems with his analysis. First is the issue of whether and to what degree the resulting guilty verdict justifies the charge or legitimizes their allegedly strained, convoluted reach. He suggests it doesn't matters at all, but this notion that the strength of the evidence or the resulting verdict doesn't matter when evaluating the nature of the charges seems incredibly silly to me and is easily the weakest claim here. It also ignores that even if there are questions about the legal basis, there is virtually zero dispute over his factual conduct. Very few of Trumps defenders even bother denying that he did exactly what the NYC DA charged him with doing and the evidence presented at trial established that conclusively. Likewise, few would claim that Trump's conduct wasn't immoral or wrong, and doesn't even make for a scandal, never mind a crime.
The only real debate here is a legal one over the outer parameters of the statute that Trump was charged with violating, and whether Trump's established conduct rose to a crime, or was merely a morally repugnant political scandal. This matters because it speaks to the simple fact that Trump is not and has never been an innocent man, who has been railroaded by the DA criminalizing lawful and ordinary conduct. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the legal issue, Trump will remain a vile charlatan who was hoisted by his own petard through no fault but his own.
As for the more nuanced legal issue, Honig attempts to diminish the legitimacy of the charge by minimizing the frequency with which they are filed and arguing that the NY DA developed a bespoke charge approach solely for Trump, but this ignores the incredibly bespoke nature of the conduct involved and doesn't remotely invalidate the charge. Granted, no one was ever charged by NYS with felony falsifying business records based on a cover up of a federal campaign finance crime before, but that's not because the charge is illegitimate. Its because nobody had ever presented such a fact pattern to the DA before because nobody had ever done anything like it. The rule of law requires that similar cases be treated similarly, and the fact that a case is so unique as to have no comparators does not remotely violate that principle. And lastly, Honig criticizes the political motives of Bragg by suggesting that he won election by talking up his Trump hunting bonafides. This frankly ignores the context of Bragg's campaign, which took place while this investigation was already ongoing, and people had questions about what the candidates running would do with it. What Bragg most directly and specifically said about the investigation of this case during his campaign for DA is exactly what an ethical DA should say when asked a question like that, which is to make no promises or commitments either way except to let the investigation play out and do what the evidence and law requires of him. Simple reality is that these statements weren't promises to get Trump and shouldn't even be viewed as inappropriate, but rather a credit to Bragg's ethical commitment to the rule of law.
I could not disagree more with Eli's take on this trial. It showcased all of dumps nastiness, and corruption. Everytime he attacked it showed what a " weak sister" he is. His contempt, arrogance, ignorance was on full display. I'm just sorry there weren't cameras ! Last but not least, he was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, so there's that..
Here's what I think of Honig's statement: Isn't it the defense's job to make sure their client gets a fair trial? Isn't it their job to address the structural infirmities (no explanation given as to what THAT is) and argue in motion practice that the case is a strained, convoluted reach - BEFORE the jury is empaneled?
"We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists."
I would like someone to ask Trump, during an interview preferably, to define each of the 4 "ists" above, and state the key differences between each one. Bet he can't.
A “banana republic” country would either
(A) have NOT allowed justice to take place in its time
(B) allowed the commission of crimes without prosecuting them
(C) immediately have charged, tried and convicted Trump in 2017. He’d be in his 3rd year in prison now.
OR
(D) Trump would have alresdy been hung in the public square for the attempted coup we all witnessed.
None of those happened.
The rule of law still prevails. If you claim the adjective “patriotic” you must support the rule of law.
100%. Well said.
Also worth adding, if the country preemptively places a criminal wrongdoer above the rule of law based solely on considerations that have nothing to do with whether crimes were committed or can be proved, that country is not abiding by the rule of law either.
Gee, I it sure seems like everyone writing these pieces forgot that tfg's 34 counts of guilt is about election interference. And yes, he broke the law. And yes, he's like any other white collar criminal (and the only exception is that he is a former president and current Republican presidential candidate). And yes, the rule of law that applies to any person in NYS was broken by him and 12 jurors found him guilty.
The rule of law is the bedrock of our democracy. No one, of any persuasion, can deny that. Trump thinks he is immune from the law. That’s where the messaging needs to steer. If republicans can’t trust the outcome of this proceeding, then they are not to be trusted with their public offices. I remember when civil discourse was common. No matter the current polarization, we have to close ranks on trust in our democracy. That’s the hill worth dying on.
Indeed, it is sad for any country to have a former and possibly re-elected President to be found guilty of felony criminal charges.
However, it is now much too late to mourn such a sullen state of affairs when the majority of citizens and both major political parties turned a blind eye to the mountains of corruption, excessive greed, hate of 'the other', Political chicanery and criminality exercised over the past 2 hundred plus years that is "now" considered the norm, simply because these behaviors benefit certain section of the populace at any one time.
Humility and recompense for society have never been foundational qualities of American character, when the rich and famous - even by any means - were worshiped and emulated as models for goals of life. Therefore it was foreseeable that Donald Trump would fit into that glorified class.
In today's NY Times, an 82 years of ago Trump voter lamented how Biden and Democrats falsely charged and convicted Trump on 34 felonies, without regard for "fact" that all witnesses against him in the case, except Stephanie Clifford were Republicans and others in his Presidential circle or recording civil servants.
Thus, the destruction of reasonableness, intelligent thinking. honesty and reverence for truth has been completed, at least for half or more of the populace.
This edition of Decency and Sense references an incumbent state representative in Colorado. The phenomenon is of course prevalent among Republican office holders at all levels of government across the country.
A brief excerpt appears below the link. Click through for the damning case.
.
https://decencyandsense.substack.com/p/decency-sense-and-the-maximum-felon
*****This past Friday, a jury convicted the 45th president of having falsified business records as part of a scheme just before the 2016 election to prevent the revelation of an alleged 2006 sexual encounter with a porn star. That night, the current representative of Colorado House District 39 registered her objection to the verdict by changing her official Facebook profile picture to an inverted United States flag – the sign of distress that some of the January 6 insurrectionists carried as they rallied outside the Capitol and assaulted police to gain unlawful entry. After a Facebook user commented enthusiasm for her adoption of the symbol, she replied with an image that stated, “I am more MAGA now than ever.”
This response is puzzling. Over the last several years the civil and criminal justice systems have made abundantly clear what a loathsome individual the 45th president is. His felony conviction is only the latest official legal marker of his turpitude.
Consider some recent developments.
[...]
I am confident that the decent and sensible people in House District 39 who oppose the 45th president outnumber those who, for whatever reasons, thirst for his restoration. Perhaps someday – perhaps in retrospect – the current representative of House District 39 will reconsider her own position.*****
It's a good thing that the MAGA/GOP is so transparent with its "Projection Attack Strategy." Sensible and moderate Americans never take these extremists seriously. Alas, this Party is deadly serious about prevailing at all costs. Their accusations serve as justification for radical, extremist 'defensive' actions.
Republicans say the trial was a disgrace but they never actually give any reasons, because they can't. If Judge Merchan were biased that bias would have shown itself somehow in the judge's running of the trial. Trump and MAGA can't point to anything Judge Merchan said or did that actually showed bias (at least not without making stuff up, e.g., "The Judge won't let me testify," "They're treating me differently than any other defendant," etc., etc.)
I would say that Rube-a-Con is the operative Republican political strategy.
And if Stormy had said "I don't want your money!" and taken her story to The Post - trump would have got off that escalator and fallen flat on his face. . .
I disagree with Kinzinger: Our standing in the world was not damaged by this verdict, or that the case was brought. It was damaged by the behavior of the defendant, and the willingness of too many Americans to ignore that behavior. As for respect for our justice system, it would be worse if he were not convicted. This is not a sad occasion.
Here is what makes not sense if Trump was so confident he was going to win in 2020 why did he try to find Dirt on Joe Biden? What Biden should do is point to things like this as to how weak Trump is. It also doubles as Donald Trump tried to use the legal system to defeat a political rival. What I do not understand is why Joe Biden doesn't point to the long time between infrastructure bills and blame infrastructure for the inflationairy cycle we went through and point out countries that went the auserity route like the UK had inflation without spending money.
Honig's argument is about prosecutorial discretion in pursuing cases. Like Bill Barr's choice to tell the SDNY to drop any cases against "Individual 1" (Trump) when it was a serious enough issue that Trump's bagman Michael Cohen ended up in jail.
Or Barr's whitewashing of Mueller's report and the 9 or 10 obstruction charges that (Garland) should have taken up upon Trump's leaving office.
Maybe Bragg's charge was bespoke. But given that the bureaucrats and judges in the Federal System decided that the rule of law shouldn't apply to Trump, I'm happy to see him have to face some sort of accountability.
I think Honig makes a few points worth thinking about, and is at least making criticisms in good faith. But I see three main problems with his analysis. First is the issue of whether and to what degree the resulting guilty verdict justifies the charge or legitimizes their allegedly strained, convoluted reach. He suggests it doesn't matters at all, but this notion that the strength of the evidence or the resulting verdict doesn't matter when evaluating the nature of the charges seems incredibly silly to me and is easily the weakest claim here. It also ignores that even if there are questions about the legal basis, there is virtually zero dispute over his factual conduct. Very few of Trumps defenders even bother denying that he did exactly what the NYC DA charged him with doing and the evidence presented at trial established that conclusively. Likewise, few would claim that Trump's conduct wasn't immoral or wrong, and doesn't even make for a scandal, never mind a crime.
The only real debate here is a legal one over the outer parameters of the statute that Trump was charged with violating, and whether Trump's established conduct rose to a crime, or was merely a morally repugnant political scandal. This matters because it speaks to the simple fact that Trump is not and has never been an innocent man, who has been railroaded by the DA criminalizing lawful and ordinary conduct. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the legal issue, Trump will remain a vile charlatan who was hoisted by his own petard through no fault but his own.
As for the more nuanced legal issue, Honig attempts to diminish the legitimacy of the charge by minimizing the frequency with which they are filed and arguing that the NY DA developed a bespoke charge approach solely for Trump, but this ignores the incredibly bespoke nature of the conduct involved and doesn't remotely invalidate the charge. Granted, no one was ever charged by NYS with felony falsifying business records based on a cover up of a federal campaign finance crime before, but that's not because the charge is illegitimate. Its because nobody had ever presented such a fact pattern to the DA before because nobody had ever done anything like it. The rule of law requires that similar cases be treated similarly, and the fact that a case is so unique as to have no comparators does not remotely violate that principle. And lastly, Honig criticizes the political motives of Bragg by suggesting that he won election by talking up his Trump hunting bonafides. This frankly ignores the context of Bragg's campaign, which took place while this investigation was already ongoing, and people had questions about what the candidates running would do with it. What Bragg most directly and specifically said about the investigation of this case during his campaign for DA is exactly what an ethical DA should say when asked a question like that, which is to make no promises or commitments either way except to let the investigation play out and do what the evidence and law requires of him. Simple reality is that these statements weren't promises to get Trump and shouldn't even be viewed as inappropriate, but rather a credit to Bragg's ethical commitment to the rule of law.
I could not disagree more with Eli's take on this trial. It showcased all of dumps nastiness, and corruption. Everytime he attacked it showed what a " weak sister" he is. His contempt, arrogance, ignorance was on full display. I'm just sorry there weren't cameras ! Last but not least, he was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, so there's that..
Here's what I think of Honig's statement: Isn't it the defense's job to make sure their client gets a fair trial? Isn't it their job to address the structural infirmities (no explanation given as to what THAT is) and argue in motion practice that the case is a strained, convoluted reach - BEFORE the jury is empaneled?