Does Donald Trump's Conviction in New York Make Us Banana Republicans?
Welcome to a system in which laws and regulations are weaponized by the powerful against opponents.

The United States doesn't fully meet the definition of a banana republic—we don't have an economy dependent on resources, like bananas. But in terms of unstable politics in which government officials misuse powers and the courts to punish foes, the U.S. resembles that term more every day. The concluded hush-money trial of former (future?) President Donald Trump is a case in point.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
A Convoluted Case With Political Ramifications
"President Donald Trump was convicted yesterday of allegedly altering business records to conceal his alleged payment of money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential election," Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi wrote June 1. "But, altering business records under New York State law is only a crime if it is done to conceal the violation of some other law. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that the documents were allegedly falsely altered to conceal a contribution of money in violation of federal campaign finance laws or in pursuance of winning the 2016 election by defrauding the voters of information they had a right to know. Neither argument passes First Amendment scrutiny."
By no means do all legal experts agree with Calabresi. But as Politico noted last year, the charges hit "a wall of skepticism — including from left-leaning legal experts, liberal pundits and some of Trump's Republican detractors." Reason's Jacob Sullum considers the charges "dubious" and marred by "logically impossible claims."
Obviously, a Manhattan jury disagreed on its way to finding Trump guilty on 34 counts. But pursuing a former president who is the leading opponent to the incumbent White House resident via what even The New York Times called a "rarely used strategy" fuels suspicions that the target was less Trump's crimes, whatever they were, than his candidacy. Many Americans agree.
Unimpressed Americans
"A plurality of Americans, 50%, think former President Donald Trump's guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his hush money trial was correct," an ABC News/Ipsos poll found over the weekend. "Forty-seven percent of Americans said they think the charges against Trump in this case were politically motivated."
What's notable is that, post-conviction, these numbers barely budged from the 48 percent who originally approved of the charges and the 47 percent who said they were politically motivated in an ABC News/Ipsos poll last year. Public sentiment doesn't look like it's going anywhere from here.
"Perceptions of Donald Trump (and Joe Biden) are statistically unchanged from before the verdict was announced, suggesting minimal changes in how Americans feel about the two presidential candidates," adds Ipsos.
That's not surprising given the number of Americans who assumed from the beginning that the New York prosecution was motivated by partisan animus. The verdict, let's remember, came down the same week the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in a lawsuit against New York regulators that "the NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy." That clears the NRA's case to proceed against those officials for using their power to punish political opponents.
It also comes in an environment in which even many of Donald Trump's supporters take it as a given that he's a crook, but don't see that as a problem. In April, 59 percent of respondents told Pew Research pollsters that they're "not too or not at all confident" that Trump will act ethically in office. In March, while the percentage of respondents telling New York Times/Siena College pollsters they think Trump committed "serious federal crimes" declined from last year, it still stood at 53 percent.
But whatever was prosecuted in Manhattan looks more like throwing enough charges to see what sticks than "serious federal crimes." And Biden is underwater himself in public opinion of his ethics, beating only Trump's rock-bottom numbers, according to Gallup.
Get Ready for Retaliation
Beyond short-term political gamesmanship, the larger risk is that we're normalizing by-any-means-necessary lawfare by those in power to kneecap opponents. It's a game that anybody can play, though we'll all be losers in the end.
"In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents," University of California, Berkeley, law professor John Yoo, who served in George W. Bush's administration, urges.
He'll likely find a receptive audience in the form of Trump himself, who has never been shy about using government power against enemies. He encouraged his supporters' "lock her up" chant against 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton, promised last year to act as an agent of "retribution" if returned to office, and vowed in November to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."
Donald Trump is not a turn-the-other cheek kind of guy, and more than willing to weaponize the state. On this road to banana republic status, each major political faction seems eager for the journey.
"Prosecuting current or past top officials accused of illegal conduct seems like an obvious decision for a democracy – everyone should be held accountable and subject to the rule of law," James D. Long, Morgan Wack, and Victor Menaldo of the University of Washington's political science department cautioned in 2022. "But there are consequences to prosecutions of these officials – not just for them, but for their countries…. If the prosecution of past leaders is brought by a political rival, it can lead to a cycle of prosecutorial retaliation."
I expect we're going to see exactly that in the U.S. It's a regular feature of some other countries' political systems. Costa Rica, for example, more or less offers prosecutions as parting gifts to its former heads of state. It's still a lovely country. And the bananas there are delicious.
An unstable political system in which laws and regulations are weaponized by the powerful against opponents isn't the end of the world. But it delegitimizes the system, turns courtroom proceedings into an expected part of the election process, and poses serious legal dangers for dissenters.
By no means are all Americans sympathetic to the GOP. But we may all be banana republicans now.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trumpanzees gone apeshit went bananas, so yes, we ARE a bunch of Banana Republicans now! Twat cums around, goes around, along with a bunch of STDs from Spermy Daniels! And then shit goes around AGAIN!
The US has been a Banana Republic since Johnson had Kennedy assassinated.
True story. They were just better at playing it cool in the sixties, and didn't have to worry about the internet breaking through the radio silence.
JFK, RFK, Agnew, Nixon and possibly Carter were all taken out by the MIC in one way or another.
Newt Gingrich recalls a dinner with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Carter where he told him he deliberately witheld information from Carter in case he made the "wrong" decision.
I think it was Pat Buchanan (51% sure) who said of a measure that both he and Carter were advocating, that Carter told him he couldn't, with tears in his eyes, because the IMC wouldn't let him.
I'm not sure who came up with "Banana Republic Day" but that person has my thanks for the best meme I've seen in weeks.
Jesse was the first one I saw with it. I just copied him.
Only MAGAs live in that bullshit conspiracy world. Go live in Panama for a while.
One of my longtime Usenet allies made this point about military justice.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&page=11&p=4515565
If Milley won’t be punished for TREASON, why should he be punished for telling the truth?
The UCMJ has simply ceased to exist by way of its blatantly arbitrary, discriminatory and partisan application.
The “leadership” of the U.S. military has forfeited all respect, and the destruction of respect for military law was merely collateral damage.
As long as Milly’s not stretching a rope, the UCMJ is an utter nullity.
– Christopher Charles Morton, dba Deanimator
I may have mentioned before that Chris was a U.S. Army veteran.
Chris’s words apply with equal force with respect to the entire criminal justice system today.
I know what he would say if he were alive today.
He also wrote this.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4514143#post4514143
When the law is not the same for all, there is no law, just the law of the jungle.
Yeah.
These people want to jail Trump with paying off some 'ho, while excusing Dubya and Obama for flagrant war crimes?
Yeah.
These are the same people that punish us severely if caught banging some $20 hooker... Butt the Rethugglicans are OUTRAGED that Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer is BUSTED (I'm disgusted, He can't be trusted!) for hiring a $130 K hooker, and LYING about where the money came from, and twat that shit was used for! Special rules for Special People from MY Tribe, all down the line of monkeyshine!
Sqrlsy:
{The Point} whooooosh ->
You, dumbass.
Saying an absolutely legal NDA was worse than the Iraq War. As expected of Shillsy.
Must be an orderly strike at the mental institute to explain the multi day lack of medication.
All of those who disagree with MEEEE are… Mentally ILL!!! YES, this! Good authoritarians KNOW this already!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
All of the GOOD totalitarians KNOW that those who oppose totalitarianism are mentally ill, for sure!!!
HRC paid for the Steele dossier and was fined $8k for fraudulently claiming it as legal expenses. Trump convicted of 34 felonies for paying for a legal NDA through his lawyer and recording it as a legal expense. Justice is equal. HRC definitely attempted to influence the election. Trump may have been. The damage done by the Steele dossier was nowhere close to being as severe as the NDA. Ask any one dumb enough to vote for Biden.
As I've been saying for years, but nooooOOOOOoooo can't give not usenet guy credit.
Harumph!
What, you think you were the first?
Heh, yeah. We were discussing this shit on unmoderated Usenet back in the 90s. Made for a great time with crossposting and massive flame wars. This forum is tame compared to that.
Trump was convicted of the crime of defeating Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2016. This makes it ironic, as Trump was being accused of covering up a sexual peccadillo as a election campaign finance violation when Hillary only has a political career as an extension of her husband Bill’s. Bill Clinton being an infamous womanizer who had George Stephanapoulos covering up his “bimbo eruptions” during the ’92 campaign and Hillary actively contributing to that effort..
Clearly you don't see the irony of bringing up Bill Clinton here. You think the investigation and impeachment were not politically motivated?
The sad thing is the Republicans went after the Blow Job, not the abuse of power charges.
Actually he was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Way to mindlessly repeat Democratic talking points.
That may have got him in the door, but the "trial" was all about sex.
No, the trial was about perjury and obstruction of justice.
There is no asterisk in the law that removes matters pertaining to sex from perjury and obstruction laws.
Even Rush Limbaugh was angry that the Republicans focused on the blow job instead of the abuse of power. Are you saying Rushbo, a man that Trump himself invited to a State of the Union address, was wrong?
STFU liar
Can you prove to be anymore of a dem sycophant?
Well, it is White Mike with a new name, so, yes, he can be more of a sycophant.
I asked about this on Friday, but didn't get a response. Is MrMxyzptlk actually Mike Laursen? I wouldn't be surprised with how often people sockpuppet around here. But did he admit it, or did muting old comments by Mike also mute MrMxyzptlk? I'm genuinely curious how you found out.
I could be mixed up here, but didn't MrMxyzptlk recently admit to having voted for Trump in the past? (whether he actually did vote for him or not, I don't know if that's true) Whereas White Mike declared he didn't. Obviously claims aren't automatically true. I just don't get the same feel from MrMxyzptlk as I did from reading Mike Laursen's comments.
@Jefferson Paul:
MrM is pretty retarded, but I don’t think he’s white mike.
The sock accusations get a little silly around here sometimes. When I first got here 5 years ago one or two of the regulars at the time (I forget who) were accusing alphabet guy of being sqrlsy. Not likely.
The buttplug socks are pretty easy to spot. He’s a pretty consistent moron. For what it’s worth I don’t think sarc is socking. Maybe a one off here and there, nothing consistent.
I could be wrong. Don’t really care.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Coming from you that means so little.
Thanks Mike.
Coming from me, it means:
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Lying under oath ABOUT WHAT? How exactly did the Whitewater investigation, which was supposed to be about some shady real estate deal, turn into an investigation into Clinton's sex life?
Because his people publicly smeared Paula Jones. That was the genesis
If you don’t know WTF you are talking about, best just to not comment
"best just to not comment"
This is the best advice one could give sarcjeff.
He knows what he's talking about. He just slips in little lies and redirections to excuse.
It was about Clinton perjuring himself. Perjury is a crime.
Whitewater was a shady real estate deal. A dozen people were convicted.
Why are you dems so ignorant?
Lying under oath. Because he lied about prior sexual abuses.
The Clintons were partners with the McDougals. The McDougals go down and the Clinton's shake it off.
There was some whitewater on Monica’s dress.
Maybe because Slick Willie couldn’t keep it in his pants and assaulted numerous women.
By the way, his actions with Lewinsky would’ve gotten him dismissed as CEO at any Fortune 500 company of the time.
And accused of rape now because of the power imbalance.
Lied under oath to avoid paying money damages to Paula Jones.
Amazing that people don't even know this, lol.
Whitewater was Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh did a parody about Hillary claiming she couldnt remember, couldn't recall or some version of that something like 120 times to the investigators. It was a riot.
The sex life thing was Bill Clinton. He was getting hummers in the oval office. He abused his power to try and cover it up. The Republicans had a majority and managed to drag him in for impeachment. Now the conservatives here will claim the Republicans stayed on task and tried to convict him for abuse of power. That's not how I remember it. Rush Limbaugh was furious at the Republicans for letting the impeachment focus on sex and become the laughing stock of the nation. Mind you, at the time Rush was my primary source for most news. I could listen to him at work and no one minded.
He was impeached for lying under oath after being put into a "perjury trap" by a Prosecutor, the only part of that which is relatively unique is that it was an impeachment rather than a Federal criminal prosecution; Federal Prosecutors use that tactic frequently to manufacture a crime in order to get people they think have some useful knowledge to "flip" on a bigger target.
The biggest irony of the Clinton impeachment is that the only reason that Starr was able to look into any related "pattern of behavior" in the Clinton investigation (once he'd switched from looking into Whitewater to looking into the multiple allegations and accusations of criminal sexual harassment and assault by Bill prior to his becoming President), was due to a law which was one of the first things that Clinton himself signed after taking office which expanded the scope of behavior which prosecutors could investigate in sexual harassment cases. Without that law, there'd never have been any legal pretense for anything about activity involving subordinates in the White House being relevant to even those older harassment claims such as the one made by Paula Jones. The second biggest irony was the complete reversal by 95% of the "feminist" movement at the time who had been pushing the notion that "there can't be consensual relationships" between superiors and subordinates in any workplace until 1998, at which point there was a combination of claims that "whatever happened was just consenting adults" and the idea that "the President isn't actually position which has authority over White House Interns (who are employed by OPM as are all Federal Workers)".
Michael Flynn was mercilessly prosecuted for pretty much the same thing (with additional charges piled onto himself and his family as a punishment for not initially taking a plea deal on the original charge and "flipping" to help them manufacture something that looked like a case for "collusion" in the 2016 campaign. One of the FBI agents who was present for his early interviews supposedly even used the words "perjury trap" in their notes.
One of the initial counts that many Dems in Congress wanted to use to impeach trump early on was "obstruction of justice" when it was revealed that he'd asked the FBI to lighten up the pressure on Flynn, who had already suffered more than the normal penalty for the one law he had actually broken (failing to register as having done some lobbying work on behalf of someone with ties to the Turkish government).
No, Bill Clinton was a great supporter of anti- sexual harassment law, until it applied to his horndog activities, but he was the exception because he was too important, unlike the peons. In the ’90s the Democrats would have dismssed whatever happened with Stormy Daniels as the President’s private sex life, which was nobody’s business. Bill Clinton set the ethical stage and precedent for Trump.
IIRC, the investigation began when one of the Clinton’s White House lawyers turned up dead and the Clintons were moving real estate records out of his office before the body was cold.
That was Hillary, not Bill though. For some odd reason, a lot of older associates of Mrs. Clinton wind up committing suicide from a double tap to the head.
She was really 100 times more vicious and aggressive than Bill with better political instincts. In hindsight a lot of his decisions were probably actually hers.
I often get the feeling that Bill would’ve been happy to be no more than governor of his state and retire to fool around.
Sure they were. But that was just an impeachment, a political act. No one was pursuing criminal charges against Clinton for perjury.
Criminal charges against a Clinton? No, they talk their way out of it.
""The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges"""
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html
Art of the deal?
Yeah, and while Trump's minions were playing hooker hush money coverup, Hillary and the DNC did the same exact thing trying to pay for the Steele dossier. Which one is more fucked up?
Yeah, but that stuff with the Steele dossier wasn't to promote or hinder the election of an individual by unlawful means. Oh, wait...
trump didn't appoint a special prosecutor to go after hillary clinton
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069585
^THIS. The "Boaf Sidez" lies from Leftards.
Bollocks. How many Benghazi investigations were there?
By special prosecutors? Zero.
Even though there totally should have been.
Hey shrike. Congress has oversight duties. Hillary was the final signatory on embassy security requests. She chose not to sign those requests multiple times due to politics, evidence from the oversight.
She was not charged criminally.
Any other Soros talking points shrike?
If SRG2 uses “bollocks,” he/she is not American.
Never ceases to amaze me how many foreigners think they are experts on the US.
Some of us Amercians watch shows from across the pond and pick up bits and bobs of brit talk.
Sure Mike.
Go butter your toast with your UK safety spoon.
Ok there Jimmy Savile.
No democrats is really American anyway. Especially Shrike.
If SRG2 uses “bollocks,” he/she is not American.
He's an ActBlue American LARPing as a Brit here. The “bollocks” was intentional.
How many times have you posted without lying? Say ~zero.
Fuck off and die, shitbag.
Congress dared to do their job of oversight of the Executive Branch? The horror!
Those were all launched by Congress, not by the Executive Branch.
And there were far more Congressional investigations by various committees into the claims contained in the Steele Dossier (even after the FBI, NSA, CIA, and most other agencies in the "intelligence community" were openly stating that those claims were considered to be "debunked".
One important difference being that the attack on the Benghazi Consulate actually happened (although everything about the reasons behind it were probably highly classified and couldn't have been revealed in an open hearing), whereas the bulk of the Steele Dossier was actually fabricated by people being paid by the HRC campaign (who then fed it to Steele's "source" to be repeated back to Steele, who was also being paid by the campaign at that time). One set of investigations was looking for a pretext to blame Clinton for the outcome of Obama administration policies, while the other was trying to find substantiation for claims which were literally fabricated from whole cloth.
""who then fed it to Steele’s “source”""
A Russian btw.
The argument that Trump uses state power against his political enemies is the most epic Reason “Boaf Sidez” fail in recent memory, and that says a lot.
It’s as if Tuccille is starring in “the agony of defeat” scene in the old Wide World of Sports
That skier lived but, unfortunately, failed to turn that into cash by endorsements. I don't know if ABC ever paid him royalties. He certainly deserved them.
That's because no one wants to wake up wearing cement overshoes at the bottom of the river.
To be ruled a suicide, of course.
Died with covid
" He encouraged his supporters' "lock her up" chant against 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton, ....."
Which everyone knows is exactly the same as actually locking up your political opponent.
Trial balloons are just trial balloons that are "just joking around"... Until suddenly they are NOT just trial balloons any more, and we find ourselves under the no-joke yoke of a TrumptatorShit!
Right. The biggest mistake people make is thinking the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] are “just joking around”. They aren’t. They are very serious about destroying this nation and their lawfare against Trump entirely proves it.
So, in order to prevent trump from "destroying the republic" the Dems have taken up the task and are doing it themselves?
I'm not sure I see where the Republic is better off just because the people employing the tactics of Tehran, Havana, Caracas, San Salvador, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Beijing insist that their target is "uniquely evil". Especially since the same "existential threat" rhetoric has been used against literally every non-Dem candidate in this century, and the "literally Hitler" claim has been used every 4 years gong back into the 1980s.
It was a clearly articulable crime completed by clear actions but somehow Tuccille thinks Demicrats should be above the law.
Another difference is that Hillary committed an actual crime by using a personal server and email address for her official business, exposing secret government correspondence to foreign adversaries.
I am still amazed she got away with this.
You can thank James Comey for that.
Living proof that the Justice Department will spy on the Fucking Democrats’ political opponents, and that “no reasonable prosecutor” will go after the party elite.
Comey only acknowledged that the system is rigged in favor of the well connected, or at least those connected to the party in power at the time. He didn't have the authority to make prosecutors choose not to go after HRC for breaking laws (especially ones which aren't "sexy" and which are mostly only really understood by people who have at one point held a US Security Clearance, which isn't enough to change minds among most Dem voters, especially when those same voters aren't much interested in seeing Biden's son prosecuted for violating their beloved "background check" system and illegally obtaining a gun.
In the progressive mind, words are actual violence. So there.
Who cares Trump paid off some ‘ho?
When Dubya lied, people died.
When Obama lied, people died.
When Trump lied, no one died.
Get it?
Got it?
Good.
Trunp lied about COVID and the result was hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
How did it cause those deaths?
Pushing fake fixes instead of the REAL fix!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
Just LOOK at the (interactive) graph right at the top of this link!!!! COVID deaths among the unvaccinated VASTLY outnumbered, and still outnumber, the deaths among the vaccinated!!! WHY do You Perfectly Lust SOOOO Much for death, disease, and suffering?!?!
When did Trump tell people not to get vaccinated?
I must have missed that (because it didn't happen).
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4517350-trump-vaccine-rhetoric-public-health/
Trump’s vaccine rhetoric sends chills through public health circles
Public health advocates are watching in growing alarm as former President Trump increasingly embraces the anti-vaccine movement.
Trump stuck his fingers to the anti-vaxx winds, did the emotional calculus, and now, like the political grand-standing populist demagogue that He is, is going with the anti-health, pro-death Sacred Tribalist Bleever winds!
Now, which VP candidate said she would never take a Trump vaccine?
The one who manages to make a box of rocks look smart.
Could you narrow that down a bit?
The one who manages to make Dan Quayle look like a 200 IQ genius, i.e. the current one.
The same one that hired child actors to appear in an astroturf “students visiting the White House” NASA video?
Doesn't this chart not differentiate between those who died from Covid and "with Covid"? And doesn't it also count as "unvaccinated" anyone that the health authorities couldn't definitively determine as having gotten the vaccine? Please disabuse me of these notions if I'm wrong.
If the premises are true, they would be counting as a Covid death someone who came into the emergency room and then died from an automobile accident, suicide attempt, heart attack, etc. because they didn't have the opportunity to state their vaccination status (perhaps they were unconscious) before they died at the hospital.
Lastly, and this one I'm least sure of, is the chart showing total deaths, from any cause (not just Covid) and just charting which are known to have received the Covid vax and which are unknown to have received it?
No data is ever perfect! But the enemy of the good is the perfect!
Meanwhile... Watch out for vax cooties!!!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
“Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot”
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
(End subtitles and excerpts).
See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!
So instead of actually addressing the points I made, you defend the flawed study by pointing to actions of others that you don't like. Isn't there a term you, Sarc, and Chemjeff like to use when others do that (or when you strawman the others' arguments to fit into that box)? Something like Whatism or Aboutism. No, I know. "Whataboutism"
So then YOUR data is PERFECT in every way? Where IS your data, by the way? All studies whose results that YOU don't like, are "flawed", right? Conclusion first... And THEN the trial!
Is Jefferson Paul flawed in ANY way?
What data? I didn't make a claim. I asked about the data you provided. Then, instead of addressing the questions about that chart, you deflect with a "whataboutism" unrelated to what I wrote. So when I ask why you didn't address my questions in any way, you again deflect to a Tu Quoque fallacy asking if I'm perfect. I just wanted to know if your cited study is bullshit or not. I'm not perfect, nor did I ever claim to be. You certainly aren't perfect either, unless your idea of perfection is mastering a 4th grade immaturity by substituting regular words with words that sound dirty, like "twat" instead of "what," and "Spermy" instead of "Stormy."
Try to keep up and actually address the subject matter.
The subject matter is that the "vax" has become a symbol of tribal virtue. Anecdotally, my wife died late last year, and I'm now trying to chase women (last few weeks) via a dating site. I can recall at least 2 cases of conservative women insisting that only un-vaxxed men need apply!
***IF*** you were honest about it, if I went off and endlessly investigated all of your questions, and came up with answers, they would NOT satisfy you! "Still the man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
I find "Darwin Awards" distasteful. It does apply here...
https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-radio-hosts-anti-maskers-death-covid-19-2021-9
At least 7 conservative radio hosts and anti-mask advocates have died from COVID-19 after bashing the vaccines
Intergalactic or Cosmic-Karmic ironic coincidence, maybe? Or candidates for Darwin Awards?
BTW, I am STILL waiting for “the science” concerning sneeze guards at the salad bars, to be settled! Meanwhile, “R” party governors are FORBIDDING sneeze guards at the salad bars!!!
Who volunteers to eat what MAY be mucus from strangers, on their salads, in double-blind, MASSIVELY statistically significant studies, to settle this, for once and for all? Because I just KNOW, oh so VERY well, that once the “science” is settled, there will be NO tribalistic ideologues who will dispute these findings! We are ALL data-driven now!
In more seriousness, my wife (now deceased) and I live in Texas, and she faces bone marrow transplants soon (now passed). They took down her immune system for that. Governor Abbot has just decided that HE knows BETTER than doctors and hospitals, and so He FORBIDS the hospital from firing cootie-bags of un-vaccinated doctors and nurses who reject vaccines and “germ theories” of disease! We may NOT chose a hospital where medical barbarians and savages are EXCLUDED! ‘Cause HE knows better than we, and our doctors, do!
THEY, businesses, and NOT the government, should be making the decisions! So we don’t have firm “science” about masks? No VAST databases and double-blind studies? Well, we’ve not done that with sneeze-guards at the salad bar either! I would LIKE to be able to freely choose to eat at salad bars with sneeze-guards, and not have the Governor double-guessing on me, and minding my business! If OTHER people want to eat at salad bars WITHOUT sneeze guards, they, too, should be free!
What gets “lost in the sauce” here is people (who are IDEOLOGICALLY motivated) want to “debate the science” about vaccines and masks, and mandates, and what they REALLY want to do, is “capture” government policies… NOT really giving us individual FREEDOM. And Trumps, and Governors, and Emperor-Wannabees tap into that , and make slaves out of us, using our own power-hungers!
I want to choose salad bars with sneeze guards, and hospitals with vaccinated staffs, for my wife, while her immune system is down. Others should be free to choose otherwise. But what I see all around me, is people GROWING Government Almighty, under the illusion that THEY, not others, will be The Chosen Pussy Grabbers!
(And I really don’t care how many studies have found what, about sneeze guards at the salad bars. I don’t want too much mucus from strangers, on my salad, is all).
For your wife dying, I do offer my sincere condolences.
As for everything else you wrote, what the hell?
I made no declarations about the vax. You posted a study that doesn't answer how they determined their data. You even wrote the following about it:
COVID deaths among the unvaccinated VASTLY outnumbered, and still outnumber, the deaths among the vaccinated!!! WHY do You Perfectly Lust SOOOO Much for death, disease, and suffering?!?!
You implied not getting the Covid vax caused so much death, disease, and suffering. That was what I was asking you to back up. Instead you gave me more copy pasta. Also, you claimed the disparity still exists, when your study stops at April 2023, when the lines all converge.
I'm not a woman, nor on dating sites, so I don't GAF about your anecdotes with women on dating sites. And, not that it matters, but I'm sure there were/are plenty of leftist women saying they wouldn't date men who hadn't gotten the Covid vax. Plenty of people of all stripes have unreasonable or strange requirements for sexual partners, especially women.
For your wife dying, I do offer my sincere condolences.
Thank you! (Others around here are known to tell “poticial enemies” to commit suicide!
As for everything else you wrote, what the hell?
Thought experiments in the tribalism of vaccines! 10 years ago, I would NEVER have imagined it! “Team R” Governors pandering by telling hospitals and others what mandates they may and may not impose on employees! What next, will sneeze guards at the salad bar be forbidden? Or at least, employees who do NOT support sneeze guards, MUST be hired, and NOT fired? “Team R” Governors will support the “rights” of salad-sneezers-onto!
(I mean, sneeze guards at the salad bar are every much as good of a thing to fight about, and "debate the science" about, as vaccines and masks are.)
What the fuck are you talking about? Trump was a huge advocate for the vaccines.
And you need to look at the effect on overall mortality.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4517350-trump-vaccine-rhetoric-public-health/
Trump’s vaccine rhetoric sends chills through public health circles
Public health advocates are watching in growing alarm as former President Trump increasingly embraces the anti-vaccine movement.
Trump stuck his fingers to the anti-vaxx winds, did the emotional calculus, and now, like the political grand-standing populist demagogue that He is, is going with the anti-health, pro-death Politically Sacred Tribalist Bleever winds!
Why should I have any regard for what "public health advocates" get alarmed about? Public health advocates encouraged and enabled the worst bout of authoritarian tyranny this country has ever seen and caused incredible harm that we will be dealing with for years to come.
"...worst bout of authoritarian tyranny this country has ever seen..."
Worse than the Trail of Tears, slavery, and concentration camps for Japanese-Americans? Worse than Wilson's jailing of people for opposing the war?
Those things were certainly terrible and worse (for the most part) as regards the individuals affected. I still say the covid response was worse because it was imposed on everyone.
The Biden campaign claimed that trump's "biggest failure" was his focus on vaccine development over forcing factories to try to make workable ventilators (which were actually killing Covid patients who were rushed onto them in the early days of the pandemic, as it turned out). Ironically, the second biggest failure of the man who "wants to be a dictator" was to not back the authoritarian (and now demonstrably counter-productive) protracted lock-downs, business closures and mask mandates which were almost exclusively imposed in the "deep blue" states/localities, "resistance" strongholds, and places with enough Dem voters that "St Fauci" prayer candles were sold in significant numbers. In certain parts of L.A., it's not uncommon to see people still wearing blue surgical masks, which every valid study has shown have no real effect on the spread of respiratory viruses, while walking alone outside or driving alone in their cars. My own brother recently said we'd have to "agree to disagree" as to whether or not there was ever research on Coronaviruses being done at WIV, and that's something that NIH has admitted publicly that they were funding through EcoHealth Alliance.
In October of 2020, nearly every prominent Dem capable of getting in front of a TV camera swore up and down that they'd never trust the "trump vaccine".
In the Summer of 2021, trump was booed by his own supporters at a rally in Mississippi when he encouraged them to get vaccinated for Covid.
It's true that trump publicly discussed HCQ and Ivermectin at a time when the vacines were still in development, and the targeted antivirals didn't yet exist, and that many of those who supported trump continued to believe in those treatments even after clinical studies (many of which were designed to fail, and others weren't testing the combinations that the pro-HCQ doctors were recommending at the time) didn't show significant utility against the virus. By some reports as many as 25% of all ER docs kept taking HCQ through most of the pandemic "just in case" it had some benefit since it has virtually no side effects when properly administered and as a "generic" drug it's cheap and plentiful.
One interesting coda to the whole ivermectin discussion is that apparently Chris Cuomo (former CNN Anchor, and brother of the "heroic" former NY Governor who may have killed more people that Obama's drone program expansion) has apparently now been put on Ivermectin by his doctors for what he says is "long-haul covid" and what other unsubstantiated reports claim is an "adverse vaccine reaction"...
https://x.com/TheWrap/status/1788314171018252373
What lies?
Are you still masking and have you received the latest booster?
The liar was Fauci, who has recently admitted that he made up stuff like the 6 feet rule.
What was the "lie", out of curiosity?
Biden also had far more deaths in his first year (with a "Vaccine" and some knowledge on how to treat it) than Trump had in his last year.
How did Trump ‘lie’ about COVID?
The only people who died because of something Trump said, mentioning that they had people looking for remedies were looking into 'bleach' (not really lying), were the 2 stupid Liberals who thought they'd try it out.
Those two were actually supposedly trying to self-medicate with Hydroxychloroquine by ingesting an aquarium supply chemical which contained Chloroquine Phosphate, and was also clearly marked as poisonous to humans on its packaging.
In response to the comments where trump supposedly told people to "inject bleach", in which he was actually talking about ongoing research about using UV light as a disinfectant and speculating about possibly finding some way to expose infected lung tissue to such light (but since the "fine people" hoax was still going strong, CNN and MSNBC along with the social media platforms knew they could push pretty much any hoax they wanted using a misleadingly edited clip of some comment), there were no reported cases of people actually ingesting or injecting bleach or any other chemical disinfectant. Pretty disappointing and hard to process for the "resistance" types who thought that there were tens of millions of "deplorables" out there just awaiting their next instruction from trump, as long as that instruction wasn't to go get their shots of the vaccine developed under trump's "single greatest failure as a leader"...
One thing that was very ironic was that after several years of deriding Ivermectin as "horse de-wormer" to imply that it's unfit/unsafe for human use, one of the initial reactions to the "Dobbs" ruling by the Supreme Court on Vox Motherboard was to re-share a link to a site containing instructions for how people could get vetinary Mefipristone and re-cut the medication to divide it up in to human-level dosages; literally telling people with no formal training how to attempt to safely self-medicate to terminate a pregnancy using the version of a medication that's literally intended for use in treating horses.
Let's be honest, the woman was trying to get away with murdering her husband by using TDS as cover.
Lol. Ok, chuckie is parody.
Unless he mistyped “fauci”.
Oh my. Did you read that Fauci made up all the rules?
Do you remember democrats marching in NY saying that there was no covid.
Do you remember the media saying there will be millions of dead?
Trump mistake was listening to someone that has been in government for 40 years
The pellet with the poison is in the vessel with the pestle,
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true.
The vessel with the pestle has broken, now the pellet with the poison is in the chalice from the palace.
Where is Danny Kaye when we need him?
No, this shows that the US is NOT a Banana Republic. In Banana Republics, corrupt officials never get held accountable for their crimes.
And it is ironic that people are defending Trump and callkng for the outcome to be overturned when Trump himself still called for the Central Park Five to be executed long after they had been exonerated. By Trump's standards, once convicted, always convicted. Oh and penalties far worse than allowed by law should be administered. Maybe Trump also should get a death penalty by Trump standards.
Of course that isn't his point. His point is that Trump is above the law and he can decide summarily that others deserve either pardon or death. No wonder he admires the North Korean Dear Leader who has such power.
And it is ironic that so called libertarians are defending him. Trump is the total opposite of small government.
And now to further the hypocrisy, Hunter Biden now goes on trial for a crime that is in a law the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional -- to the cheers of the entire Trump Cult. But apparently the Second Amendment doesn't give rights to Democrats or their families, only to Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#:~:text=In%202003%2C%20Limbaugh%20stated%20that,pain%20medication%2C%20and%20sought%20treatment.
Commentator super-hero "Rush" (What a RUSH!) called for death for drug addicts... And then got hooked on pain pills! New day, same old hypocrisy and crappity-crap...
Rush Limbaugh didn't call for the death penalty for drug addicts. I know this because all sort of lefties ran to find him saying something like that after he became addicted and the best they could find was some lame crap about how laws should be enforced.
On the other hand, lefties say that alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases and should be treated as diseases, with all our sympathy going to the poor victim, ... until Rush Limbaugh developed an addiction to prescription pain meds, after which all their sympathy disappeared and they relentlessly mocked this victim.
So, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in this story, but it is from lefties like you.
In Banana Republics, corrupt officials never get held accountable for their crimes.
This is correct. The proper outcome here ought to be that all corrupt officials are held accountable for crimes. In Israel, a prime minister went to jail for corruption. In France, a president went to jail for bribery. Are these examples of "banana republics"?
Did the French use creative interpretations of bribery?
Bribery and corruption seem like appropriate reasons to jail former leaders. We should start doing that.
As for rarely used, obscure charges that even lawyers can't explain, that seems like a poor place to start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
AP Explains: What happened when Russia bought Uranium One
Allegations have also been made that the approval of the sale of Uranium One benefited major donors to the Clinton Foundation, raising conflict-of-interest questions.
In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one sensational contention that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.
Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.
PolitiFact found that the majority of the donations from individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia were made before and during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign — but before she became secretary of state.
Jeff, you've defended Biden for having classified documents for 40 years. You've defended every democrat.
Merchan and Bragg are corrupt. Even NYMag, ABC, and NYT think this trial was solely political. Merchans instructions are unconstitutional.
Jack Smith lost 0-8 at the USSC for prosecutorial abuse, you've defended him against Trump.
Youre part of those cheering the banana republic retard.
The obese partisan retard might prefer a banana sundae republic.
No matter Pedo Jeffy says, he is a partisan operative who will say anything to defend de o rats and attack republicans. He is likely the single most disingenuous poster here. Even more patently dishonest than Shrike.although I consider it likely that Shrike is the bigger pedophile of the two.
Israel….France….Are these examples of “banana republics”?
Thinking about it. Tough call.
“The proper outcome here ought to be that all corrupt officials are held accountable for crimes.”
Absolutely.
Call me when Trump actually commits a crime (not some novel interpretation of a criminal statute and not some catch-22 bullshit like this case).
Also, would it be too much to ask the Democrats to at least make it look like they aren’t all conspiring with the White House to take down the current POS political rival?
Only if the evidence was faked, the prosecutor and judge were corrupt or the jury was bribed. They are only "banana republics" if any of the conditions above were true.
You.
Are.
Full
Of.
Shit.
""And it is ironic that people are defending Trump and callkng for the outcome to be overturned when Trump himself still called for the Central Park Five to be executed long after they had been exonerated.""
I think you wrong on the timeline. In 1989 trump placed that ad in the news paper.
I find it amusing that people would reference a group of people that was screwed over by the legal system to talk about someone claiming to be screwed over by the legal system.
Isn't the lesson with the Central Park 5 is verdicts can be wrong?
"No, this shows that the US is NOT a Banana Republic. In Banana Republics, corrupt officials never get held accountable for their crimes."
No, they are ROUTINELY punished by their political rivals. As happened here.
Were Stalin's numerous trials legit?
"And it is ironic that people are defending Trump and callkng for the outcome to be overturned when Trump himself still called for the Central Park Five to be executed long after they had been exonerated."
So, imprison him for an opinion you disagree with?
"And now to further the hypocrisy, Hunter Biden now goes on trial for a crime that is in a law the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional — to the cheers of the entire Trump Cult. But apparently the Second Amendment doesn’t give rights to Democrats or their families, only to Republicans."
Second Amendment supporters aren't fond of throwing guns into trash cans near schools nor lying on documents the government forces us to answer honestly.
But, do not worry ---- your complaints are not what somebody supporting a banana republic would make. Totally different and stuff.
You mean like the kindly forgetful old man who is currently in power? Or the Clintons?
We went Banana Republic the minute the Arkansas Magia took control
'No, this shows that the US is NOT a Banana Republic. In Banana Republics, corrupt officials never get held accountable for their crimes.'
You do understand that some of us consider the Democrats who organized and managed this trial as the corrupt parties, right? And that hearing a few critical voices in the media is not holding them accountable?
A big part of your problem here is that you think this is about Trump. This trial and conviction should be terrifying to anyone, no matter how much you despise Trump.
Exactly this^
Not terrifying, but worthy of being remembered when you vote.
"And now to further the hypocrisy, Hunter Biden now goes on trial for a crime that is in a law the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional — to the cheers of the entire Trump Cult. But apparently the Second Amendment doesn’t give rights to Democrats or their families, only to Republicans."
It was an appeals court, not the Supreme Court, and the ruling was that a man found in possession of both guns which he had owned for some amount of time and a small amount of pot shouldn't have his 2nd Amendment rights revoked based on an admission of occasional use of Marijuana (a drug which is legal for medicial use and decriminalized for recreational possession in the State where the arrest/conviction/imprisonment occurred). This particular case hasn't made it to the USSC yet, or else it wasn't taken up by that court for a review of the appeals court ruling.
That ruling has no bearing on the laws in which those looking to purchase a new gun are asked about their use of illegal drugs at the time of the purchase, and shouldn't be assumed to extend to the use of crack cocaine (which isn't legal for any purpose in any state now that Oregon is rolling back their total decriminalization).
Not to mention that one of the charges which Hunter is facing is lying on a Federal document, which has no bearing on the context of the lie, and that since his violation his own father has bragged about "making communities safer" by signing into law a bill which, among other restrictions, increases the penalty for specifically the things which Hunter has been charged (speaking of hypocrisy).
You do realize that Hillary running a private server is against the law and up tp 25 years in prison.
Show we go into the people who don't pay taxes?
Trump didn't commit a crime. There were 55 pages of instructions that the jury's had to listen too. The judge was hostile to the defense from the start.
Same as the real estate case. Every developer does that. No one will build in NY.
You are just an Idiot
What about Joey with documents taken when he was a Senator? That was illegal but he's too old and senile.
So let's think about this logically for a bit.
If Trump didn't break any laws, then his conviction is unjust and Alvin Bragg is the one who broke the law. He should be prosecuted. If this is the case, what is the law that Bragg broke?
But if Trump did break the law, then he ought to be punished for the law that he really did break.
If the law that he broke is only a misdemeanor-level offense of falsifying business records, then he ought to be punished for that.
If he was able to be convicted of felonies, because the law permitted it, and we believe this result is unjust, then the problem is what the law permits to occur. Even if the law had to be stretched to accommodate this result, the fact that the law is this 'stretchy' in the first place is a problem. How should the law be reformed to avoid this injustice?
But if we don't start talking about specifics, and in particular the policy implications of Trump's conviction, then it just sounds like special pleading on behalf of Dear Leader Trump.
There are some leaps in your "logic" that jump too far.
then his conviction is unjust and Alvin Bragg is the one who broke the law.
There are plenty of things that are unjust but are not unlawful.
if Trump did break the law, then he ought to be punished for the law
Depends on the law. If he jaywalked or smoked weed while owning a firearm, then no he shouldn't be.
he broke is only a misdemeanor-level offense of falsifying business records, then he ought to be punished for that.
After the statue of limitations?
the fact that the law is this ‘stretchy’ in the first place is a problem. How should the law be reformed to avoid this injustice?
I actually agree with this part.
special pleading on behalf of Dear Leader Trump.
Shit like this happens to average Bob all the time. Read the IJ website. I plead on behalf of Bob too. This one is just more visual because it's Trump.
Part of the pronlem was prosecutors using creative interpretations of criminal law.
A somewhat stronger case could have been made against Hillary Clinton, as her campaign actually admitted to a FECA violation, and the underlying alleged facts meet the definition of a violation.,
Still, there are grave doubts that the "other crime" in the New York statute could be a federal crime, and as such, under the old rules, the only ethically possible verdict is not guilty, because proof beyond a reasonable doubt can never be met.
But we know Alvin Bragg will not prosecute Hillary Clinton.
I will quote my longtime Usenet ally.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4514143#post4514143
When the law is not the same for all, there is no law, just the law of the jungle.- Christopher Charles Morton, dba Deanimator
"If he jaywalked or smoked weed while owning a firearm, then no he shouldn’t be."
Ahh, but what if the jaywalking was in service to him probably (but not at all provably) walking across the street to rob a bank?!
And what if the weed smoking was in service to him probably being in connection with a drug ring that also illegally launders money?!
There are all kinds of crimes we can instruct a NY jury to convict, you just have to motivate them correctly
For me, it is worse because it is Trump.
If Trump can be fucked over --- what hope does a random nobody have if NYC does not like you for some reason?
“If the law that he broke is only a misdemeanor-level offense of falsifying business records, then he ought to be punished for that.”
A wrist slap for documentation is the max he should have gotten, but honestly they would have let it slide on any other person that wasn’t Trump. This is because Trump won in 2016 and they are worried he will win again.
They heard he might have been illegally parked somewhere (probably, but not completely sure), then they decided to make a trial of that, and oh also we cant prove he really did illegally park there but we are pretty sure (wink wink, jury) he did, and you dont have to be all the way sure, and oh also its a felony because his illegal parking was probably in service to him committing grand larceny or something that’s definitely a felony.
Half the country thinks it was a show trial, and even the half that thinks Trump probably did do ‘something’ wrong has a bunch of people that dont care.
This was all a full court press so he can get the label ‘convicted felon’, nothing more.
I suspect that most of the country thinks it was a show trial, but that half the country is fine with that, since "Trump".
This
99% of humans cannot reason logically based on universal principles. But then neither can chimps, who make all behavioral decisions based on tribe and status.
Actually a lot of people that were against Trump are switching. They still think he's an a hole but this weaponizing the law is a step too far
The case is a proven sham. Every simgle aspect from its origins through the jury instructions.
All of it.
If the law that he broke is only a misdemeanor-level offense of falsifying business records, then he ought to be punished for that.
Statute of limitations are up on the misdemeanor. Timing of these charges are coincidentally brought on an election year for rarely used felonies. Hmmm
If he was able to be convicted of felonies, because the law permitted it, and we believe this result is unjust, then the problem is what the law permits to occur.
Agreed. NY law allows this. It seems likely to me that this type of conviction (a crime committed for the purposes of "another crime" even if we don't specify what "other crime" and jurors don't agree on what "other crime") will be found unconstitutional on appeal.
NYS governence is corrupt to the bone, which is why such vague laws exist.
There is a question if the NY law allows for it as it has never been used in this manner. Laws are supposed to be clear and concise, not vague. Likewise 6th amendment right to know what charges are being held against you wasn't given to Trump for the predicate crime. Then the jury unanimity requirement of the constitution was extended to states in 2020.
Jeff is further left than the NYT or NY Mag which both state this was a political case, not a valid one.
It should be embarrassing to not have the prosecutor even reveal what law was broken until CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
And why the fuck does the defense go FIRST in those anyway?
New York fuckery. One of only a few states.
I fully expect Bragg’s prosecution of Trump will be overturned on appeal because of Merchan’s judical malfeascence, including allowing the Bragg's bizarre legal theories, but it will likely take years to wend its way through the courts.
You tried this same sophistry last night and I answered it for you. Must be the Act Blur talking points. The Bragg issue is constitutional, not statutory you leftist retard fuck.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/
Or
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/01/president-donald-trumps-manhattan-convictions-are-unconstitutional/
Stop getting legal advice from sulu and Katie Hill.
The argument put forward that the charges are unconstitutional, at least over at Volokh, amount to the idea that campaign finance legislation is itself an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendment.
I'm not so sure about that argument, but it seems Democrats are eager to find out if that's true or not since there is at least a chance this ends up in front of the Nazgul.
They also mention that since the payment was ultimately paid by Trump it wasn't even a campaign contribution.
Also a fair point since generally it isn't a campaign contribution if the person doing the contributing gets the money back. That's just a payment for services.
So let’s think about this logically for a bit.
This is Jeffy's tell that he's about to try and defend the indefensible, through gaslighting and lies.
^ This
It seems like the fact that the prosecution in this case was allowed to charge anyone for doing something "with intent to cover up another crime" but faced no real burden of proof regarding the claim that some other crime had actually occurred, or that the accused was aware that there was some other crime that had happened (how can there be "intent to cover up a crime" by someone who doesn't think that anything illegal was done?) is a violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments at the very least.
The fact that the judge allowed days of testimony which served little purpose in the trial other than to personally embarrass the defendant (since trump spending a night with Daniels wasn't illegal, and the idea that there was some conspiracy to suppress distribution of the story didn't depend on the truth of the underlying claim), but wouldn't allow the defense to call an expert witness from the FEC to testify that seeking or executing such a NDA contract isn't actually a crime regardless of the terms or the veracity of what's covered by the NDA seems like it should be grounds for appeal.
If the defendant weren't trump, all the "bleeding hearts" nationwide would be ripshit over even holding such a trial in a venue where, if 10 different juries were empaneled, at least 116 of the jurors would vote guilty on literally any charge without the need for the prosecution to present a case beyond the name of the defendant. Despite their claims in selection that they "could be impartial", most (if not all) of the members of that jury would have convicted trump for the murder of Abraham Lincoln and the bombing of Pearl Harbor if he'd have been charged with either of those acts.
Oddly, the main reason Democrats give for defeating Trump in 2024 is that, if he wins, he will start doing to Democrats what they have done to him.
That is dictatorship, or at least, is if Trump does it.
It's always (D)ifferent.
My tribe right, your tribe wrong.
Next question?
When the UniParty is established (if not already), do you think it will mostly likely resemble the Republicans or the fucking Democrats?
Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
(and throw bananas at your local democrat headquarters)
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Nina Turner was presented with a red pill.
Will she take it?
https://x.com/ninaturner/status/1796918106738086164
That would be simply the best.
No, black capsule would be better.
“There must be a way for people to welcome the news of the Trump verdict without vilifying those with felonies.”
LOL, did they hire Turner to write Reason headlines?
Matthew Colangelo left the number 3 job at the Department of Justice to become a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.
The United States doesn't fully meet the definition of a banana republic—we don't have an economy dependent on resources, like bananas.
OK, Apple Republic
I think Google Republic works better.
Welfare Republic
The "banana" in Banana Republic comes from the publicly visible export of a former colony. While the trains to the coast may have carried out copper, iron, gold or silver from the mines to be shipped to the nation that owned the colony the produce picked up along the way, like bananas, is what the colony would be known for.
Bananas being popular and sounding more silly than Vanilla Beans became the term used to refer to the former colonies after they gained supposed independence. Typically the agricultural products continued to flow after the revolution while the mines were shut down.
We don't export Welfare as a byproduct of the exporting of industrial materials. We do export internet development though, like Google, one of the household names known world wide. It's also a silly sounding word which follows the tradition.
You're absolutely right. I was just being facetious.
'We don’t export Welfare'
Really? How much of foreign aid is in the form of social welfare? And how about exporting the promise of welfare to any and all who manage to get across the border?
Don't expect this steaming pile of shit to actually, well, "know" something. Anything.
Spouting bullshit is MrYTO*GO*BN's only ability.
Fuck you with a chainsaw you broken record of name calling.
Whatever the fuck you want to call it go the fuck ahead. I just don't care.
Hillary belonged in jail.
Yes.
Under the old rules, not for the type of offense Trump was convicted.
Nor does Trump belong in jail for the offense he was convicted of.
Why? Did she defy the DNC and WEF?
It was her turn.
Hillary is an old vicious, angry hag. Most likely half crazy as well. Been so since she lost to Trump. It drove her nuts.
Hillary was clever enough to not only destroy the evidence, but the employ a bunch of people with law licenses to do the dirty work, so that any and all remaining evidence of conspiracy is "priveledged", and the only way to compel breaking privilege is to prove that there was a crime (which can't be proven without the privileged information in question)
Privilege only applies to democrats anymore.
Pretty sure much of the commentariat will say the country became a banana republic when Trump lost the election, er I mean it was stolen from him.
And a few were saying that after Hillary Clinton lost the election, er I mean it was stolen from her.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3024574/trump-verdict-a-triumph-for-election-denial/
I've been watching politics for 30 years. The Banana Republic term gets tossed around by both sides when their chosen one fails to take power. While I figure the actual transition was Johnson having Kennedy killed I do agree that a former president being tried and convicted under these circumstances is an example of being in a Banana Republic. I doubt such an effort would have worked on anyone other than Trump since he is so damned easy to hate. I voted for him and I can't say that I like him. How he orders steak is a greater crime than whatever he did with the porn star or any of the pussy he may or may not have grabbed.
Hey Mike. In the last 30 years when did another politician get locked up on novel criminal construction.
I’ll give you one. Jack Smith vs Bob McDonnell. Overturned at the USSC unanimously. Jack Smith was promoted. McDonnell lost his job and bankrupt.
Fine. I’ll give another. Michael Flynn investigated for novel and curated charges, threatened his family. Also went bankrupt.
Damn. All these cases seem to be the DNC and deep state going after one team.
Meanwhile... Hillary, Joe, and even Hunter initially all never charged or given sweet heart plea feels. Even the judge in the bribery case for Menendez is even expanding congressional immunity to cover texts between his wife and those bribing them.
2 tier justice is a key part of a banana republic, no?
^+10
First off Jessica, fuck you. My name is not Mike.
Second, both JFK and LBJ were Democrats so it fits in with your delusions nicely.
Thirdly, political prosecutions are not new, this is just the first time it was someone so high and they lost the trial.
"...Thirdly, political prosecutions are not new, this is just the first time it was someone so high and they lost the trial."
Cite missing, asswipe.
Okay Mike. Funny how far you had to reach back to try to scream both sides.
No. These trials aren't new. They are a staple of your leftist authoritarian states like Cuba and Venezuela. And you've spent the last 24 hours pushing Act Blue talking points with Jeff in your glee.
Show us another example of a novel criminal construction being used by the GOP.
Do mean tweets count?
Second, both JFK and LBJ were Democrats so it fits in with your delusions nicely.
Might as well include Andrew Johnson if you’re going back that far.
I’d say the Justice Department’s allegiances have shifted a bit in the last 60 years.
Still waiting for a cite for your bullshit claim, asswipe.
"First off Jessica, fuck you. My name is not Mike..."
Second off, shit-for-brains, fuck you with a running, rusty chainsaw. I've yet to see you back up your bullshit claims. Until you do, assume you're going to get called on your happy horseshit always.
Sit on a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick and spin.
Simmer down Mike.
One would have to consider what would happen if Barry Soetoro was put on trial. Or maybe if one of his mansions were raided by the FBI with orders to use deadly force.
Cities would burn.
"I’ve been watching politics for 30 years..."
It's a shame you never learned anything; you are among the dumbest piles of shit posting here.
Coming from you, that means nothing.
Coming from me, it means exactly what it says; you are one imbecilic piece of shit.
Well... it's Mike.
I would say that may have happened when Democrat domminated state governments changed election rules, using the COVID pandemic as an excuse, that allowed for more lax ballot collections which make ballot fraud less easy to prevent. Perhaps even before that, when somehow the obviously corruptible pratice of ballot harvesting became acceptable.
Cite?
You and Jeff keep cheering on state abuse of your enemies. Yet claim not to be leftists.
Odds are we are left of you. But then Ronald Reagan would have been left of you. From where you stand I doubt many are further to to right of you.
"We"?
Is that a turd in your pocket?
He wrote, “you and Jeff”. Thus my reply contained “we” as in “me and Jeff”.
What, 1st grade English too hard for you?
And still the US Constitution (very definition of a USA) is even farther right. Watch as the frogs peaceful cook to death in their boiling pot of “Just a little more [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism]”.
As far as Jesse is concerned there are Trump supporters and there are leftists. Nothing else. That is all his emotionally-disturbed caveman mind can comprehend. You’re in his tribe or you’re in the other.
As far as I'm concerned, you are a Democratic Party shill, regardless of what Jesse says.
Your mom doesn't even care what your opinion is.
Ideas!
My parents weren't wild divorcees who shuffled me across the country between them and argued who had to take me next.
But there is someone here that grew up like that.
Leftard Self-Projection 101.
Always about WHO (Trump) not WHAT.
Where's the evidence for this?
Look at all the leftists cry when their leftist Dem Media narratives are countered.
What is especially hilarious is that the leftist dem media outside of MSNBC have all agreed this trial was political. But not you, Jeff, or Mike who all are gleeful for state abuses against your enemies.
Odd isnt it?
Pour Sarc. So drunk, so leftist, so angry, and so stupid.
If you're not with us you're against us!
Yeah, Bush Jr made that famous.
Ahh yes. I remember how you completely ignored the 2nd half of the 86 amnesty deal pretending, like jeff, you used to be a conservative. Lol.
"Freedom is never more than a generation away from disappearing."
Ronald Reagan
Not sure why the USA gets indicted, or painted with the same banana. The democrats and, on this trial, NYC went bananas.
As noted in the article any Republicans in power will have to respond in kind. Even if the democrats retain control of the DOJ there are plenty of red state AGs who can go after them. I'm not happy to see this happen but the gloves have to come off.
It's like watching a rape happen because you're too "principled" to assault the attacker.
Don't want to violate the NAP and all that.
Such as that German police officer that prevented a citizen from protecting himself against that knife attacker where the knife attacker then stabbed the police officer?
He was just practicing cultural awareness and ended up being culturally enriched.
That officer has succumbed to his injuries, but at least he was culturally enriched before he died.
Equity!
Wonder if there will be some new unconcious bias training about how police can't just assume white person beating on a brown person is a racial attack?
It could just be an off Broadway rendition of Othello.
"In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents,"
This is true. The only way now to not stick out as a bad guy will be to make it that everyone is a felon. We must trivialize serious crimes...make getting a felony conviction like a rite of passage for prominent people. Committing "felonies" will be like preparing for a bar mitzva. Politicians will campaign on who's got the longest rap sheet — as a virtue! If you're not convicted, that can mean only that you're a person of no consequence. Then, when every worthy person is a criminal, none of them will be. We'll all be even, and can start over.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Joe Stalin.
Three felonies A Day/ Harvey Silverglate.
In a Banana republic scammers who lie and manipulate their supporters would never get charged. It goes both ways. What do we call it when politicians collude with magazines to plant fake news and catch and kill negative stories while simultaneously crying about fake news and chanting "lock her up" about their political opponents?
Oh, and this article is being written the same week the president's son is on trial for not checking a box on a form, something not checked by thousands of people who consume drugs and buy guns. Ironic that the party of the 2nd amendment just shrugs.
Joe Biden is a big proponent of such picayune rules in the Democrat's efforts to make gun ownership effectively illegal. Making the proponents live by their own laws is not an ironic position.
^Exactly.
That's (D)ifferent!
“the same week the president’s son is on trial for not checking a box on a form”
Are you deliberately pretending that they aren’t softballing the douchebag on a minor charge so that they can avoid charging him for influence peddling?
"In a Banana republic scammers who lie and manipulate their supporters"
Say, Nazi. Give us an example of an actual, honest-to-goodness "scam" Trump ran on his supporters.
Is a Trump branded bible for a $50 donation, or Trump sneakers for $200 a bigger "scam" than a copy of Dreams from My Father for $5k?
Seriously? Going with the Nazi insult? Did you get your degree at Trump University?
His Truth Social Stock is a scam. The company is a meme stock but he will find a way to cash out on it and make billions while everyone else will be left holding the bag.
How about planting fake stories in the Enquirer while telling supporters the media is full of fake news? He gets credit for "telling it like it is" when he is doing the opposite. Only morons fall for that stuff.
“His Truth Social Stock is a scam.”
How.
How is Trump’s Truth Social stock a scam or a “meme” other than because orangemanbad? You come in here, driveling that Media Matters horseshit, without anything to back it up.
Fuck you. Get prepared to have every piece of ActBlue agitprop challenged.
“How about planting fake stories in the Enquirer while telling supporters the media is full of fake news?”
Because we all know the Biden Administration DNC party organs you call “media” never lie about things.
None of the following was ever said by your politruks:
COVID came from a wetmarket, HCQ doesn’t work, Biden doesn’t have dementia, Masks work, Cuomo didn’t kill old people, Dominion systems were secure, Hunter Biden is an artist, Trump colluded with Russia, Transwoman are real women, BLM is mostly peaceful, Trump had a pee pee tape, Antifa is just an idea, George Floyd didn’t overdose, Advanced coursework is racist, 1619 is real history, Hunter Laptop wasn’t real, Trump caused Asian hate, CRT isn’t poisonous, All white people are racist, A pipe in ATL stopped the count, Jussie Smollet was attacked, China travel ban was racist, Words are violence, The FBI is apolitical, Shokin was fired for corruption, Obama didn’t build cages, Iran never got cash pallets, The border is under control, Voter ID is racist, Biden is tough on Putin, Blasey Ford was credible, Swalwell isn’t compromised, WHO is an independent body, Bailouts are necessary, Gain of Function wasn’t funded, Hunter isn’t incestuous, Double masking is best, Hillary had 98% chance to win, Melania was an escort, A video caused Benghazi, Trump camp wasn’t spied on, Hunter was hired on merit, Hands up Don’t Shoot happened, Tucker Carlson wasn’t spied on, Bubba Wallace noose was real, Covington Catholic kid is racist, If you like your Dr., Keep your Dr., Trump said drink bleach, Assange is a criminal, Putin hacked VT electric grid, Trump threw out MLK, Jr bust, Kushner never got a Peace Deal, Trump banned Muslims, Mueller proved Trump-Cohen lie, Trump Jr had WikiLeaks access, Global warming is #1 threat, Arkancides are a myth, Iraq had WMD’S, Russia hacked DNC, The science is settled, There are no Uyghur camps, Elizabeth Warren is a Native American, Steele Dossier is bulletproof, Seth Rich mugging went wrong, Bernie lost primary fair & square, Coyotes aren’t carrying humans, Guns cause Chicago violence, Fast & Furious = conspiracy, Joe never hid in the basement, 15 Days to Slow the Spread, MAGA rallies = super spreaders, Late-term abortions are normal worldwide, Only vaxxed can enjoy July 4, There’s a War on Women, Gates isn’t buying up farmland, Russian bounties were real, Kavanaugh is a drunk rapist, Wildfires are because of climate change, Gen Flynn is a traitor, Omar didn’t marry her brother, Anita Hill story was true, Trump votes were whitelash, Trump called Nazis fine people, The media is tough on Biden, Trump tried to nuke a hurricane, Cops kill 1000s unarmed POC, ad nauseam…
Fucking Nazi.
What about....
I never said the DNC and Biden were squeaky clean. Do you know how many subscribers Truth Social has? Or what their revenues to expenses were in the last quarter? They are nowhere close to supporting his stock price. I'll hand it to Trump, he engineered another brilliant grift. I guess in a strange way that makes his a good business man, if you don't mind that he makes business our of grift.
It's been fun. It's good to practice arguing with a bot.
“Do you know how many subscribers Truth Social has? Or what their revenues to expenses were in the last quarter? They are nowhere close to supporting his stock price.”
What kind of hot garbage is this? Do you even fucking know how the stock market works?
“I’ll hand it to Trump, he engineered another brilliant grift.”
What? What “grift” did Trump “engineer”?
I already told you I’m not going to let you spit out these evidence free accusations.
He has no idea, outside of whatever talking points he’s been commanded to to puke up like so much pablum.
Oh, the DNC isn’t ‘squeaky clean’? Fuck you, you democrat shill. I don’t give a shit about Truth Social. I DO give a shit about how the people you slavishly serve and shill for are destroying our constitutional republic. The democrats having just like week destroyed the rule of law with their sham lawfare action against Trump.
If every one of you democrat filth has to burn to protect the rights of just one American, then so be it. Your war on America will end.
"In a Banana republic scammers who lie and manipulate their supporters would never get charged..."
Why bring up HRC, shitbag?
Why call names when you can present an actual argument? Typical MAGA supporter
Why call names when you can present an actual argument? Typical MAGA supporter
Is "Typical MAGA supporter" an actual argument?
It's all they have.
Probably cause that’s the most response you deserve?
Call names? I just asked why you referenced what HRC did when you were supposedly taking about Trump.
You really are a low-watt bulb, aren't you?
You present no real arguments. We do, every day here.
He did check the box.
I agree. He is most likely guilty. My hunch is plenty of other people with fire arms are guiulty of this same violation. I don't think we should prosecute them. That would be a mess. This is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion or DJT on altered documents.
It’s not. Funny how you democrat faggots have absolutely no intellectual curiosity about the myriad of crimes committed by their own. Such as Biden and five decades of him selling whichever office he occupied. Despite endless and mounting evidence.
Since there is no hope for you, perhaps you should do the first smart thing in what passes for you life, and self abort. A democrat like you should be enthusiastic for the opportunity.
Chemjeff Radical Nazi's most trusted news source, the Associated Press, is at it again:
Trump’s attacks on US justice system after guilty verdict encourage Putin, other autocrats: experts
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
How did the unbiased AP get it exactly backwards? Bragg and Joe have now given those dictators a reason to laugh when the US complains.
Imagine if Russia, North Korea and Venezuela announce sanctions against the US for imprisoning the opposition.
If they do, we'll hear a parade of articles explaining how a vote for Trump is a vote to turn into Russia, North Korea, or Venezuela.
Actually, Russia may be more of a republic than the U.S. at least the government doesn't cater to whack job trannies and allow open borders where millions of undocumented illegal aliens pour into the country, many of them military age Chinese.
There will come a time when Americans will be escaping the U.S. and finding themselves in the only free nation left...Russia.
Just get rid of the democrats.
They should send Danny Ortega to monitor our presidential election
https://www.mtpr.org/2006-11-05/carter-helps-monitor-nicaragua-presidential-election
Democrats have been attacking the justice system for the last 10 years. Suddenly it's as pure as the newly driven snow.
TBF, they’ve been attacking the Justice System in Dem city strongholds. Which makes sense when you think about it: since they’ve been in charge of those cities for fucking decades, they have intimate knowledge of how shitty the system is in those places.
Well, it's on record that if there's one thing some Reason writers don't want to look like, it's a Republican, so this might be a problem.
The important thing about Calabresi’s analysis is the “or”. He did this or this or this. That’s not how it works. Trump was convicted of covering up a crime he hasn’t been convicted of. The predicate crimes weren’t even brought up during the trial.
I note the usual suspects cheering this prosecution. Let's imagine a case. Let's say it was a prosecution of "Jamal" an inner city youth suspected of drug dealing. Now, let's say the following transpired:
The government makes up laws after the fact to prosecute Jamal's alleged fraud to cover up a crime that nobody can exactly name (they aren't attempting to prosecute him for drug dealing). This is all under a "novel legal theory" that neither Jamal nor anybody else would have assumed to be the law prior to this case. To prosecute the case, the government places a gag order against Jamal and forbids him from presenting experts who say the law is at odds with how the court is interpreting it. The judge in the case has a daughter who has been collecting large amounts of money, including from Jamal's rivals, in an "anti-Jamal" campaign.
He provided the jury detailed instructions how to arrive at a guilty verdict for Jamal.
I wonder how many of the usual suspects would be cheering this case. I wonder how many would later be beating their chests about how they're "principled libertarians" because they support a parent's right to chemically castrate their kid.
If Jamal had 34 joints in a bag should he be charged for possession 34 times? Since it's quantity, they can up the charge to drug dealing. Even if he wasn't.
'"A plurality of Americans, 50%, think former President Donald Trump's guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his hush money trial was correct," an ABC News/Ipsos poll found over the weekend.'
And a majority of Americans think they know how a toilet works and that they are better-than-average drivers. However, only a tiny minority can list the major divisions of the federal government and describe their roles.
Given that it is the US, banana to peach republic.
Black folk won't typically vote Republican, but Trump isn't a typical Republican, he is in theory hated by the mainstream GOP and never-Trumpers which gives them just enough leeway to vote for him.
Sane democrats, who don't want to vote for mushbrain again also have a justification to vote for Trump. How many times have we heard "I wouldn't normally vote for Trump but this is ridiculous".
Whether by design, or accident precipitated by the Dems ineptitude, Trump is picking up support like crazy. Biden is only +9 in NY of all freaking places.
"Biden is only +9 in NY of all freaking places."
Somewhere in Foggy Bottom they must be ripping their hair out and screaming "WHY!" at the top of their lungs.
Yup. They say the dems are the evil party and the R’s are the stupid party.
I maintain that the dems are both evil and stupid.
You would think a statement like this:
“He’ll likely find a receptive audience in the form of Trump himself, who has never been shy about using government power against enemies.”
Would be followed by a legit example or two of this occurring during his 4 year administration.
we're a Schrodinger Republic until we figure out whether we're dead.
>>He encouraged his supporters' "lock her up" chant
ya and then she got so fucking locked up her grandchildren felt it oh wait
An unstable political system in which laws and regulations are weaponized by the powerful against opponents isn't the end of the world.
Just the end of the free world.
It's what every tyrant and dictator engages in.
Interesting that reason changed this title from banana republic to banana republicans... Why the need for a change like that?
They made the change strategically and reluctantly.
This was the sort of trial that occurred in the old Soviet Union where so called conspirators(opposition) were arrested, tried and then routinely executed. Or sent to gulags to die a slow death.
This is what they have in store for us. The entire show trial was a sham from the start and the Democrat party as always finds ways to destroy what's left of the Republic. Why? because the Democrat party is now controlled by radical left wing extremists and post modernist neo-Marxists. In short they are all communists. Which also means "the ends justify the means".
Anyone who believes they aren't going to come after people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense or even Ron Paul is in denial. You can bet the elites/swamp is planning what to do with these people and anyone else who dares defy them.
Expect a false flag within the next few months, by autumn at the most. Another plandemic, lockdowns will be permanent, and will be much worse.
They're planning all this and more.
"Expect a false flag within the next few months, by autumn at the most."
I'm betting August or the first week of September at the latest.
I’d seriously get on buying ammo, and just when you could get small pistol primers at places like Scheels again.
So continues the perpetual ammo shortage that began in 2008
Your comment illustrates why one should never spend their entire day drinking from a jug of Kook-Aid.
Your comment illustrates why one should not listen to the MSM either.
But you can go back to PMSNBC and catch another portion of the View.
He furiously masturbates to those biddies.
Yes, there is no way that I would consider voting for Mr. Trump because the American political system has its endemic sickness to consider. Voting for the main two parties only justifies their crimes. Let them both remain deadlocked and put restoration first, since at this point they clearly cannot be relied upon to assure such a task. Any person may have better luck with a better party if they have the necessary skill to run a good campaign. That may be a good book to discover, that explains where each party went wrong and why they cannot repair their reputation at this point.
I have decided that all improper uses of money fall under the "support for the Arts" clause of the United States Constitution and that there is no money to claim that may be used for such purposes, because at some point such spending was supposed to be because of a fluorishing national economy rather than idle desperation. The only money actually available comes from the fees charged that assure that perpetuated essential activities may remain staffed/policed, plus the new resort of direct taxation on income that has been re-wired by magic to be any act of trade rather than from sales of temporary benefits in one's landowner resources and interest from investments.
The other theory says it does not really matter if the two parties remain dominant, because justice were the cause, and sickness were the undefied reason or explanation for the cause. We must contend with a society of judges, and things only improve when acts of fairness that win thereby become perpetuated. On that note, however can there be fairness without concomitant purity that equal rights bring to us all? Converting attempts at fairness brought by maddened journalists to any minority into counterpart basic rights for all should not be difficult.
One more ignoramus heard from. Fuck off and die.
I'm confused. Trump was convicted of a crime (34 counts of one). The questions and skepticism Tuccille claims that even left-leaning legal experts expressed about the case centered around the legal theories of how his actions were criminal. But Trump and his lawyers are the only ones really disputing any of the underlying facts.
I keep seeing people here saying what just about every Trump defender is saying: he didn't do anything illegal. Sleep with a porn star a few months after his most recent son was born? No real denial from MAGA fans or right-wing commentators. There are some half-hearted attempts at talking about sluts just looking for a payday, but Trump is simply too well known as having no fidelity to women in his life. That he paid Stormy off to keep it from coming out before the election? No real denials of that either. Or of how his friend, David Pecker, got the National Enquirer to catch and kill the story from a Playboy Playmate of long affair from 2006-2007, a story that also would have come out before the election otherwise.
And that's just the lurid sex stuff. Any word from Trump supporters denying that his businesses made money from foreign officials staying at his hotel? That his son-in-law got to manage a $2 billion Saudi account just a few months after having been a Trump administration advisor and envoy to that country?
Worst of all, if you really want to talk Banana republic analogies, there are still the two impeachments of Trump. One, for directly pressuring a foreign leader to announce investigations of his likely opponent. The allegations that Biden is behind all of the Trump prosecutions rely on assumptions of back channels and secret meetings, since two of the indictments were brought by state officials in two different states, the other two by a special counsel. Trump personally asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, telling him to get in touch with his personal lawyer, Rudy, and the U.S. AG about it. And he made that request while appropriated aid to Ukraine was being held up by his administration for no apparent reason.
The second impeachment was for what, again? Just asking, since so many seem to forget that.
How about all of the people in Trump's orbit that were part of the convicted felon club before Trump joined it? Former campaign manager - Paul Manafort? His first National Security Advisor that lasted 10 days, Michael Flynn? The star witness of this trial that was a personal lawyer and 'fixer' for him, Michael Cohen? One of the felonies Cohen plead guilty to? Lying to Congress about whether he had been working for Trump to secure a deal in Russia during the campaign. He had said in a letter to Congress ahead of testimony in person that the deal efforts stopped in Jan. 2016, but in fact, he was still working on it in June of 2016, including speaking directly with Trump in that time period about traveling to Russia.
The Trump Organization CFO - felony tax fraud; advisors Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, felony contempt of Congress.
The truth is that Trump has a history of surrounding himself with people willing to lie and cheat, whether it is to benefit themselves, or to benefit Trump. The truth is that Trump lies as easy as he breathes, even denying in an interview over the weekend that he had ever said, "lock her up." (He is on video saying that, in addition to all the times he smiled and nodded approvingly while his crowds chanted it.)
All of this, and he still gets slavish loyalty from the whole GOP and its most fanatical voters. Add in people that just hate Democrats enough to overlook all of these things, and people that simply think back fondly on the pre-pandemic times as being better for them, whether Trump deserves any credit for that or not, and we are on track to re-elect someone that is promising revenge on his political enemies. Yet it is the Trump prosecutions that are banana republic-like dangers to the country?
We know you’re confused Jason. It’s okay.
Another weak MAGA retort with no substance lol.
Another brain dead leftist calling anyone who disagrees with their tribe, MAGA.
Sad.
hey, this guy ^^ gets it!
This is the steaming pile of lefty shit supporting murder of the unarmed as a preventative measure:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
I keep seeing people here saying what just about every Trump defender is saying: he didn’t do anything illegal. Sleep with a porn star a few months after his most recent son was born? No real denial from MAGA fans or right-wing commentators. There are some half-hearted attempts at talking about sluts just looking for a payday, but Trump is simply too well known as having no fidelity to women in his life. That he paid Stormy off to keep it from coming out before the election? No real denials of that either. Or of how his friend, David Pecker, got the National Enquirer to catch and kill the story from a Playboy Playmate of long affair from 2006-2007, a story that also would have come out before the election otherwise.
Yep. All of this stuff is entirely legal. Doesn’t matter one way or another if it’s true. Where we have a problem are the people wanting to put all of this together and make it into a crime because they really dislike the person doing it.
See, you don’t have to approve of something to think it’s not a crime. That's probably where the confusion comes in.
See, you don’t have to approve of something to think it’s not a crime. That’s probably where the confusion comes in.
No, my confusion is why people support him. He's a known liar, cheat, philanderer, and pathological narcissist. He had no ability to control himself well enough to let his lawyers put on a defense that would have acquitted him. Instead, he had to focus on deny, deny, deny as his mentor Roy Cohn taught him. He's the antithesis of everything anyone would have wanted to see in a president had they been asked before 2015.
FFS. It's not a matter of supporting him. It's a matter of opposing the state being able to decide they don't like some guy and declaring him a criminal. I'll tell you what, if you're okay with that, you have no business calling yourself a libertarian. Because, if the state can simply designate you a criminal and set up a show trial to validate it, you're not free. And, if you support it, you're a totalitarian shitheel.
FFS. It’s not a matter of supporting him. It’s a matter of opposing the state being able to decide they don’t like some guy and declaring him a criminal.
You are assuming in what you wrote that Trump was prosecuted because "the state" didn't "like" Trump. I don't pretend that he would have been prosecuted at that time had he not been who he is, but it doesn't have to be pure animosity that drew the prosecution. An alternate explanation is that because of his notoriety, former position of power, and penchant for escaping accountability for just about everything he's ever done wrong, Bragg, Smith, and Willis decided that enough was enough, it was time to make him face the music for a change and defend himself in court, where he can't get away with lying his ass off.
Actually, I think of the prosecutions of him, the documents case is the most obvious one where giving him a pass would have been the injustice to all of the people that spent years in jail for having national secrets when and where they weren't supposed to. Generally, it is only ever high-level officials that get off light on that kind of thing. A 29-year Air Force Lt. Col., for instance, was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison for having national defense information stored at his home and in his overseas officer's quarters, where it was not authorized to be stored. He had cooperated with the investigation and plead guilty. He did not spend a year and half 'negotiating' over returning the government's documents only to have his lawyer tell the government that they had everything, when that wasn't true.
I’ll tell you what, if you’re okay with that, you have no business calling yourself a libertarian.
Good thing that I do not call myself a libertarian, but I also would not be okay with the government prosecuting people just because they didn't like them or whatever else you think perpetual victim Trump is having done to him.
Because, if the state can simply designate you a criminal and set up a show trial to validate it, you’re not free.
That's right. Good thing that didn't happen to Trump, then. His trial was hardly a show trial. He just put on a lousy defense.
And, if you support it, you’re a totalitarian shitheel.
The differences of opinion we have are over whether Trump is being targeted unfairly. I do not believe that he is. I look at the information given publicly about the evidence and charges and think that he is guilty of at least most of those charges. I am not on a jury, though, so I know that I will not see all of the evidence that they saw in this case or will see if the other charges ever reach trial.
Trump has access to far better lawyers and more researchers and assistants and jury consultants than 99.9% or more of all criminal defendants. His due process rights will never be in danger in the way or to the extent other criminal defendants' rights are on a regular basis. And cries of political persecution of Trump really ring hollow after "Lock her up!" was a major campaign slogan of his in 2016, even if he doesn't remember saying it himself.
An alternate explanation is that because of his notoriety, former position of power, and penchant for escaping accountability for just about everything he’s ever done wrong, Bragg, Smith, and Willis decided that enough was enough, it was time to make him face the music for a change and defend himself in court, where he can’t get away with lying his ass off.
You don’t see how this is a MAJOR problem for liberty-minded people? Guy has a clean record but a bad reputation, so there’s a group of people who were motivated to go after him criminally. Not because they had clear evidence of a history of crimes but because they had prejudged that he HAD to be a criminal. Because they didn’t like some stuff he had previously done.
This is dogshit. It's becoming evident that you're willing to excuse any abuse of power as long as it's aimed at the right target. That's entirely anathema to our principle of justice, where we're supposed to set literal murderers free if we can't definitively prove they committed the crime.
You don’t see how this is a MAJOR problem for liberty-minded people?
No, I don't. Because the things that Trump has done wrong that I was talking about were not just things that I didn't like, but things that he has done that are illegal. It is also because no one should be able to escape accountability for violating the law. Trump was the fucking President, and he shat all over the Constitution when he didn't win re-election. Bannon is on tape explaining how the plan was to declare victory on Election Night before most of the mail in ballots had been counted. And that only worked because Trump had spent the previous several months bad mouthing mail ballots so that Republican voters wouldn't use them. Mail ballots were not a partisan controversial issue prior to Trump making it one in 2020. Both Republican and Democratic legislatures in many states had spent the previous decade or more expanding their use. I recall seeing long time GOP strategists absolutely aghast that Trump was doing that, figuring that it would hurt Republicans all up and down the ballot in every state. But hey, anything to have a built in excuse for losing ready to go.
If he had stopped at whining and refusing to concede, he could be ignored and forgotten. But instead he and his team went about trying to pressure governors, legislators, and secretaries of state in the close contests to unilaterally declare the election invalid, and figure out the details of the fraud claims later or just throw whatever they could out there and see what would stick well enough to keep the faithful outraged. When that didn't work, the alternate electors were ready to go for Pence to be the one to unilaterally toss the certified results and Electoral Votes. Alternate electors had cast votes before, sure. But that was always a provisional act done publicly while recounts and the like proceeded. This time, the recounts and court cases were over and there was nothing left but for Congress to make the last official counting of what everyone already knew. There were not near enough votes in either chamber for any Electoral Votes to be discarded that way. The last illegal, unconstitutional act Trump took was to whip up the crowd to try and pressure Pence to toss certified electoral votes because Trump couldn't convince him to make shit up that wasn't in the Constitution.
And it isn't just my opinion that Trump was responsible for the violence that followed. It was said in those words by multiple GOP Senators as they spoke during his trial after the second impeachment. They just made excuses about why they couldn't or shouldn't vote to convict him despite having just said that they viewed him as guilty.
If he had stopped at whining and refusing to concede, he could be ignored and forgotten.
You're aware this conviction had nothing to do with that?
You were making accusations that I and the prosecutors just "didn't like" Trump. I was responding with a very important example of what I see as dereliction of his duty at best and an unconstitutional attempt to retain power despite the people's votes at worst. If you want to just argue about this case and nothing else, then do that and stop trying to make it all about my bias instead.
What ‘unconstitutional attempt’ do you speak of? Contradicting democrat talking points?
I could summarize the actions Trump and his team took leading up to and including on Jan. 6, 2021, and how some of those were clearly in contradiction with the Constitution. But, I really don't know how you could have avoided a full accounting of all of that more than three years later other than willful ignorance.
Actually, the exact antithesis of what I want in a president is someone who uses the power of the state to make his political enemies into criminals.
The big issue here isn't that TRUMP is facing legal peril, it's that Trump is in legal peril because of his politics. His politics are not unique to him. There's an element of voters who want to essentially criminalize people who support a non-Democrat. Trump is a target right now because he's running for office, but if they can just bend the system in a way that it's usable against any political opponent, it's not going to stop with Trump.
It's not even a conscious bias for a lot of people. They've been convinced that Republicans are all evil. They wouldn't say they want Republicans imprisoned as a category, but they're strongly inclined to believe any accusations that the Republican is a criminal or a traitor or a murderer and ready to prosecute and convict based on their prejudice. And right now, Republicans have a much better record on the lawfare issue. When I see that changing, I'll call out that behavior as well.
But this is a dangerous precedent. If you start leaving every President think he's going to go to prison when his term in office ends, it really incentives a president to NOT leave office. It's how you get a slow slide into tyranny. This trend needs a major reversal.
Actually, the exact antithesis of what I want in a president is someone who uses the power of the state to make his political enemies into criminals.
You mean like Trump is promising to do? Like he promised to do to Hillary Clinton in 2016? (Though he never bothered with that. Because he never actually cared. He just figured it was a great thing to use during a campaign. This will be different, though, as he wants personal revenge.)
The big issue here isn’t that TRUMP is facing legal peril, it’s that Trump is in legal peril because of his politics.
I disagree. I think he is facing legal peril because of what he has done.
There’s an element of voters who want to essentially criminalize people who support a non-Democrat.
Republicans have been steadily ramping up Democrats as evil enemies of all that is right and good about America for more than 30 years. I live in a house where Newsmax and Fox are on the TV every day. I see it. People that vote for Democrats are held in almost as much disdain by Republicans.
It’s not even a conscious bias for a lot of people. They’ve been convinced that Republicans are all evil.
Everything you say in that paragraph could have just as easily been said by any Democrat, just switch the party labels.
And right now, Republicans have a much better record on the lawfare issue.
Not the way I see things. Mostly because I think that what you consider to be lawfare, I consider to be the rule of law applying to everyone. Besides, Republicans seem to be better at using congressional hearings. That way, they don't have to actually make a case where there are rules of evidence or jury to convince. They can just keep making broad accusations and promise that, any day now, the damning evidence will be made public. Haven't you gotten tired of Comer and Jim Jordan promising to nail Biden and not delivering anything but more invective? When will you realize that they don't actually have anything? At least the Trump prosecutions are putting their evidence to the test in a courtroom.
But this is a dangerous precedent. If you start leaving every President think he’s going to go to prison when his term in office ends, it really incentives a president to NOT leave office. It’s how you get a slow slide into tyranny. This trend needs a major reversal.
I've heard that argument before. I think it was even hinted at by one of the Justices in the oral arguments on the Trump immunity claim. It is exactly backwards. The bigger danger is from Presidents that will assume that they can get away with virtually anything they do in office and still get to retire with security paid for by taxpayers. All they need is to have the loyalty of their party, which will never allow any impeachment to result in removal from office.
If you want Presidents to not worry about being prosecuted after they leave office, don't vote for a candidate that will do crimes while in office! Vote for Representatives and Senators that will work to make sure that the executive branch doesn't overstep its bounds, even when the President is from their party. Vote for Senators that take advise and consent seriously rather than another partisan tool and only vote to confirm judges and justices that have a record of putting the law and the constitution above partisan politics. Seriously, is that true of any of the nine justices we have now?
Our politics has gotten so extremely partisan and divisive because it has worked. We, as a country, have been voting in people from both parties that get elected by telling us that the other side can't be trusted with power, so of course they will keep saying that, until it is true of both parties. Sure, I think that the Republicans have been way worse at that*, but there is plenty enough to go around. Even before Trump, Democrats had been returning fire at Republicans and painting them as backwards or evil. ("Clinging to their guns and religion," and such.) Both parties deserve harsh criticism for things they have done and do now. The danger is when voters internalize those feelings of enmity to the point where they stop criticizing their own side because they hate and fear the other side so much. Or, they go even further down the dark path. They go beyond even excusing it and start demanding that the evil of the other side be purged from the country. Time for that Civil War 2.0! Right?
If you want Presidents to not worry about being prosecuted after they leave office, don’t vote for a candidate that will do crimes while in office!
But we don't agree that this is a crime. That's a significant distinction here. I believe Trump is being prosecuted absent any commission of a crime, which means the fear that he "Could get away with anything" is rather baseless since he's been convicted without even a crime being committed.
If there was broad agreement that he did was criminal and should be treated as criminal behavior, then we wouldn't be where we are. But are you even aware what we're talking about? He signed an NDA with a porn star and paid her to not talk about having sex with him. There's no violation of the NAP, it's a mutually beneficial contract, and it's perfectly legal. He entered it into his ledger as a legal expense because it's a legal expense. Even if you disagree that it's a legal expense, what's the crime? What's the harm? Is it a campaign expenditure? Who the fuck cares if it was a campaign expenditure, there's no legal limit to what he can spend on his own campaign!
This is why I find arguments like this disingenuous. You pretend to be open-minded to the possibility that Trump is innocent, but ultimately you've already convinced yourself he's a criminal so none of this matters. And the reason you're convinced he's a criminal is rooted in your own personal bias because the things you're saying he has done are not crimes, not by any clear legal theory or moral principle. They're just things you really dislike.
And this is the problem-the people who hate Trump really dislike a lot of things he supports and thinks they should be crimes. He's trying to enslaved women's uteruses, that's clearly a crime. He wants to put black people back in chains, that's clearly a crime. He's stirring up hate against Chinese people and Muslims, that's clearly a crime. Except that these are biased perceptions of political positions held by conservative people, so if Trump is guilty of these things, every Trump supporter and voter is guilty of them and is a criminal. Because, ultimately, the crime is not agreeing with their political dogma.
Who the fuck cares if it was a campaign expenditure, there’s no legal limit to what he can spend on his own campaign!
Campaign expenditures are reported and publicly available. If Trump had paid Stormy directly using campaign funds, then there would be a $130k check to her in those records. You think he would want that? It would cut against the whole reason to pay her off in the first place. Instead, Michael Cohen paid for it with his own money, that he took out a loan for, and Trump essentially paid him back from the Trump Organization, as I understand it. That is why it was about falsifying business records. How would paying off a porn star to keep quiet be a legal expense for the Trump Org? Was there any written agreement between the Trump Org and Cohen that would have included Cohen being paid back for fronting the money to pay off Stormy that would back up the claim that it was really a legal expense for the business and not for the Trump campaign?
You seem to not know or have followed all of the details. The jury had listened to it all, heard the arguments of both the prosecution and the defense, and the instructions on the law by the judge. If there were errors in how any of that was done, most likely in the jury instructions, then Trump can appeal, as he has promised to do.
This is why I find arguments like this disingenuous. You pretend to be open-minded to the possibility that Trump is innocent, but ultimately you’ve already convinced yourself he’s a criminal so none of this matters.
I was convinced in 2015 from information that was well known and available to everyone that Trump was a slimy and incompetent businessman. The Trump University civil fraud case that he ended up settling for $28 million, all of the numerous times he had stiffed vendors and contractors, the multiple bankruptcies of his projects that he managed to wriggle out of being personally on the hook for... His fundamental dishonesty was obvious to anyone that cared to learn the basics of his history.
So, was I open-minded about his potential innocence? I missed where I made a claim to be unbiased about Trump's innocence or guilt on these charges. I was always inclined to believe that he did exactly as the prosecution alleged. Good thing I wasn't on the jury, then. But I have not seen anyone, from legal experts to commenters here, make any real case that he did nothing at all illegal. Things that people have said along those lines, including what you wrote, have not accurately stated what he was being charged with that was illegal. Falsifying business records is always illegal. The statute of limitations had expired on those misdemeanors, but the charge was that the false records were made to conceal the crime of Cohen contributing illegally to the campaign by making the payment himself. Or, if Cohen was simply being paid back, then that would make the crime hiding the fact of the campaign expenditure to Stormy, instead making it look like a Trump Org expense.
And the reason you’re convinced he’s a criminal is rooted in your own personal bias because the things you’re saying he has done are not crimes, not by any clear legal theory or moral principle.
Some of the things I've mentioned that Trump has done are just sleazy, unethical, or morally corrupt, but not illegal. That is true. But I have mentioned plenty of things that are. I am convinced that he is a criminal because of those things, and the evidence that he did, in fact, do them. I am aware of my own biases, and if I made some claim that a particular action of Trump's was illegal when it is not, I'd like to see that. Who knows, I might even acknowledge it instead of going off on non sequiturs.
And this is the problem-the people who hate Trump really dislike a lot of things he supports and thinks they should be crimes.
I disagree with a lot of Trump's policies, but policy differences are not criminal. Even the way he leans into people's prejudices, which you caricature, is abhorrent to me, but not in any way criminal.
Because, ultimately, the crime is not agreeing with their political dogma.
It is all part of our evil plot, I guess. We liberals want to jail all conservatives if they dare to express their views. Look, this is exactly what I was talking about. Everything I have written you seem to have filtered through what you believe about all liberals or other anti-MAGA fanatics. If I had that kind of view of conservatives, I wouldn't bother commenting here at all. It would be a waste of time. But I don't view all conservatives in the negative way I view Trump. Ordinary voters, like you and me, who aren't part of any campaign, don't have the responsibility to study and understand everything about politics in a neutral way. We can vote how we want, for any reasons we want, and no one can take away our right to vote because of who we support or don't support. Being a "low information voter," "elitist," "authoritarian," "socialist," or whatever other epithet our opposition wants to label us as being doesn't matter for our right to vote either. I try and take care not to view any American in such a negative way for their politics that I wouldn't stand for their right to express their views and act on them in the voting booth. That is the point of our Founding, isn't it?
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
That is an old saying that we are supposed to live up to. It really comes down to the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. It is NOT "Treat others as they treat you." The Golden Rule is stated that way for a good reason. It is easy to become angry at being treated poorly and want to return the favor. In politics, though, that can be used by the unscrupulous. They can tell us that we are being treated poorly, when it is not true, or they are at least exaggerating the extent to which it is true. And they do that to get us on board for doing the same or worse to the other side, all while overlooking their flaws.
Maybe I shouldn't be so confused about Trump supporters sticking with him and defending him like this. It is, after all, compelling to be told that we are the good guys, and everyone dark and vile is fighting against us because we are good and they are not. "They hate us for our freedom!" Pretty good motivation to fight against commies during the Cold War, terrorists after 9/11, and so on. Why not use that kind of language in domestic politics when it works so well against outside enemies.
If Trump had paid Stormy directly using campaign funds, then there would be a $130k check to her in those records. You think he would want that?
No, of course not. If there's a traceable money trail, it rather invalidates the point of the NDA, which is to hide the affair. Paying her to not talk about the affair is entirely legal, by the way. So it makes sense he doesn't want a paper trail showing he wrote a check to a porn star because people would immediately surmise what it was about. So he paid her through his lawyer, and then reimbursed his lawyer as a legal expense.
I seriously don't see where there's a crime, here. He can have personal reasons as well as public reasons for wanting to buy some privacy. It's not like he was using public funds, or specific funds raised by the campaign. He paid for it with his own money, and as a businessman, he has interests beyond political for maintaining an image. I don't have to like that he's banging porn stars and then paying them to keep their mouths shut to say that there's nothing against the law here. And if you're hunting for ways to make this illegal, you're really meddling in the liberty of everyone in America to engage in private financial transactions.
I can't even think of a good reason WHY would this would be a crime. If he'd raped, Stormy, maybe, and then was paying her to avoid having her go to the police? But that's an entirely different scenario and I don't believe it for a second. There should be some actual evidence of anything even close to that happening before I'd buy that. This seems like a simple case of fucking her because she wanted a job, and then paying her to go away. Both sides benefited.
So it makes sense he doesn’t want a paper trail showing he wrote a check to a porn star because people would immediately surmise what it was about. So he paid her through his lawyer, and then reimbursed his lawyer as a legal expense.
Did you miss where I explained that this is the crime? Hiding the true nature of a campaign expenditure is illegal, isn't it? Or do you think that candidates should be able to raise millions of dollars, including from businesses and wealthy individuals that want favors in exchange for that, be able to spend it however they want, and then keep all of that corruption from the voters?
Trump sure thinks that he can do whatever the fuck he wants because he is a rich celebrity, but I'm surprised that you would think he should be able to do that. That NAP that libertarians bring up so often . . . I see someone gaining government power through deception and corruption and hiding the truth from voters that might change their votes if they knew it as aggression. At a minimum, I would say that someone that tries to gain power through corrupt means can't be trusted to do anything good once they gain that power. That is why we have all of those disclosure laws that you don't think matter.
So you’re puking up a long collection of discredited democrat talking points, got it.
All that crap has been either disproven, or has nothing to back it up. But that’s the JasonT20 way.
How was anything that I said "discredited"? I made a lot of assertions of facts that can easily be verified or refuted. If you don't want to pick even just one to dig into and actually point out how it is false, then it isn't my problem.
A fundamental principle of law is that the accused be able to know in advance of the possibility that his actions are against the law. That is why ex-post facto laws are forbidden. A purely original interpretation of the law is, by it's very "original" nature, fundamentally ex-post facto. Yet this is rarely applied.
There is no way that Trump could have been aware of the "felonious" nature of his actions if there were no existing precedents.
I utterly despise Trump and only voted for him in the last election because it was obvious that Biden was a tool of someone else and would become a disaster if elected. Well, obvious to anyone except the Reason staff.
Today, all votes are defensive, meaning you vote for the person least likely to destroy everything around you.
That's incorrect. The law didn't change. It always stated that falsifying business records to conceal a crime elevated the offense to felony level.
So what crime did he commit for which he falsified business records?
The interpretation of that law was consistently described as "novel" from the Latin "nova" meaning "new". Since that interpretation of the law came after Trump's acts, it was, in effect, ex-post facto.
The law had never been used against anyone in that way before. There was no way for Trump or his lawyers to interpret the law in that way. Remember, the illegal act that was first used in the indictment was a violation of a Federal elections law and the novel interpretation was that a local DA could indict on the basis of a Federal election law. The Feds refused to indict Trump. The previous DA (Vance) had refused to indict Trump. Two government prosecutors had passed on indicting Trump.
Therefore, there was a legal precedent for not indicting someone in this way to add to the fact that no one had ever been indicted for these supposed crimes.
With no reasonable way for Trump or his lawyers to suspect that an NDA was a felony, knowledge of a criminal act was impossible and therefore there could be no mens rea, knowledge of guilt, without which a felony conviction is highly unlikely.
You did well until the last paragraph. The NDA wasn't a felony. (Side note: It is unenforceable as Trump never signed it.) Paying money for the NDA through his business and recording it as a business expense when it was a personal expense was a crime.
If Trump had simply repaid Cohen directly with a personal check, there'd have been no crime.
The law had never been used against anyone in that way before. There was no way for Trump or his lawyers to interpret the law in that way.
Remember, the illegal act that was first used in the indictment was a violation of a Federal elections law and the novel interpretation was that a local DA could indict on the basis of a Federal election law. The Feds refused to indict Trump. The previous DA (Vance) had refused to indict Trump. Two government prosecutors had passed on indicting Trump.
Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations for using his money to make the payment to Stormy Daniels in 2018. Trump was President at that time, so the feds not indicting him was long-standing DoJ policy. Vance didn't "refuse" to indict Trump, as far as I can tell, it was just that Trump was fighting the grand jury subpoenas, and then Vance retired.
I hate that the actions of Biden's Authoritarian Regime is forcing me to defend Donald Trump. Donald Trump is one of the last people who I would vote for, understanding that he is better by a mile than Biden is.
Donald Trump has a narcissistic ego and is incompatible with holding governmental power. This being said Biden is far, far worse than what the corporate media and democrats have accused Trump of being.
Push come to shove, Trump being elected would be a terrible outcome although much more preferable than Biden who is an unmitigated disaster with vile tactics. Trump may be a step backwards related to individual freedom, while Biden is an entire football field backwards.
Great job of gaslighting!! You win today's Top Internet Gaslighter award!! Congratulations!!
You should familiarize yourself with what “gaslighting” means
Okay. Please tell me what the correct term is for someone who falsely claims they never did A, but because of B, are now going to do A. That's what the OP did.
My example would be, "I hate Joe Biden and would never vote for him. But because his son Hunter is on trial, I'm now going to vote for Joe Biden."
That's a good analogy, and I don't exactly buy Uomo's sudden desire to defend Trump because Biden is so awful. (With zero evidence that Biden had anything to do with this trial, by the way.)
But my understanding of gaslighting is based on the plot of the old movie, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. The term "gaslighting" comes from one plot element where the husband regularly tries to convince his wife (Bergman) that she is imagining things that really were happening, including the dimming of gaslights in the house.
Gaslighting, in the recent political sense, is when a politician tries to convince the public that things that they have seen or once knew to be true are actually not true. Usually, they do so by stating the falsehood with such confidence and certainty that you doubt yourself instead of them. I assume that you could apply the same term for the reverse, where they assert that something is true that you once knew was false.
Does Donald Trump's Conviction in New York Make Us Banana Republicans?
No. The leftist coup that installed Joe Biden did that.
Cool story, bro. You're getting pretty good at projection.
Indeed. The Democrat party is not democratic. Like the old saying goes: scratch a liberal and you'll find a tyrant screaming to get out.
The democrat party has been infiltrated and taken over by radical left wing extremists and neo-Marxists( Obama regime).
Interesting. Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi wrote June 1. "But, altering business records under New York State law is only a crime if it is done to conceal the violation of some other law." Sorry, Steven. That's incorrect. It's only a FELONY if done to conceal. IANAL, but I know more about law than the "professor".
Lol. Sure you do, Ed.
Idiot.
Reported and muted. Buh-bye.
Dump broke the law and it's as simple as that. How come none of these stories actually state that one simple fact. There was a law, and he broke it, and 12 jurors convicted. Everyone likes to make a word salad for their chosen One (Dump) but they won't address that simple fact and provide proof the the jury was biased. All they do is accuse, I've yet to see one person post proof the jury was bought off or compromised. Show us your proof and then we'll continue to read word salad.
It's like Trump's election fraud lawsuits (0-62). There's lots and lots of proof. It just hasn't been presented yet. But it's coming any day now!
Generally the people in the comments are hard core MAGAs acting like they're libertarians. I'm not sure if they're hired Russian/China assets or just old MAGA people with unlimited time on their hands because they're retired. It's always the same bunch though. I've muted so many that like 2/3 of the comments are mutes lol
Also - did you need “proof” that the oj jury was biased? Once they ignored fractious DNA evidence, bias was the only natural conclusion. But I’ll play.
NDA is a legal document. It is not a bribe. This is common knowledge. In the context of campaign finance law, it might be problematic if Trump paid out of pocket and didn’t list it as campaign expense. But since the misreporting occurred in 2017, the notion that he tried to influence an election that already occurred is nonsense. You don’t even need a high school degree to discern chronology.
The jury was instructed that cohen’s earlier guilty plea could not be used as evidence of trumps own guilt. But that’s what the prosecution suggested. Merchan let it happen despite his own instruction. So the jury went along and considered improper evidence, or they weren’t competent enough to pick up on the discrepancy.
Stupid or biased - I’ll take either, which is expected of the far left.
The OJ jury was biased. Nobody but OJ ever claimed they weren't.
As for NDA, this was a personal NDA between Trump and Daniels. The reason he got in trouble was that he claimed it as a business expense when it was clearly a personal expense.
And you're totally confused about who, what, when and where. Cohen paid Daniels BEFORE THE ELECTION with money from a home equity loan he took out. Trump reimbursed Cohen AFTER THE ELECTION by laundering money through his business and taking a business tax deduction for it. Cohen's in-kind campaign donation was before, Trump's cover-up was after. Remember Nixon? Watergate break-in was before election, cover-up was after.
The most ironic piece of this is Trump would've never gotten in trouble if he'd just written a check directly to Cohen from his personal checkbook instead of laundering it through the business and taking a tax deduction for it.
In that case Bill Clinton should be tried for paying off trailer park tramp Paula Jones.
Then there's the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Who knows how many other bimbos he's messed with oh and what's this: Hillary has a daughter fathered by Webb Hubble.
Did Bill Clinton launder the payment to Paula through his business and put it in the company books as a business legal expense and take a business tax deduction for it? Link, please.
What laws did he break? Charges related to taxes, which went past statue of limitation?
Don’t cry when Trump massively deports illegal aliens. They broke the law, boo hoo.
The statute of limitations for tax fraud is 6 years. The company books were falsified in 2017, which means the fraudulent deduction was taken on the business tax return filed in 2018. Charges were brought against Trump in 2023, which was 5 years after the filing and within the SOL.
The jury was biased, but that’s beside the point.
The “word salad” that confused you is informed opinion of legal experts and astute observers who sees travesty in how the prosecution used a misdemeanor tax offense charge three separate crimes that did not require unanimous jury agreement.
Wondering how tax records made after 2016 (after the election) can amount to coverup isn’t word salad, it’s common sense. NDA is sealed record. It does not disappear when the funds involved are registered as legal expense.
Trump was convicted because people like you sat on the jury.
I can't tell if that was intended for me, but I can answer.
The NDA was a personal agreement between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. It wasn't a transaction of his business and didn't belong on the company books at all.
The tax records made after the election were a cover-up of the payment made before the election. Remember Nixon? Watergate break-in was before election, cover-up was after election. Two separate but related things.
Time will tell when Trump takes his case before the Appellate Court, that is if they don't stop him first by whatever means necessary. The Appellate could very well reverse the verdict and exonerate Trump of all charges.
I can just hear the screaming and crying from here. No doubt the leftists will doxx the judges and send people to murder them.
"He'll likely find a receptive audience in the form of Trump himself, who has never been shy about using government power against enemies. He encouraged his supporters' "lock her up" chant against 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton, promised last year to act as an agent of "retribution" if returned to office, and vowed in November to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.""
It needs to be said that he DID NOT actually use the power of the government against his rivals. Slogans are not the same as prosecutions. Which side is proving to be the actual danger to democracy?
This was a state prosecution, not a federal prosecution. Trump is threatening to use federal powers.
The charges should have been misdemeanors. OTOH He did what he did, and it was hush money and he did do it to prevent people from knowing about it before the election. I'm just not sure any of the pro-Trumpers would have cared. They already didn't care about the 'grab-the-pussy' stuff.
If Trump wins, I expect him to go all out with vengeance prosecutions at the Federal level.
The charges wouldn't have happened at all if Trump had paid Cohen directly instead of laundering it through his business and taking a business tax deduction for the personal expense.
Sullum's arguments sound plausible, but something tells me he missed the mark.
Namely, why didn't Trump trot out these arguments? Rather, his defense rested primarily on impugning Michael Cohen. Are you telling me that Trump's very expensive suite of defense lawyers simply didn't think to mention the problems that Sullum found? They had all the time in the world to submit such arguments.
I find it more likely that Sullum has missed something with regards to either the law or the facts of the case.
Sullum both missed on the law and the facts of the case. Trump's lawyers weren't allowed to put in a winnable case per their client's wishes.
Are you telling me that Trump’s very expensive suite of defense lawyers simply didn’t think to mention the problems that Sullum found? They had all the time in the world to submit such arguments.
Like EdG says, most likely Trump insisted on attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses, especially Cohen and Daniels. He certainly focused his time outside of court talking about how everything they said were lies, rather than arguing the actual law.
Trump is always his own worst enemy.