Grand jury votes to indict Trump

[UncleMark]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

Oh my fvcking God.

 

[zeke4ahs]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

Ahhhhhhhhhh! He lives!!!!

 

[Spartans9312]

Good read

 

[twenty02]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

Whoa.... blast from the past!

 

[Spartans9312]

Manhattan garage worker charged with attempted murder after shooting thief

A Manhattan parking garage attendant who was shot twice while confronting an alleged thief — then wrestled the gun away and opened fire on the suspect — has been charged with attempted …

nypost.com

Bragg is a fricking joke of a DA

 

[Crayfish57]

That's just silly.

No one has to spend even one second "figuring out" why to oppose Trump. Trump makes clear with his every breath why he is despicable.

Even Trump's supporters don't go first -- they do not support Trump carte blanche in advance but instead wait for Trump to say something ridiculous and get rebutted, and then the Trump supporters auto-attack the Trump critics in unison, falsely claiming they were offended.

You mean just like when sane people hear Biden try and form a sentence on his own ? Doesnt take me one second to know why idiots like you voted for him.

 

[UncleMark]

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

Same to you (assuming I'm among the handful).

We could use you back.

 

[Rockfish1]

Same to you (assuming I'm among the handful).

We could use you back.

You're very kind, and as a result, you're now publicly defamed. I've liked you ever since you reduced me to telling you to go f#ck yourself early on. And you've got even better from there. I will now tell you to go f#ck yourself in the smiliest and most respectful way I can, because you're just that good. Best to you.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

WHAT THE F*CK.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're very kind, and as a result, you're now publicly defamed. I've liked you ever since you reduced me to telling you to go f#ck yourself early on. And you've got even better from there. I will now tell you to go f#ck yourself in the smiliest and most respectful way I can, because you're just that good. Best to you.

Please tell us you're back. @mcmurtry66 go get your scrubs together, we've got our point guard.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Please tell us you're back. @mcmurtry66 go get your scrubs together, we've got our point guard.

They’re all in the portal! Speaking of teams. I saw the craziest damn thing. Andre Agassi and roddick playing McEnroe and Chang in pickle ball. Audience. Tv. Whole 9 yards. As if these guys weren’t already charmed a sport was created for them. Same sport. Limited movement. It was unreal. McEnroe is 65 killing it in pickle ball

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.

Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist in me is very uncomfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.

Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist in me is very uncomfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

Valid concerns, I think, up until the point where one assumes that these "reasonable concerns" mean that the charges are "political" rather than "legally justifiable/necessary." That is to say, simply recognizing these pragmatic concerns doesn't mean that one has to assume the DA also recognized said pragmatic concerns and then discarded them in favor of partisan desires.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No one knows what the sealed indictment says, and no one knows what evidence Alvin Bragg has to support whatever the charges may be. So everyone making wild claims is full of shit.

Like everyone, I don’t know what the indictment says or what evidence supports the charges. But I stopped by to attack one particular argument being made by both serious and unserious people alike: the tawdry facts of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments are too trivial to warrant prosecution of Trump.

In particular, we don’t have to wonder what would happen to someone not named Donald Trump on these facts, because we already know what actually did happen to Michael Cohen on these facts.

Trump’s DOJ prosecuted Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and as a result Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. In fairness, Trump regarded Cohen as a snitch and a traitor, so there well may have been political topspin on Cohen’s prosecution. Still, having heard the evidence, a federal judge decided that what Cohen did was reprehensible enough to warrant three years in prison.

Here’s the thing though: according to the indictment, Cohen committed every criminal act at the behest of, under the direction and control of, and for the benefit of Cohen’s client and unindicted co-conspirator, whom the indictment referred to as Individual 1. And Individual 1 is Trump.

So according to publicly available information, Trump was the cat, and Cohen was the cat’s paw. The Cat’s Justice Department put The Cat’s Paw in prison for three years on the same facts that some now say are too trivial to warrant punishment of The Cat. This is a stupid argument.

I haven’t delved into either the federal or NY state law, but pundits say it’ll be harder to get a felony conviction on these facts under NY law than it was under federal law. That may be so. But this is a criticism of Merrick Garland — whose DOJ secured Cohen’s guilty plea — and not Alvin Bragg, who’s cleaning up the mess.

Finally, to a handful of people I won’t defame by naming: I hope you’re doing well.

Someone said Rockfish 3 times.

Good post, I had not thought of that. If he was found guilty and served time for his participation in the exact same crime, it is uncomfortable to say Trump is above the law entirely. I will rethink my position. But a basic American tenant has always been that no one is above the law.

Welcome back to that same old place you laughed about.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me, (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.

Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist is very uncomfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

Valid concerns, I think, up until the point where one assumes that these "reasonable concerns" mean that the charges are "political" rather than "legally justifiable/necessary." That is to say, simply recognizing these pragmatic concerns doesn't mean that one has to assume the DA also recognized said pragmatic concerns and then discarded them in favor of partisan desir

It’s all hard to say without knowing the actual charges and facts

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It’s all hard to say without knowing the actual charges and facts

Tuesday this will all be easier to parse.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Tuesday this will all be easier to parse.

For sure.

 

[UncleMark]

Tuesday this will all be easier to parse.

It will be a shit show.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It will be a shit show.

And tornados

 

[UncleMark]

And tornados

Good times.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Valid concerns, I think, up until the point where one assumes that these "reasonable concerns" mean that the charges are "political" rather than "legally justifiable/necessary." That is to say, simply recognizing these pragmatic concerns doesn't mean that one has to assume the DA also recognized said pragmatic concerns and then discarded them in favor of partisan desires.

I don't really care about the prosecutor's motivations, although it'd be naive to think the prosecutor doesn't have incentives to get reelected or run for higher office or get a book deal or whatever.

I do care about the decision and its effects on our nation. I'm very conflicted because I despise injustice, but I also want our nation to stay peaceful and stay together. To me, that's what this whole discussion should center on.

Maybe someone should write this up as a sequel to Antigone? It's not directly on point, but touches one some of the same themes.

 

[Rockfish1]

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me, (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.
I hes==
Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist is very uncomfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me, (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.

Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist is very uncI omfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

I hear what you're saying, and I hear a lot of centrist pundits making the same points, but I think this critique misses the point.

If there were a movie director orchestrating all the scenes of the various investigations and possible prosecutions, this one might not have been the director's choice for the first scene. But we aren't living in a movie, and notwithstanding Trump's claims, there isn't anyone directing the inquisitions.

Things are happening in a haphazard way because different authorities in different jurisdictions are proceeding on different timelines for different offenses under different laws. That's just how it goes when a former President has committed multiple crimes in multiple jurisdictions in so many different ways.

Things will happen how they happen because we live in a messy world and Trump is a messy guy. Trump has committed numerous offense that would put any sociopath who happened to become president in tough spot, because he's inevitably committed so many felonies. I think it's a mistake to treat Trump as though he were a normal person and not an obvious sociopath who shouldn't be allowed in the White House on a visitors pass.

I have no idea how people will react if Trump were held accountable. But outrage from lunatics shouldn't shield a sociopath from punishment in a society that lives under the rule of law for everyone, including even Orange Julius Caesar.

 

[Stuffshot]

This is a good analysis but it omits discussion of the most important piece, at least to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the triviality of the charge, on its own that matters--it's the relative weight of the offense compared to the effect you think it will have on the nation. Prosecution of the man everyone agrees is the front-runner for the next election, and a prosecutor of the other party making that call, in the current political environment seems unwise. And the fact of the matter is, Cohen's prosecution didn't involve this.

Now, does Trump deserve this prosecution morally? Yes. Might it fit the law? Yes. But pragmatically, if you are, like me (1) worried about the hyper-tribalism in the country, (2) acknowledge that tens-of-millions of people are going to view this prosecution as a political witch hunt no matter the facts that come out, (3) think that this is going to set a precedent for Republican prosecutors to go after Dem politicians in blood Red states in the future in pay back, and (4) don't believe paying hush money to a porn star is damaging to the nation, then it is perfectly reasonable, I submit, to question the wisdom of this prosecution.

Do I want campaigning for President to practically immunize a candidate from prosecution? No. And the legal idealist in me is very uncomfortable with my pragmatic concern. But it's a reasonable concern, nonetheless.

Translation: Brad doesn't think Trump should be prosecuted by a Democrat prosecutor no matter what Trump did. Because Brad is "concerned."

 

[Stuffshot]

I don't really care about the prosecutor's motivations, although it'd be naive to think the prosecutor doesn't have incentives to get reelected or run for higher office or get a book deal or whatever.

I do care about the decision and its effects on our nation. I'm very conflicted because I despise injustice, but I also want our nation to stay peaceful and stay together. To me, that's what this whole discussion should center on.

Maybe someone should write this up as a sequel to Antigone? It's not directly on point, but touches one some of the same themes.

Here's a more important theme you should no longer ignore:

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Donald J. Trump
January 23, 2016

Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment

Donald Trump caused controversy by claiming he could "stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody" and retain all his supporters.

www.snopes.com

Trump's disregard for law is intentional and unmistakable.

If it turns out that Trump did something in NY and people like you turn a blind eye as you propose just because the prosecutor is a Democrat, then why should the rest of us obey the law?

 

[Rockfish1]

Someone said Rockfish 3 times.

Good post, I had not thought of that. If he was found guilty and served time for his participation in the exact same crime, it is uncomfortable to say Trump is above the law entirely. I will rethink my position. But a basic American tenant has always been that no one is above the law.

Welcome back to that same old place you laughed about.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Translation: Brad doesn't think Trump should be prosecuted by a Democrat prosecutor no matter what Trump did. Because Brad is "concerned."

I do think he has valid concerns. I wish one of the more important cases had come first, but as Rock explained that can’t be helped. But I don’t think the case should be held back because we are worried about what his supporters will do either.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

But outrage from lunatics shouldn't shield a sociopath from punishment in a society that lives under the rule of law for everyone, including even Orange Julius Caesar.

I think the use of the word lunatics colors the argument too much. It's use implies there aren't that many people who are outraged and they shouldn't be listened to. I also probably wouldn't use it to describe most who will object to the prosecution because I don't think it is helpful and they are mostly viewing things through their partisan lens (which I despise from all sides but doesn't make someone a lunatic).

But if the number of outraged people ends up being in the tens-of-millions--as it really might be--we have to listen to them and take into account their opinions and potential outrage, no matter how unreasonable we might believe it is.

Re your other points, yes, that's why this is happening the way it is happening, and no, there is no grand Dem conspiracy being directed by one person or group.

 

[TommyCracker]

I hear what you're saying, and I hear a lot of centrist pundits making the same points, but I think this critique misses the point.

If there were a movie director orchestrating all the scenes of the various investigations and possible prosecutions, this one might not have been the director's choice for the first scene. But we aren't living in a movie, and notwithstanding Trump's claims, there isn't anyone directing the inquisitions.

Things are happening in a haphazard way because different authorities in different jurisdictions are proceeding on different timelines for different offenses under different laws. That's just how it goes when a former President has committed multiple crimes in multiple jurisdictions in so many different ways.

Things will happen how they happen because we live in a messy world and Trump is a messy guy. Trump has committed numerous offense that would put any sociopath who happened to become president in tough spot, because he's inevitably committed so many felonies. I think it's a mistake to treat Trump as though he were a normal person and not an obvious sociopath who shouldn't be allowed in the White House on a visitors pass.

I have no idea how people will react if Trump were held accountable. But outrage from lunatics shouldn't shield a sociopath from punishment in a society that lives under the rule of law for everyone, including even Orange Julius Caesar.

I've mentioned in my circle when this comes up and invariably goes to 'political persecution' arguments, that this isn't good for my 'team' politically.

The best campaign strategy for my 'team' is to have Trump first eat Desantis and have Trump run again (who if you haven't noticed has gone even more extreme in his rhetoric to try to grab attention, which is repellent to the middle). Edit: Not indicting Trump also keeps Trump available if he loses to Desantis because the expectation is Trump will do everything he can to burn the Desantis campaign to the ground which = my team wins.

This could be the worst case scenario politically....Trump gets indicted, Desantis beats him but offers to pardon Trump, making Trump fully support Desantis. Now we've got a united party and a young nominee going against Biden.

Yeah, that would suck.

So if I were the puppet master I'd hold on to the indictments until we see if he wins the nomination first. Then maybe let the indictments start flowing if I think they are needed.

That's because my goal is to win in 2024.

As Rockfish pointed out, all of these cases are separate from each other and go at their own pace. More importantly, they are supposed to go at their own pace....not when it's convenient politically because yeah, that would be corrupt politicking.

 

[TommyCracker]

I think the use of the word lunatics colors the argument too much. It's use implies there aren't that many people who are outraged and they shouldn't be listened to. I also probably wouldn't use it to describe most who will object to the prosecution because I don't think it is helpful and they are mostly viewing things through their partisan lens (which I despise from all sides but doesn't make someone a lunatic).

But if the number of outraged people ends up being in the tens-of-millions--as it really might be--we have to listen to them and take into account their opinions and potential outrage, no matter how unreasonable we might believe it is.

Re your other points, yes, that's why this is happening the way it is happening, and no, there is no grand Dem conspiracy being directed by one person or group.

Brad aren't you eloquently saying to consider the mob rule here?

I hear ya and I expect some slapback but, I disagree that it should be considered.

Just recently their were some heated arguments on the WC that the Chauvin verdict was just that, fear of the mob.

Anyway would give a mob tremendous power and justification which is beyond what they are allowed, to protest.

 

[Rockfish1]

I think the use of the word lunatics colors the argument too much. It's use implies there aren't that many people who are outraged and they shouldn't be listened to. I also probably wouldn't use it to describe most who will object to the prosecution because I don't think it is helpful and they are mostly viewing things through their partisan lens (which I despise from all sides but doesn't make someone a lunatic).

But if the number of outraged people ends up being in the tens-of-millions--as it really might be--we have to listen to them and take into account their opinions and potential outrage, no matter how unreasonable we might believe it is.

Re your other points, yes, that's why this is happening the way it is happening, and no, there is no grand Dem conspiracy being directed by one person or group.

You seem like a decent fellow and there's nothing wrong with that, but I usually choose my words carefully, and I meant what I said.

MAGA people sacked the Capitol because in fact they are lunatics, and their lunacy is plain in all of the other crazy things they do and say.

Maybe if I were a better advocate I could persuade crazy people to chill the eff out, and in in any event, I appreciate you talking to me. But there absolutely are lunatics, and pretending they aren't lunatics helps no one, including even the lunatics.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Letting the mob decide the law is akin to negotiating with terrorists. It does nothing but encourage them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

@TommyCracker desantis as president I do not believe could pardon trump. Only fed charges not state. This is state

 

[IUCrazy2]

And tornados

They will be more interesting.

 

[mcmurtry66]

They will be more interesting.

scary. these are coming in later at night. i hate that

 

[UncleMark]

You seem like a decent fellow and there's nothing wrong with that, but I usually choose my words carefully, and I meant what I said.

MAGA people sacked the Capitol because in fact they are lunatics, and their lunacy is plain in all of the other crazy things they do and say.

Maybe if I were a better advocate I could persuade crazy people to chill the eff out, and in in any event, I appreciate you talking to me. But there absolutely are lunatics, and pretending they aren't lunatics helps no one, including even the lunatics.

So COH goes missing and an APB is even put out. Next thing you know ol' Rockfish shows up. Hmmm...

 

[Univee2]

So COH goes missing and an APB is even put out. Next thing you know ol' Rockfish shows up. Hmmm...

Who knew Iowa losing the national championship game would have such a momentous impact?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Who knew Iowa losing the national championship game would have such a momentous impact?

Since you mentioned that game, it didn't cost Iowa the championship as their defense did that. But wow, has anyone seen worse officiating? Any 3 of us could have done better.

 

[outside shooter]

Trump called for protests weeks ago, in support of him. So far anyway, they are lining up zero people deep. Maybe sheep are starting to realize their own sheepishness.

 

[Univee2]

Since you mentioned that game, it didn't cost Iowa the championship as their defense did that. But wow, has anyone seen worse officiating? Any 3 of us could have done better.

At least there is consistency. With equality and parity comes all the wretchedness of the zebras.

It’s going to come down to three refs on the floor and three on the sideline with access to all of the cameras so obviously incorrect calls or non-calls can be corrected. I don’t know how that could be done without adding another 30 minutes to the length of the games, however.

 

[Circlejoe]

Amazing. Rock comes back from the dead and all of a sudden we have a good thread of posts. Nice to see you again Rock.