Trump Indicted
Trump indicted by N.Y. grand jury, first ex-president charged with crime
A Manhattan grand jury has voted to indict former president Donald Trump, multiple people familiar the matter said, becoming the first person in U.S. history to serve as commander in chief and then be charged with a crime.
The grand jury had been hearing evidence about hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, allegedly to keep her from saying she’d had a sexual encounter with Trump years earlier.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … ey-payment
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/30 … tment-news
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … -rcna73588Finally, that puts an end to speculation about his guilt. Let see what the apologists on the Right have to say about this.
Can you say "witch hunt?" "Soros backed DA?" You know what's coming
Yeah, somehow the "deep state" is behind all of this.
I am still nervous, Trump is the clown prince of crime. He may still pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last hour. I won't rest assured until I hear the comforting clang of metal coming together.
It is always advised to grasp a slippery serpent firmly with both hands.
But then, there is Act 2, coming soon to this theatre. Pence is now compelled to testify before a grand jury and Little Lord Fauntleroy will sing like a canary, so as to not perjure himself.
Like Ed Sullivan used to say, "it is going to be a really big shoe"
No, it does not put an end to speculation about his guilt. The grand jury system is set up to assist the prosecution, as I am sure you are very aware if you have knowledge of civil rights in the US.
After the grand jury, there is this thing called a hearing, and then this other thing called a trial, where you can sometimes be judged by a jury of your peers.You are correct, of course.
It is just a step in the attempt to bring to justice one who so cleverly avoided being held accountable for his actions. So, the days of his walking inbetween the raindrops may well be coming to end.
That prospect makes one giddy and over-exuberant.I would find it hard to be giddy even if some local DA in Mississippi decided to prosecute Uncle Joe for his efforts to support China.
It is political terrorism and an attempt by one facist to destroy the candidate of another party. It has nothing to do with a crime, which is why even Joe and his DA decided it was not something that could be prosecuted.
When the Republicans are in power again and use this as a precedent to exhume Joe and prosecute him and his family, are you still going to support it?Doc, You are out of touch, Trump has been involved in more than a few questionable practices, and remains the only former President ever with so sordid a record.
IF, Republicans get into power and they find a Democrat leader with as tarnished a record as Donald Trump, I would not sympathize.
All this talk about Joe Biden is just rightwing theatre.
But again, I forget that you tend to find favor in rightwing, reactionary authoritarian types.You may think that it is out of touch to not want to politically persecute those in another party, but I disagree. I am sure that if they look hard enough they can find plenty of reasons to prosecute Joe. Is it correct to attack those you disagree with?
Doc, I disagree with Trump, Trumpism and everything that it represents.
Joe Biden has no where near the record of lawlessness that Trump displays, daily.
But attack is reserved only under the rule of law. If you think that what happened in New York regarding Trumps fraudulent activity is over the top, wait until Mike Pence testifies as to how Trump was behind much of the shaninigans, usurping the democratic process on J6. And he will talk, as he will have to, or will he commit hari-kari in reverence to his master?
The Trump name is synonymous with corruption and dishonesty and now it is time to pay the piper.
And what Mississippi state law would 'Uncle Joe' have broken? And when did Biden live in Mississippi?
Trump was a resident of New York when he allegedly committed these crimes there. And New York has a history of prosecuting (and convicting) politicians that break the law.
https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/new-y … oliticians
It's no wonder that the GOP has rushed to Trump's defense. They continually display their own inability to believe in free and fair elections, believing that the ends justify the means so long as it ends with their candidate in power.
I surmised the first impeachment would fail for that very reason. Today's GOP does not see blackmailing another country as outside their playbook. Nor do they find an incitement of an insurrection past their acceptable norms when they failed to convict in the second impeachment.
It's part of what makes today's GOP so dangerous. There is no norm they won't cross or any law they are afraid to break to gain power. It's full on autocracy when they place their party above the law.
You're right that this is a political prosecution. But not because he's a politician, but because it's an attempt to safeguard the laws that govern the political process. Laws that one Donald J. Trump continually violated, allegedly (for now).Any DA anywhere can make up charges and prosecute someone, as I am sure you are already aware. If they decide to prosecute Joe for influence peddling I am sure they can find a law that fits their needs.
When a DA decides to prosecute, the lack of an accurate law is not usually their limiting factor.Actually, I am not aware of that at all. Especially since you just got done chiding Cred on the legal system and now appear to be able to so easily dismiss the Grand Jury system that exists to prevent such prosecutorial misconduct.
Finding an applicable law is only part of the problem. Having the jurisdiction (was the crime committed in their jurisdiction) and having the evidence are also major parts of being able to convince a grand jury to bring charges.You are not aware and think that the law, without reference to the color of your skin or your economic influence is upheld blindly in all places in the US? I guess you also think that all the people in prison are guilty to.
Alright, Doc
Why Trump, why is the entire world picking on him? As Valeant has indicated this is not Trump's first rodeo. His alleged involvement in many violations of law appears to be there based on the preponderance of evidence.
There have always been miscarriages of justice and our legal system is not inviolate as no legal system can be. Does that mean that efforts at law enforcement and prosecution are to stop?
Your zero sum attitude comes from our discussion of the inevitable fact that elections here are not without some element of corruption, but 1 man or faction saying that millions were affected altering the course of the election without proof, now those are two different things. So, I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.Did I say any of those things, or are you just inventing new narratives that ignore the various factors that need to exist for a DA to bring actual charges that I listed? You are deflecting without acknowledging the realities of how charges are brought.
You wrote "Actually, I am not aware of that at all." Not being aware that prosecutors bring fake charges all the time does not mean it does not happen.
You are the one avoiding the real issue here, which is a politically biased DA using the law to prosecute a fake case. I am not surprised but you should realize that this is one of those tools that is going to come back and strike those causes that you support."A politically biased DA using the law to prosecute a fake case.".
Not sure how a "fake" case, that is saying it is without merit or frivolous would make it past a grand jury? What's the evidence that Bragg is biased?I have not seen any evidence so you are correct, I can no more claim it is fake than anyone else here claim it is a vindication of his guilt.
Is Bragg biased? Almost certainly, as you are, as I am, as almost everyone is. Is Bragg so biased that he is using his political power to prosecute someone so that his name will show up in the headlines?You haven't seen any evidence? Did you not follow Michael Cohen's trial? They presented the reimbursement checks that Trump funneled through his business. Cohen has presented audio that he takes on his phone instead of writing notes that has Trump telling him how to illegally make the payment to Karen McDougal.
I was not aware that you were on the grand jury and were privy to the evidence. Or is it just possible that you are telling me that you have seen the evidence that the media has allowed you to see.
We have seen the media lie before, both the liberal and the conservative media. Or are you someone that believes the media never lies to you, despite all the evidence that shows up that proves they were not telling the truth?What you are not aware of is the evidence that applies to both Cohen's and Trump's cases that has been released by the DOJ and is out on the internet for all to see. But really nice far-right rant about a false assumption that others get their information from 'the media.'
Thanks for assuming you know what I am aware of. Are you aware of the word hubris?
What you may not be aware of is that about 98% of the grand juries come back with an indictment. (I do not know the numbers from NY. This is from Kentucky and was from several years ago.) The fact that the grand jury, where the defense is not allowed to speak, comes back in favor of the prosecutor, who is the only one allowed to speak, means somewhat less than nothing.
That is the issue here.Oh, so now making assumptions of others is hubris? Pot meet kettle. It's such a far-right fallacy to assume that others get their information simply from media sources.
If your statistics mean 'somewhat less than nothing,' then the conviction rate from these grand jury indictments would be lower than the high nineties that they currently achieve.
The issue here is the continued omission of the pertinent stats and information that we always see from the far-right.I asked if you knew about hubris. You can assume what you want based on that question.
I did not say the statistics meant less than nothing. I said that a grand jury indictment does not indicate guilt.
I think you know what the issue is deep down but will not admit it.You were taking a personal shot, it was petty. Just like a false assumption of where members of this forum get their information is a weak attempt to undermine their arguments.
And stating that a grand jury indictment means nothing because the stats are skewed towards the prosecution, while leaving out that the conviction rate from those indictments is just as high, is telling half the story to undermine the actual reality.
Sure, Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the stats sure do not fall in his favor based on a grand jury finding that an indictment is warranted based on the evidence - evidence that many of us are very aware of from actually doing the research and not making inaccurate assumptions.A personal shot? You told me "What you are not aware of is the evidence that applies to both Cohen's and Trump's cases that has been released by the DOJ and is out on the internet for all to see. " You assume that you know what I am or am not aware of? That is a personal shot. I assume you have reported me before and will do so again because when someone points out something you are not able to argue you resort to trying to get that person banned.
That is an interesting question --- How many Grand juries request indictments? I could not find any stats on the subject. I would like that info.
These are your assumptions about Bragg. Any support for those assumptions?
I would think logically Trump will request a change of venue, due to many problems with biases. I think he would appeal that request to the Supreme Court.
Trump's legal team could also request a bench trial, which does not involve a jury and is conducted by the judge alone.
This will be a very interesting trial.
Why do you assume that he is "politically biased"? You must have a Fox News feed in Brazil?
Our illustrious Governor said that he would not cooperate with federal authorities in extraditing Trump, if the need arises. He accused Mr. Briggs the prosecutor of being owned by George Soros, the Rightwingers abominable snowman, that it trots out whenever the political winds don't blow their way. DeSantis' job is to comply with the requirements of the law and keep his inane conspiracy theories to himself.
After having to do what must be done, I will take my chances with "blowback".Like I said, I am not aware of prosecutors bringing false charges. Is it likely it happens somewhere, I won't rule it out. I'm just not aware of it.
And I'm not avoiding any issue. I just think your side is fabricating the issue that this is politically biased or that this is a fake case since someone already went to prison for these crimes. Crimes where Trump was named in the conviction as a co-conspirator. He was just unidictable at the time from the protections of the office he was elected to.
These are the basic facts that the right omits to make their false claims of bias and a fake case.
No more than I supported Republicans when they were in power and impeached a president for consensual though adulators' sex between two adults. If I were in the GOP I wouldn't rush to cry out "frivolous prosecution".
He was indicted for crimes which will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not. This process will be followed in Georgia and Florida."impeached a president for consensual though adulators' sex between two adults."
You might want to read some history on that one. clinton was actually impeached for committing perjury when he lied under oath about his affair. Perjury is a crime. A serious crime.I am less concerns about Clinton's sexual dalliance when compared with far more weighty matters like undermining the integrity our of legal and political system. This was what Nixon had done, and what Trump is accused of that makes Nixon's indiscretions look like Angel Cake in comparison.
"undermining the integrity of our legal system"
Like commiting perjury under oath? Bill Clinton, wherefore art thou?What is interesting is there is no question he committed perjury. clinton lost his law license and was disbarred because he committed perjury. That some how gets lost when liberals recall this event.
If any other citizen had been caught blatantly committing perjury, they would be in jail. The libs have always felt the clintons were above the law for some reason.
Readmikenow: You are exactly right. He lied about sex, and was prosecuted by a speaker of the house from my county who informed his wife that he was leaving her for another woman while she lay in a hospital bed fighting cancer. Research turns up a lot of things we don't want as part of the argument we are making.
None of this information changes the fact that Trump attempted to overturn a presidential election. We know this. What he did to finagle a "win" in the electoral college after losing by three million votes in 2020 has yet to be clearly proven. But I'm sure it eventually will be. That is not hatred. It is wanting to see our democracy preserved.This case is in no respect about "rump attempted to overturn a presidential election.
Fact -- Trump won in the 2016 period By a method our country uses to determine presidential elections.
Trump has not been accused of any form of election fraud in regard to the 2016 election. In fact, it has been well proven it was the Democrats that lied to a FISA court, and the Clinton campaign paid for the
Steel dossier. And used that document even knowing it was not factual
.And nothing will change the facts that Hilary Clinton not only kept top secret documents on a server... That server was in her home. She deletes 33,000 emails after being told not to delete files.
Source on Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … story.html
Clinton campaign, DNC fined by FEC for lying about Steele dossier payments
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clinton-c … -payments/
FISA Court
Surveillance Court Finds FBI Repeatedly Misused FISA Program to Conduct Unlawful Surveillance of Americans
April 29, 2021
https://epic.org/surveillance-court-fin … americans/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- … -hurricane
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics … index.html
Since you opened the door . . . let me offer a less fact-needy tangent: The political effect of the indictment.
My perception of the media-presented 'speculation' is this: An ex-president has been indicted for a felony crime that requires the bridge of a misdemeanor crime to exist. If that is basically correct (and there is no secret-secret stuff none of us know about), then I think this move is so dumb it borders on stupid. Not the move to indict him, but the decision to do it now.
Guilt or innocence has no part in that reasoning, it's simply about the national political effect. I think Trump supporters will latch on to that misdemeanor 'bridge' and use it to denigrate the ultimate felony charge.
With the other investigations (with much more serious and less debatable crimes) winding up, this indictment will be portrayed—to the Right, as analogous to throwing a shoe while the gun is being loaded.
Again, through media presentation, the other investigations (Georgia?) are nearing the indictment stage. If New York had waited a little longer they wouldn't be handing the Right a legitimately stretchable defensive point to poke back with.
That point isn't about letting anyone off the hook or delaying justice, it is about poor strategy that I think will be more harmful than its value of being 'just.'
How about that, a Trump tangent that doesn't require discussion of Trump's actions.
GAConsidering the early reporting that states that it is a 30-count indictment, crossing the bridge to a felony seems like it will have many opportunities. Let alone that the attorney that testified that he acted at Trump's direction and on his behalf was already convicted on these felonies.
And who cares if Trump supporters feel the need to denigrate the felony charge(s)? These are the same people that live in their own alternate reality that Trump won in 2020. They can be convinced of pretty much anything. That's another big part of what makes them dangerous.
In some ways, this could be the surge that breaks the dam and sets the stage for that Georgia indictment that appears to also be ready for presentation.
This is about protecting the sanctity of elections and on three different occasions, Trump is alleged to have violated the law in regards to elections. Twice, there was an attempt to hold him accountable through impeachment. But Trump's supporters in Congress fell back on political reasons, much like Clinton's did as well, to allow him to escape culpability for his crimes and misdemeanors.
Electing someone who either does not know the law or believes himself to be above it, to a position to enforce the laws of our land, is simple idiocy.You are defending the indictment. My criticism was of the timing. A timing that leaves room for those Trump supporters you speak of to use that 'bridge' argument to reinforce their 'alternate reality.'
The DA didn't need to hand them that opportunity.
GAAre you saying if Trump broke laws, Braggs should wait to indict him due to political reasons? I see your point about handing Trump supporters fodder, but should we condone holding off with an indictment to suit
either political party?
Should timing play a part when a crime was committed? I must assume Braggs has evidence of a crime or even multiple crimes. In my view, he would be remiss if he did not indict Trump if he has evidence of a crime.
I think weaponizing an indictment to benefit one political party should be a crime. So if Braggs held out to stop -- Trump supporters using the indictment as a 'bridge' argument to reinforce their 'alternate reality', would he not be in some form weaponizing a crime?
Or is he weaponizing charging Trump due to Trump running in 2024 for the presidency?
How can one not see the irony both ways? Timing in this case will play a big part in the minds of Americans in both parties.
This IMO is a no-win scenario. Look here not thereMy response seemed so logical that I didn't consider your questions. My criticism does add political influence to a legal determination. That's not what I was thinking. I wasn't thinking about the benefit to either party, even though the whole concept of 'handing Trump supporters a reason to believe' is just that.
Looking at the original comment, with this thought: "Guilt or innocence has no part in that reasoning, it's simply about the national political effect. " I was thinking about the effect on the national political mood, as in giving gas to the extremes, primarily of the Right but both sides have fringes that will latch onto this issue.
The 'timing' thing I was thinking about wasn't of picking the most advantageous time (for someone's benefit) but picking the least disadvantageous time. I think everything about pacing and timing in this type of legal issue is legitimately the prosecutor's prerogative (within legal rules of course).
That's the process behind my 'dumb' criticisms. This particular indictment is said to be one of four, with a couple of those due to also wrap up soon. It appears the Georgia one is the most obviously serious charge. It's dumb to start with your weakest shot knowing it will strengthen your opponent.
So, I don't think my perspective is truly playing politics (because I was thinking national and not party) but I can't defend it beyond this explanation. Mea culpa.
GANot sure why my comment or my precocious question should make you feel you need to defend your comment. I did deflect and hoped to dig deeper into your thoughts on the basic issue.
I thought beginning with my second paragraph my context was sharing my thoughts, and hoping you might address them.
But, my bad, I did deflect and perhaps shared a view that was in no respect requested.
.Back up a step. You should reread my response. It wasn't defensive, it was explanatory. Your questions were good ones that I hadn't considered because I didn't give my 'thought' enough thought after I thought it before forming it into a perspective. The mea culpa was sincere. That was a 'my bad'.
So I did reconsider what I thought, and as explained, I think with charitable consideration, my point of "national political effect" might be viewed as different than 'partisan political effect.' If that stretch works, then I'm okay with my first thought.
To your thought about 'digging deeper', think about our recent exchanges without your previous perception that they were defensive. If you read them again, thinking of them as explanations, you will see that you have been digging deeper into my thoughts.
GA
Trump supporters are going to outrage regardless of the timing. It's just part of their make up. Anyone who attacks their cult leader will get their ire, no matter how damning the evidence of his lawlessness. In their eyes, he can do no wrong.
In terms of timing, there is no ideal time. The changing of the DA in NY likely led to a delay of charges being brought, but the timing of the indictment will likely ensure a trial happens before the 2024 election. That makes it about as ideal as one could hope for.There may not be an ideal time but I'm saying there are 'better' times. My point was to pick the 'outrage' you have to defend. I think defending Georgia-type charges are easier than these 'New York' style charges (that may not be a legit characterization, but you know it is the one that is out there).
GAGA: There are different investigations going on about Trump. The Manhattan DA is just one. The Georgia-type investigation and document violations are being done by Jack Smith as appointed by the AG Merrick Garland. Apparently those indictments are still in process There is no master control over the timing of the announcements.
I do believe there is communication between the different investigation leaders. It seems logical that there would be, if only in instances where they may overlap. I do believe there have been 'timing' and progress discussions among those leaders. That has no 'nefarious political' inferences. It's just a logical assumption.
I think it is also a logical assumption that when the stakes are as high as these the leaders of the leaders are also almost certainly involved in timing and announcement decisions. Again, no negative inferences. Contrarily it would almost be a leadership failure to not be involved.
I think there was and is flexibility in the indictment process — without that action being driven by political partisanship. I have no idea if that is the case with this indictment, but there is a lot of expert speculation from the Left's media presentations that say it could be a legitimate argument.
Imagine my shock when CNN stroked me with bits of confirmation bias.
GA
As you know I am a republican, and I have outwardly said I will support any candidate that runs on the Republican ticket in 2024. So, I hope my comment will be taken as not being biased.
I am under the assumption that it is customary when a Grand Jury convenient and request an indictment. That indictment request is handled with respectable speed. As it would appear that the Grand Jurys request has been handled in the case of Trump.
I feel an indictment should not be weaponized, and held off on until the time the indictment would pack a political punch. This indictment will go into our history books as the first president to be indicted. I would surmise that Braggs handled this case with kid gloves, and did what would be expected of him. To treat the indictment as he would any other indictment.
I think he was dammed if he did, and dammed if he did not. I think he followed protocol. Is that not what we should demand from our law enforcement agencies?
This indictment will be looked at as a political ploy. And the charges just may be drummed up as a ploy - who knows? The charges are yet to be seen. But, I am not on board with the timing of the indictment being a ploy. I think Braggs followed his office's protocol. I think if he held onto the indictment to place it into a line of indictments, it would have certainly reeked of a political ploy.
This will be such an interesting case to watch play out. I am going to try to hold onto the facts and let the rest go.
I see your point.
Well, I say that there is never a bad time to enforce the law. Part of our problem is that we have allowed political considerations to interfere with the fundamental principle, that no man is above the law.
Besides, Trump is as slippery a serpent as it gets, and I won't chance letting him get away again over more irrelevant technicalities, delays and excuses.My understanding is that many felony crimes require the bridge of a misdemeanor crime to exist. That doesn't make them any less serious crimes.
There has never been a bridge between state law and federal law. It has never happened before.
And yet, the crimes that Trump committed were, in the simplest of terminology, in furtherance of other crimes - which is all the New York law requires. One of those crimes was already proven when Cohen went to prison to it.
And a second crime, which is not federal at all is tax crime. Trump reimbursed Cohen for any tax liability on these personal payments he funneled through his business. The fact that the false business entries also contain a tax crime means Bragg does not need to rely solely on the federal election crime component to make the felony charge stick.Some legal touts say it is rare to use an alleged federal election-law violation to increase the state law misdemeanor of falsifying business records to a felony. Just has not happened.
It looks like it becomes tricky for Bragg’s prosecution is that the crimes he suggested at the press conference – which were campaign finance-related and election law-related – both are federal crimes. What Braggs would be testing out in court is whether you can charge someone at a state level for committing a state-level offense behind a federal crime.
I think the fact that the Federal Government (Barr or Garland) did not see a case to prosecute and dropped it. - Will help in Trump's case. The court may just toss it out.
Unless a judge does use a bridge. Not sure what this judge will do, follow precedence, or decide to make precedence.
Most judges will stick to the law, and what has come before.Where's or what precedence the judge to follow? Or should he make an historical judgement? Bear in mind that the inviction question smack of hatre for Trump! Better throw the dirty into the paper bin and closed it. God save America! God save Trump!
That may be the situation n some cases, but that is not the impression I am getting from almost all of the non-Right, non-Republican supportive 'legal opinions' being offered in the media—relative to this indictment.
I know what to expect from Right-leaning media and it doesn't look good when the Left-leaning media is saying the same thing.
GA"Generally, a state cannot prosecute a federal crime. The federal government prosecutes federal crimes.
Criminal cases can fall under either state, federal, or concurrent jurisdiction. When a case falls under concurrent jurisdiction, both the state and the federal government can prosecute the crime based on their own laws. However, the state charge and the federal charge are usually slightly different."
https://www.legalreader.com/can-a-state … isdiction.
I think before I say anything, and put myself out on a limb, I would like to hear the charges. Before I give credit or admire a "New York Grand Jury" I want to hear the charges.
So, that's what one Republican has to say at this point. Guess I just like to have all the facts before I share my view.Yeah, Cred's rush to a guilty verdict seems very premature in a case that hasn't been adjudicated.
I will say this will be a very interesting trial. I would think, (and I am going out on a limb) Braggs must have some very incriminating evidence of a crime. I just can't see him indicting Trump without some very factual crime.
I can't wait to hear about the charges.
"34 felony counts for falsification of business records," Yahoo News
It tarnishes the position, the Presidency, it weakens it, and thereby weakens the nation.
The office of the Presidency is supposed to be the 'leader of the world' or at the very least, the Leader of the 'Western World'.
Similar or greater in stature to General Secretary Xi, or other Presidents and Priemers of G20 nations.
I imagine the world is currently having a hard time accepting that they need to respect the American Office of the President, when the former is being prosecuted by a NY State Prosecutor and is being treated by the MSM as he is, and the current is busy stumbling and mumbling around, alienating long term allies, and readying for war against China and Russia.No one had to imagine what the world thought of a President Trump as they were often seen laughing at him during gatherings.
And Biden has solidified NATO as opposed to Trump who cozied up to dictators who do not believe in democracy such as Russia and North Korea. That alienating allies comment was such projection it was comical.Actually, what Trump did was de-escalate tensions around the world.
Trump eased tensions and kept us from additional wars. If that is cozying up to dictators, then that, IMO, is a better alternative to sending millions of people to their deaths, and seeing tens of millions of people displaced and lives ruined.
Until the 2020 Pandemic, the world economy and global trade was humming along fine, gas was incredibly cheap, resources were plentiful.
By 2022 Biden had changed all that, we are now immersed in a growing military and economic conflict, and if you believe the rhetoric coming out of DC we are escalating toward a war with China as well as our proxy war with Russia.
The EU is being strangled of resources and cheap energy from Russia, the chances of many of their economies faltering are just as good as Russia.
China is strengthening its position globally with many former US allies, who are agreeing to transition to trading in the Yuan. This is for economic reasons (interest and inflation) as much as it is how they see how America froze Russia's assets and they do not want to be the next nation to suffer America's wrath when they have an alternative to work with.
Biden solidifying NATO is nothing to crow about, the EU is totally reliant on the US now that it has alienated Russia, they didn't have much choice, especially after the Nord Stream Pipeline was blown up.Holy rewriting of history.
So none of our troops were attacked in Iran after we assassinated the General of a foreign army, we didn't abandon our allies (the Kurds) to be slaughtered, and we didn't free thousands of Taliban fighters before we got our people out of Afghanistan? Not exactly de-escalating moves.
And let's be very clear that in 2018, the Trump State Department got warnings about risky testing in Wuhan labs and did nothing. So, yes, the economy was humming along until an anti-science moron that the right elected didn't have the knowledge base to understand what was needed to ensure that risky testing did not turn into a global pandemic. But you go ahead and blame Biden for the broken supply chains, crippling effects to global oil production, and historic debt that the US incurred over Trump's four years.
And I'll take a look around the world to know that the EU are our allies and not come on these forums to promote pro-Russia propaganda at every chance. If I were a veteran, I'd be embarrassed to be standing up for a country that we are clearly opposing in a global conflict.What would you have advocated? Nuking Wuhan?
Just how do you think a President can force China to stop their biological research? The same way they have stopped Iran and N Korea in their research for a nuclear bomb?
But I like the way you get to blame Trump for a disease that originated naturally. Is he also responsible for the millions of lives lost worldwide because he didn't shut down a foreign research lab before wild monkeys somewhere else got sick from a new, mutated, disease? Did he surpass the death toll of Ghengis Kahn by not bombing Wuhan?First off, the jury is still out on how the virus originated. And Trump was not responsible for lives lost worldwide, he was responsible for protecting American lives.
There you go again heading right to the extremes for an answer. Considering this was a lab that had received US funding, placing a few of our scientists there in a supervisory role would not have been that far out of the norm, diplomatically. Ever consider that as an option before heading right to nuclear war?No, placing US scientists in supervisory roles is not what NIH funding is all about. Yes, it would be far out of the norm, more like a USAID move.
(The USAID funds projects and then with that "funding" buys US lab equipment, US vehicles, or any other supplies manufactured in the US.)
"Just how do you think a President can force China to stop their biological research?"
BINGO the same applies to Biden and other world leaders being unable to stop Putin's stated mission of "de-nazifying Ukraine.
You are too funny.
Did you know that Russia had become the top exporter of some 20 critical resources, not just oil and gas, for world trade?
And now those resources are off the market, so to speak, not to mention what was lost from Ukraine.
There is a big difference between a virus and a war, and the devastation it brings to those in the region of the conflict.
Trump will play the victim and his followers too and he will combine this with a conspiracy theory. As this is classic fascist behavior.
He feels superior and therefore everything others do to him is wrong.
He will say that the country is a failed state because otherwise he would not have been arrested, and tell that it used to be great. (Make America Great AGAIN)
Common features of Fascism by Umberto Eco:
Umberto Eco Makes a List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism
FASCISM: An In-Depth Explanation
If true, this is so funny:
“I have gained such respect for this grand jury, & perhaps even the grand jury system as a whole.” Trump
I guess, we agree.Defense attorney Joe Tacopina said Donald Trump will likely be arraigned early next week.
About time Trump has his day in an actual court to let the law decide his guilt or innocence.
In his statement Thursday, DeSantis said the state would “not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.”
So DeSantis is willing to break the law to assist a member of his party. Not exactly shocking as the majority of the right thinks our laws should not apply to their party.My common sense tells me DeSantis was politicking. Cozying up to Trump supporters.
I would think he would realize Trump would be turning himself in. Would have been interesting if Trump stayed in Florida, and Desantis had to back up his words.
I mean it was a win-win for DeSantis with Trump supporters.Sad that antisemitic tropes are what warms up the base.
"This evening we contacted Mr. Trump’s attorney to coordinate his surrender to the Manhattan D.A.’s Office for arraignment on a Supreme Court indictment, which remains under seal," a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office said in a statement Thursday. "Guidance will be provided when the arraignment date is selected."
And Islandbites, you spelled indicated wrong...
I will maintain my claim that Trump is a functional illiterate.This one had me laughing...
But on the more serious side, CNN is reporting it's a 30-count indictment:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/politics … index.htmlThe guuurrll made me laugh. I needed it. Thanks. LOL
Waiting for the Lock him up, lock him up! in the next rally.
I am still waiting to see the actual charges.
"The indictment may come out with a crime that none of us have heard of," Turley said. "But for many months, this bootstrapping theory has been put out there, this idea that you could take a misdemeanor under New York law that has expired, that has a two-year statute of limitations, and revive it by connecting it to a federal crime, in this case, the federal election violation"
"Now, there's a host of problems with that," he continued. "First of all, it's a federal crime the Department of Justice chose not to prosecute. Bragg's own predecessor declined to prosecute it, but he is attempting to bootstrap that federal crime into a state case. And if that is the basis for the indictment, I think it's rather outrageous. I think it's legally pathetic."
"Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office was investigating Trump for an alleged hush money payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. The specific charges in the case are currently UNDER SEAL "
https://www.foxnews.com/media/unprecede … y-pathetic
Will be very interesting to hear the charges.I have been following this case with a lot of interest. When I was last in America just two months back, I could sense an undercurrent of tension and the country seems to be on edge. If Trump has committed a mistake or a the crime, then the law should I be allowed to take its course. The question arises how serious are the charges against Trump? to my thinking if you can try Trump for these offenses, then there are so many presidents before him including Bush and Clinton who also should have been tried, and I do wonder why they were let off. That shows there is a partison approach in America, and it is all being engineered by the Democrats lead by Joe Biden, who himself has destroyed American prestige all over the globe. George Bush should've been tried for driving America into a war with tIraq while making false statements to Congress but obviously Trumps mistakes are magnified. All these actions show that under Joe Biden America is breathing is last in the oxygen tent, which is a shame.
Or you could see it as a correction. That instead of the mistakes of past presidents to excuse the unlawful behavior of their predecessors, that making the statement that all men are equal under the law is the law of the land and will be enforced.
Especially when the conduct has gotten so bad that it's cheating to become elected, blackmailing a different country to help a re-election, and then also trying to lie your way to a second term that you clearly lost, which all demand accountability.emge Sir: Those presidents made mistakes, some could be considered criminal when you consider the consequences of them. But they did not attempt to overturn an election or incite people to riot and destroy historic property. Those are crimes against Democracy itself and are in a class by themself. It is always interesting to see our country through the eyes of someone looking in from the outside. Thank you for your comments and concerns.
Let's remember that this type of indictment is not without precedent. I'll point you back in time to Democrat John Edwards.
The former senator and aspiring Democratic nominee had spent nearly a million dollars during the 2008 primary campaign trying to conceal an affair with a staffer. Four years later, a Republican prosecutor attempted to resurrect the scandal as a crime. His logic: the money was used to protect a political candidate from bad publicity and therefore constituted an illegal campaign contribution. Sound familiar?
Jurors ultimately declined to send him to prison for trying to conceal an extramarital affair. I do believe he paid large fines.
Trump will most likely be dealt the same outcome. Just a hunch that this isn't the best case against him. Who knows, maybe Bragg has the clear and convincing (to a jury) evidence that campaign finance rules were violated.
That being said, I'm anxiously awaiting the conclusion of the work of Jack Smith and Fani Willis."The former senator and aspiring Democratic nominee had spent nearly a million dollars during the 2008 primary campaign trying to conceal an affair with a staffer. Four years later, a Republican prosecutor attempted to resurrect the scandal as a crime. His logic: the money was used to protect a political candidate from bad publicity and therefore constituted an illegal campaign contribution. Sound familiar? "
Good point to the fact that the ideal of enforcement of the law is not partisan. The only real complaint is that the Republicans are on the wrong side of it this time.Not hearing the charges as of yet makes it hard to predict. Your sentiment makes sense. I too am awaiting Jack Smith's findings, as well I am very curious as to what Fani Willis will end up doing.
"The Judge 'assigned' to my Witch Hunt Case, a 'Case' that has NEVER BEEN CHARGED BEFORE, HATES ME," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
"His name is Juan Manuel Marchan, was hand picked by Bragg & the Prosecutors, & is the same person who 'railroaded' my 75 year old former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, to take a 'plea' deal (Plead GUILTY, even if you are not, 90 DAYS, fight us in Court, 10 years (life!) in jail. He strong armed Allen, which a judge is not allowed to do, & treated my companies, which didn’t 'plead,' VICIOUSLY. APPEALING!" Trump said.
Death threats in 3, 2, 1...Short term pain for long term gain.
Two previous bogus impeachments and now this.
Here is the bottom line in all of this.
New York is trying to transmogrify misdemeanors into felonies by alleging a federal campaign finance violation that he has no jurisdiction to enforce, and that the federal prosecutors and regulators who do have jurisdiction declined to prosecute due to lack of evidence.
Let that sink in for a moment.
This is nothing but political desperation.
In the short term, it may look bad for President Donald Trump. In the long, he will benefit from this tremendously.
Already, I am seeing Republicans putting aside differences to join together to support President Donald Trump. Even democrats are coming out against this. Alan Dershowitz is a liberal democrat and voted for biden.
Dershowitz says, “this is targeting and weaponizing not the American way of justice. A very sad day for justice. Look, we haven't seen the indictment. We can't be sure maybe they have a videotape of him shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue. But based on what we know about this case, it may be one of the weakest cases in my six years of experience.”
This will only make President Donald Trump stronger.First off, nice use of the word transmogrify. Well played.
If Trump can wiggle out of the 30-counts, you could be right, it might help him in the long run. If he can't, will you guys still give him the nomination or will you finally move on is the bigger question?Republicans see this for what it is, a pathetic attempt to get a former president for political reasons.
The charges are bogus. Think about it. A state is trying to charge a federal crime where they have no jurisdiction. The federal prosecutors didn't pursue it because there is not enough evidence.
It this isn't politically motivated, it will be dismissed with summary judgement.
I think this pretty much guarantees him the nomination. This is having quite the unifying effect on the Republican party.
Don't know, Mike
It seems to me that Trump is becoming damaged goods. Outside of his die hard supporters who would follow him to the gates of hell, I don't see conventional Republicans or independents volunteering to climb into Trumps dumpster fire. People are tired of his endless refrain about his being "put upon".
Haley and DeSantis are stepping lightly not be seen as gloating over Trumps misfortune, in addition to needing the votes of his supporters in case Trump becomes indisposed.
Who could openly vote for someone involved in so many criminal accusations to become the Chief Law Enforcement officer as President?
This is helter-skelter for the GOP, they being in disarray as a result can do nothing but help the Democrats.
But, again, we will see.That is the ultimate goal, to neutralize Trump's ability to be a valid candidate.
Of course the other benefit would be to keep him in the limelight as a spooky boogeyman political figure, so that Biden doesn't lose too much support of those that actually do support him... as the idea of Trump returning probably makes Biden look great to them.
Trump certainly is not the leader we need now. He has no chance of uniting this country, too much effort has been put into character assassinating him, a third of the country truly believes this guy is Hitler, a Putin puppet, and the Grand Poo Bah of the KKK all rolled into one.
We cannot survive another 4 years of Biden as a nation, well, America will still be here, but we will be fast tracking to 3rd world status in ways few people can imagine. Or a WW that will make WWI and WWII look like kids fighting in a schoolyard by comparison. Probably the latter.
Bad times ahead, maybe DeSantis has the stomach and backbone to steer America clear of disaster it is heading into. I don't think so, the country is too divided, the extremes of both sides uncompromising, so while we can have a DeSantis in Florida or a Whitmer in Michigan, the idea of someone being able to unite the sides that comes from an extreme themselves and moving the whole country forward seems pretty unlikely."a third of the country truly believes this guy is Hitler, a Putin puppet, and the Grand Poo Bah of the KKK all rolled into one."
Nah, just a grifter looking for another grift.Trump's own actions and lack of character have made him into an invalid political option. It wasn't anything the left needed to do.
And we've seen more than a few on the right here prognosticating the end of the world if their party is not in power. And yet, the country continues on with some improvements and some areas for need.
"That is the ultimate goal, to neutralize Trump's ability to be a valid candidate."
Ever consider it might mean enforcing the rule of law? And the two impeachments weren't bogus. The fix was in with a majority of republicans in the senate. The charges were certainly more serious than two consenting adults having oral sex (circa Clinton). Blackmail and insurrection attempting to overturn an election.
Historically, the U.S. economy does better under Democrat administrations. (Senate.gov, The New Republic, American Economic Association and some more mainstream sources like the NYT but you'd probably dismiss those.) It's not even close.
The mistake Trump made was not being followed in the White House by another republican. Nixon and Reagan and their cronies all got pardoned for their crimes by the presidents who followed them. (Reagan? Crimes? Look up Iran/Contra. More criminal than Watergate.With Democrats voting a straight party line without exception, on a matter that was most definitely NOT black and white but instead of gray, how can you say it was "fixed" by Republicans and keep a straight face.
The party line vote, all by itself, gives a lie to such a statement, although I will grant you that both sides had that same problem.And yet, it was not a party line vote as with both impeachments, at least one Republican voted with the Democrats.
Who believes that Republicans don't vote a straight party line at every opportunity?
Cred,
Liberals have a long track record of fabricating charges against President Donald Trump.
Fist there was the bogus collusion claim, which was proven false with the Mueller report.
Then, there were two bogus attempts at impeachment, even one when he was out of office.
Now this.
The liberals don't appear to want justice, they want vengeance. They've never come up with anything of substance against President Donald Trump and this situation in New York is a rather pathetic attempt.
So, Republicans view liberals as mentally unhealthy and obsessed with getting one man whether legal or not. That is why his support continues to be high among Republicans.
President Trump often says, "They're not after me, they're after you and I'm standing in the way."
It seems so true.We got our vengeance. We voted him out. Now it's just between him and the law.
I jiggled. And suppose the law was made an ass by his lawyers, and the court acquit him? Hei eh he! Ha ah ha! These indictions were strongly denied more than 6 years ago. But now to indicted and convict Trump? Shame to those Liberals and Democrates.
Trump's lawyers usually end up needing lawyers.
Yea, I know. And that's not bad in itself. Not to talk of that one lawyer now in prison due to his mischief or making.
The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17] - Wikipedia quoting from the Muller Report
"The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"
No Conspiracy, No Exoneration: The Conclusions from the Mueller Report
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des … ler-report
Just wondering who will serve on this jury? We've all seen and heard the manner in which Trump has already lashed out at Bragg and Merchan. Would you want to sit on a jury and wonder what retribution may come your way if your jury returns a guilty verdict? I mean, he smeared Shaye Moss and her Mother in Georgia without a second thought. It's going to be awfully tough to seat a jury.
Trump can and would b wise to choose a trial by Judge. He stands less of a chance of a jury being biased.
If I were under consideration for his jury I'd be very worried that I would be called out by name and targeted for retaliation if I were on a jury that returned a guilty verdict. Trump has proven himself very vindictive and his followers heed his call. Have you seen the testimony of shaye moss and her mother and what happened to them when trump unfairly targeted them? I would pass on that. These jurors will face death threats
In my view, he will choose a trial by a judge with the change of venue. He has a choice in the matter of having a jury or just a judge. He would be nuts, IMO. to go the route of having a jury in New York. It would be a slam dunk quilty. A judge is more apt to follow the letter of the law and stick to precedence. With their decision, and punishment.
I wish I had your confidence that judges are non-political, rendering judgments based on law and not politics. Given the record of the 9th circuit court I don't have much faith in that.
Doesn't Trump always get the benefit of his own appointed Judge's? 9th circuit has an awful lot of Trump appointed judges . He is always treated with kid gloves in terms of judges. It's disappointing to see that people think judges are THAT biased.
I'm sorry, but the 9th circuit has been noted for decades as a liberal vote for whatever is the latest thing.
However, do you think it would be easy to find a non-biased jury picked from New Yorkers?
I think Trump will ask for a change of venue, and fight long and hard to try to get it.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I support our constitution. It's sad for America that this New York prosecutor can go this far. It's an injustice because Trump haters already say he's guilty when it's innocent until proven guilty. The scary fact is that it can happen to anyone in America now.
Yes, that is a fact.
That is not a fact to prosecute someone.It's about business fraud. That payments to Daniels were improperly accounted for. It's about falsifying business records. He's not being indicted for having an affair.
Regardless, in true Trump form he's fundraising off of this. Just wait until the mugshot tshirts hit the market. The man is a grifter to the core and this is giving him some nice opportunities.Yup. Those poor morons. SMH
Former President Trump’s fundraising efforts in the wake of his indictment on Thursday appear to have paid off, with his campaign raking in more than $4 million within 24 hours.
Add to that all he collected since the "leak".Former President Trump’s campaign is fundraising off of a fake mugshot in an email blast to supporters on Tuesday shortly after he arrived at the Manhattan court for his arraignment.
“[W]hat better way to PROVE that our campaign will NEVER SURRENDER our country to the Left’s tyranny than countless grassroots patriots proudly wearing their very own ‘NOT GUILTY’ T-Shirts,” the campaign said in an email to supporters, which features a T-shirt with a fake mug shot of Trump.
SMH
Grifters gonna Grift!
Looks like the indictment includes 34 FELONY counts
So, it would appear you know the charges --- please share.
It's a deduction on my part. Reasoning that you can't be indicted for an affair or even paying to bury it but you must not be fraudulent about it. Same as the Edwards case. The crime is not the affair. Same as Clinton's case. Also, remember, Cohen has done time for the crime.
No it is not. But it shows he doesn't give a shit about family values.
It shows a weak character.
You don't think he's acting on the evidence and that the grand jury voted to indict? After all, that is the system.
Can you imagine the outrage on the Left if Biden was tried and found guilty of something by a Florida prosecutor?
Just sayin'If there was this much evidence that Biden committed a crime in Florida, one to win him an election nonetheless, the left would not really be that upset. Florida would get the justice they deserved. Let alone a ton of evidence that he broke election laws in another state and in Washington, DC. There's the difference between the two parties.
There are many of us still in this country that believes in innocence until proven guilty. I do realize some prefer to charge a person as guilty, and then look for evidence. This makes no sense to me.
What really upsets me is that this man was our president even after losing the popular vote. The majority of Americans saw him for what he was - and it didn't save us from him. The National Popular Vote! Make sure your state legislature is prepared to sign on when they are in session next year. The majority of Americans are reasonable people capable of making good choices. Let's ensure the will of the majority is never ignored again.
This is the mood of many Republicans right now. This is how it is seen.
And a man who cheated on his wife and f#cked a porn star.
Those are what is known in the realm of reality as accusations.
As obvious as Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky.
You are avoiding answering the question.
"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
This is simply words and not proof of anything other than words were spoken. These words were spoken many years before the porn star came into his life.
RMN:
I don't think the 30+ charges against Trump are just about having an affair with a porn star or a playboy bunny (Karen McDougal). They are about using hush money to keep them quite during an election and how that money came from campaign finance donations, thus violating Federal Election Commission laws.Exactly, this is the crux of the matter . Fox is pushing a different narrative though so people who remain in that bubble think it's all about an extramarital affair
I think the opposite. The weird thing is that a huge voter's block of the Republican Party is religious. And I find it very hypocritical that these voters try to ignore the fact that their darling president had sex with a porn star while his wife was at home with a baby.
This is a moral standpoint.
A moral standpoint many voters don't want to make or see. They are suddenly blind.
About the hush money and how it is done, this is the legal side of it. But to me less interesting.
You can have intellectual discussions about what is legal and what not. But the simple fact is adultery. And how this is suddenly seen as okay by the Christian community. This hypocrisy is what I find difficult to grasp..
You can talk hours in a talk show about legal meters and easily forget the why of the hush money...I agree with your point. They seem to pick and choose when to apply their "morals" police are completely within their line of duty when they suffocate George Floyd but are murderers when they act against Babbitt at the Capitol. It's whatever suits their need at the time. You can't abort an embryo but please don't try and protect the freedom and right for 9 year olds to attend school without an appreciable risk of not coming home.
Lauren Boebert, one of the leaders of their party recently claimed her son having premarital sex challenges her Christian beliefs but she doesn't want to "nitpick" the Bible for what's right and wrong. Adultery is wrong for the masses but if the leader engages, they'll look the other way. It is HYPOCRISY on steroids . It's whatever suits their needs at the time
" They are about using hush money to keep them quite during an election and how that money came from campaign finance donations, thus violating Federal Election Commission laws."
I have not ever heard anything about the funds that were paid to Daniels and McDougal coming from campaign finance donations, thus violating Federal Election Commission laws.
Thus far ---
The indictment has not yet been unsealed, so it’s not clear.
Some experts have said they believe Trump could be charged with falsifying business records, which can be a misdemeanor or a felony under New York law. To secure a conviction on the felony charge, prosecutors would have to prove that records were falsified with the intention of committing or concealing a second crime. It’s not clear what prosecutors may allege as the second crime. No charges as of yet.
Do you have a link that indicates the hush money came from campaign finance donations, thus violating Federal Election Commission laws?Shar,
This indictment should be thrown out on its merits.
The law President Donald Trump is being charged of breaking is a federal law, not a state law. Under New York state law, what they indicted President Donald Trump for is a misdemeanor. So, they are trying to join a state law with a felony federal law. President Donald Trump was not indicted by federal investigators as they could not find sufficient evidence to charge him in such a case.
This entire thing is contrived and nothing but a blatant political move. It has no merit, no substance, and New York doesn't even have jurisdiction to try people on federal crimes.
It should be quickly dismissed.I did not share my view of what the media has shared. It's all over the place. I tend to feel your sentiment is right.
I am aware of all that has gone on regarding the fact the DOJ or previous New York DA did not feel they could indict. This all appears to be a political ploy. One that also appears will backfire.
I am very on the edge of my seat waiting for the charges.Here is the former DA (Cyrus Vance) on why he didn't bring an indictment:
Why didn’t you charge the hush money case?” Todd asked. “Why didn’t you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?”
“I don’t want to get into the deliberations that might be covered by grand jury material,” Vance said. “But — as I believe you know — I was asked by the U.S. attorney’s office of the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization. And as you know, as someone who respects that office a great deal and and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so.”
"But I think the question is not so much why didn’t I do it or we did it, but why this district attorney is doing it. And that really requires us to be patient and to wait"
https://www.mediaite.com/news/chuck-tod … nst-trump/I am of the same mindset -- be patient and wait. The egg is hard to get off one's face. I would rather see what the charges are, before saying too much.
We just do not know what the charges will be. I would assume they will be good enough to stick or Braggs will look very foolish, which I don't think any DA likes that look.
Or JFK and his womanizing. Or the many presidents that have been suspected of having affairs.
Did Trump have sex with pros in any respect reflect in the job he did as president? One must take time and look at how we were doing as a country. Yes, and even compare to what we are experiencing now under Biden. Biden has a long history of abusing women. Although some won't accept many women's accounts of Biden being sexually inappropriate. I tend to believe in victims that have been brave enough to step up and tell their stories. https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-bide … tions.html
And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
That's what Trump does.
And afterward, he pays hush money.
You're okay with that behavior?I think your point was made regarding Trump being a womanizer. I had no rebuttal for that fact. I note you ignored the fact the US present president has the same reputation for womanizing. As have many of our presidents.
I think you did not get my point. Trump is not the first, and most likely won't be the last. So, IMO, it seems rather arbitrary to even bring the subject up. Of course, unless you are making the point that many US presidents seem to be womanizers. As well as many that sit in our Congress.
I think if we were to pick out the most egregious act, it would be Tara Reids' accusations that Biden raped her and forcibly put his fingers in her vagina.
I would think thus far paying a pro for sex might come well at the bottom of the list if we are to beleive Ms. Reid. OF course, the Left media has deemed her account untrue.
No need to offer links regarding the accusation. I am aware many media outlets called her story untrue.The word womanizer makes it all innocent but it is not.
It's clear that many men with a position of power misuse this power. I won't call it a womanizer anymore.
If your husband went to bed with another woman. Would you be okay with that and just say, Ah, he's just a womanizer, the woman can't withstand him, and he can't help it...?
I think the more power you have, the more careful you have to be with who you go to bed with.
Teachers and students is a classic example. A student perhaps wants to and will give consent. But this does not make it right.
I find it very confusing why so many people talk about family values and do not except adultery but have no problem when a President does it.
That's why I bring it up.
But maybe I'm old fashioned as for me adultery would mean divorce. And I don't respect men who do. They won't get my vote no matter the party.
And if Tara's accusation is right then Biden should be prosecuted. Simple as that. I don't care about political sides.I did not share my personal views on men that sexually take advantage of women. I think it is inexcusable.
My point -- I think you did not get my point. Trump is not the first president accused of sexual misbehavior, and most likely won't be the last. So, IMO, it seems somewhat arbitrary even to bring the subject up. Of course, unless you make are making the point that many US presidents seem to be womanizers. It would appear in many respects society looks the other way, and they get away with it. This immoral characteristic seems to be overlooked when it comes to casting a vote.
I agree with your sentiment regarding adultery. However, we had two candidates that were laden with scandals that involved adultery, and sexual misconduct. So, it was necessary to set aside their poor character regarding sexual misconduct and look at their policies.I think you let them of the hook to easily.
Bill Clinton had a hard time as he misused his power. Or do you say. Oh, he was just a womanizer? No that's not an excuse.
What Bill Clinton did was wrong and so was what Trump did.
Even more disgusting is how Donald Trump talks about women.
To accept this as normal behavior of presidents is giving all future presidents the green light to do whatever they like with women and other men in power positions. And even more other men see a president as an example. A president is an influencer. and his behavior will be copied by people who admire him.
And if your choice is between two people you don't like....You don't have to vote, you know. A no-vote is also a voice in this case. (but before it comes to this, you can vote for a different Republican Candidate in the pre-selection)
The sad thing I think is that people in the US do not vote because they are in favour of the person they vote for but they vote against the other.
I think if a president cheats on his wife, why wouldn't he cheat the country? (Which Trump tried with the whole voter fraud conspiracy theory. It's the same behaviour in my opinion)
And tried to overturn the results of an election.
And incited a mob to enact an insurrection - for which people died.
Nobody cares who he has sex with, but you can't pay for the lady's silence with campaign funds.
This image represents today's Republican party. The party has been swallowed whole by this man. The party, in my opinion, has become consumed with persecution complexes, victimhood identity and endless, useless grievance for the purpose of division. Question: Why have Republicans embraced the victimhood mythology they once denounced? Why work from a position of weakness?
I fear that victimhood is becoming part of our national identity. Wallowing in this shared victimhood narrative is not a path to anything productive. Why would anyone want to be led by a victim?The Grand Old Party lost its way with Newt Gingrich (from my county in Georgia), and has strayed from its true path step by misstep ever since. It will either reinvent itself or become more and more of a minority party than it already has become.
So true, in my view, many Americans have been in that mood for a very long time. This issue has just made clear our long-time sentiments regarding the Democrats being corrupt, and power-hungry at all costs. The root of America's problems lies with this corrupt, inept political party.
And the Boogeyman puppetmaster speaks:
"As for Alvin Bragg, as a matter of fact I did not contribute to his campaign and I don't know him," Soros told Semafor. "I think some on the right would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories than on the serious charges against the former president."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush … -da-bragg/"This hypocrisy is what I find difficult to grasp."
.Especially after previously going to the extreme of impeaching a president for adultery.
The Christian community sold their soul 50 years ago over abortion. Trump is their "reaping what you sow" and they are doubling down on it.
It is difficult to grasp. It is also difficult to condone.I stand corrected:
Trump is not the first person to serve as president to learn that no one in the country is above the law.
In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding on his horse-drawn carriage in Washington, DC.
Grant ultimately paid a $20 bond but didn't show up to court.
Donald Trump carries the unique distinction of being the only president to be impeached twice, and is now the only former president to face criminal charges.
-----------
Speeding in a horse drawn carriage? Now that is rich...
Mathew Brady must have caught him on camera?The double impeachment says far more about partisan politics and the actions of one particular party than it does about Trump.
At this point the indictment says much the same thing given the years of unrelenting effort and false claims. A conviction, however, will say something about Trump himself and provide some small amount of relief to the Democrat party that has worked so hard to remove a political rival that the people chose over their own candidate.If Joe Blow had been indicted for the same accusations would you go to the ends of the earth to defend him?
The conviction will say that Trump routinely has been operating on the cusp of legality and it has caught up with him. Whatever he has managed to get himself into, he has done it to himself.The point was that there was no need to "go to the ends of the earth to defend him" for the "evidence" was so lacking as to make both impeachments nothing but partisan politics being used to remove a political opponent from the scene.
The current indictment is different to at least some degree, and would be completely different were courts not politically biased and Trump not so hated in the state where he will be tried. Both of those give rise to bad verdicts.Trump has lived in New York the better part of his life, this idea of his being hated in New York is conjecture on your part.
Is it possible that Trump can be guilty of crimes without it always being some sort of plot by the Democrats to railroad him.
Why does the entire world pick on poor little Trump? Could there being causative factors outside blaming partisanship?I think that many Americans are growing tired of the cult of victimhood . When did accountability turn into persecution? Enough is enough already.
"Is it possible that Trump can be guilty of crimes without it always being some sort of plot by the Democrats to railroad him."
Absolutely it is possible, and in my mind anyway, probable.
But on the other hand when we look at the past 7 years of persecution by Democrats with zero "guilty" verdicts it looks like a railroad job. When a President is impeached twice, but with no penalty, it looks like a railroad job. When a President is impeached right before leaving office, and top Democrats admit it was only to prevent him from running again, it looks like a railroad job.
In my considered opinion, without supporting evidence, it looks like Trump has violated some laws since he was elected. Democrats, on the other hand, will declare outright guilt with that same lack of evidence. That looks like a railroad job, too.Interesting that it takes a guilty verdict in an impeachment to conclude that it's not a railroad job. When impeachments are political decisions and not actually court cases.
Because if they were court cases, the attorneys for the defense would not have been colluding on strategy with members of the jury that agree with them politically. Trying to equate the outcomes of impeachments with actual court cases is a false equivalency.
And when a President organizes and incites a domestic terror attack on the country's own Capitol, the fact that people think he should be able to hold that office again is absolutely bonkers. But par for the course for a party that now resembles a cult where such violent behavior is tolerated because the greatest sin is to stand against the cult leader, even if their behavior is criminal or morally disqualifying.
In the opinion of others, with so much supporting evidence that the right chooses to ignore because it is damaging to their view of their party leader, it has been easy to believe that Trump has committed multiple crimes, both before being elected, during his presidency, and after being voted out of office. And what democrats want is for Trump to get his day in court to answer for his conduct and let a jury of his peers decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence."Interesting that it takes a guilty verdict in an impeachment to conclude that it's not a railroad job."
In the case of impeachments, in MY mind, the fact that it was along partisan lines that counted the most. That and the fact that Democrats made it crystal clear that the second impeachment was to prevent Trump from ever returning. That takes the entire thing completely away from the "right/wrong" question and puts it squarely on partisan politics. That Democrats, particularly in the second effort, made such an effort to enlist media and turn it into a vast media show rather than discussion just made the obvious that much more so.
"And when a President organizes and incites a domestic terror attack on the country's own Capitol..."
And such an assumption, completely and 100% unproven, only adds to the feeling. Democrats never even tried to show that Trump did anything more than encourage a peaceful march (although they claimed it thousands of times)...yet it was wrong somehow to do that, and all his fault when it became a small riot. If we applied that thinking to the BLM riots there would BE no BLM left, but we don't. We only blame Trump...because "we" want him gone from politics.
Bottom line for millions of people is just what was mentioned; Democrats are playing a game, and persecuting a political rival, for political purposes, not as a matter of law or even morality.And when a President organizes and incites a domestic terror attack on the country's own Capitol...
'And such an assumption, completely and 100% unproven, only adds to the feeling.'
Not an assumption as they showed the timeline of when Trump sent out the post with the date and location for his January 6 rally right after a late night meeting at the White House with General Flynn. It was 100% his tweet that set the rally in motion and his re-election campaign that took care of the details of the rally - hence, he organized it. And everyone heard his speech - the same speech where you cling to the one time he said they would march peacefully early in the speech while fully ignoring the use of the word fight over a dozen times after that to a crowd he knew was armed (again, something you always try and downplay). Let alone that his rally never had a permit for the Capitol. He knew he was going to send his crowd there as they had testimony about him telling a few aides about it during the January 6 Committee hearings. And despite him having that plan, he never told Capitol Police of that plan. He excited his crowd, then unleashed them on Congress - without giving Capitol Police a warning that he planned to do it.
And as usual, his followers omit those key details to ignore why so many believe a man that would endanger police and our elected reps should never hold a government position ever again. Especially from a person who did both of those things based on blatant lies about an election he got crushed in.
That's not playing politics, that's trying to hold someone accountable for trying to end our system of government in a violent manner based on fraudulent claims. It says so much about those who would defend him that they can overlook any of things that have 100% been proven.
LOL Of course - the liberals in a very liberal state all love him. That that is not true is just conjecture, right?
That the far-right creates that false narrative of hate certainly is. What is amazing is how so many of the far-right posters think they understand the left and what they believe and feel, often tell us their expert opinions, and then could not be more wrong about their views.
We all know what this is.
Well, we who are adults and not brainwashed.
When you campaign on "Drain the Swamp", insult and antagonize everyone in DC who had long been part of "the Swamp"... those 30 and 40 year Representatives and Senators that are forever in DC... and when you additionally hostilely engage the FBI directly being the cause of the Director and other top echelons being removed... call the MSM a bunch of liars... annoy the Military Industrial Complex by refusing to start new wars... well then, in all honesty, so far Trump has gotten off light.
Steve Bannon was quoted, in regards to this, saying:
"American globalist elites who persecute Trump through tools like [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg for leading a populist movement that is focused on stripping them of their unearned wealth, power, and privileges."
Not quite sure I would phrase it that way myself, but there are plenty who feel he is a threat along those lines.
I am pretty sure I predicted all this a couple years back and said that they would have him in jail for one reason or another by 2024. They will not allow him to return to the White House, I don't care if 90% of America loved the guy, which isn't the case, but it wouldn't matter. Trump is done.If Trump is done, do you have any hope for the country ... going forward?
Or will all the "Deep State" shenanigans die down and we can get back to some sort of normalcy ...
or are we done too?
I think the brainwashing was when Trump built a base with his MAGA agenda. The brainwashing? Convincing people that
a man who had never been anything but a con artist and grifter belonged in the white house. Donald Trump is nothing more than a small minded swindler who planned and executed the greatest grift in the history of the world.Yes, it is much better to have professional politicians with track records, men we can look to like George. W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
I don't know, when I look for someone to do a job I look for some sort of track record. I want some sort of assurance that you have the skills and experience to do the job. In Trump's case I sure didn't see any of that. I don't think we need professional politicians but ALL of them aren't terrible just because they have a long history in the job. I simply believe in someone having the skill set to do the job.
As far as trump goes, he sold people on the folly that he was a successful businessman. Much like everything involving Trump, this was pure fiction, a con.
Liberals always make me laugh.
Joe Biden is a horrible person. In the 90s, I worked with a Senator for a brief time. Joe Biden was considered horrible then.
He sniffs little girls. There is video of him sniffing little girls. He admits to sniffing little girls. The left says nothing.
He regularly tells the most obvious lies. Lies that are easily disproven. Yet, he keeps telling them and the left says nothing.
His presidency up to this point is a huge failure. Nothing from the left.
This is just proof of the left's hypocrisy and double-standards.
It's laughable.RMN: Unless you can prove your accusations, they are nothing more than your opinion. It's laughable as you say.
There certainly is proof of his sniffing hair, and many women coming forward and reporting his sexual inappropriateness. As well as the many ridiculous lies that he repeats over and over. He has lied throughout his years in the public eye.
His job performance is view oriented, and actually, his job performance shows low in polls.
Mistruths --- https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … this-week/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/l … =joe-biden
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/poli … index.html
https://www.dailynews.com/2023/02/01/pr … m-of-lies/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … -100-days/
Need more ?
Accounts from women that claimed Joe Biden was sexually inappropriate
https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-bide … tions.html
Job approval -- https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329384/pre … biden.aspx
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/US-presiden … val-rating
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story … 982706007/
Hopefully, you are open to reading the links to seek facts.IF you think anything up there is not proven YOU are laughable.
Do a google search on "Creepy Joe" if you want to see videos of him sniffing young girls.
Here is a CNN article about his blatant lies.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics … index.html
Here is another one about his failures.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … istration/A current poll --
Biden’s approval slips to 38%, near the lowest of his presidency, new poll says -- https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/23/joe-bid … -says.html
In case you missed my response --
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4288608RMN and Sharlee: Your posts are forcing me to compare Trump's behavior to Biden's. Trump has lied and/or misinformed over 13,000 documented times in his four years in office. While he owned the Miss Universe Pageant, this is the creepy stuff he pulled off.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … se-191860/So, you're not denying anything said about biden. You are just trying to justify it.
RMN: Nope, I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of Trump vs. Biden. I will take Biden's lies any day over Trump's 13,000 lies/misinformation, especially Jan.6.
I will take Biden's sniffing women's hair over Trump's creepy behavior while owning the Miss America pageant and his pu**y grabbing, and the payoff to the hush money women while still being married.
You see, it is all about the level and proportion of actions. Just what you said about me justifying Biden, you are doing the same thing with Trump. You are justifying Trump's actions by the "what about Biden" ploy, that conservatives always use when Trump is being attacked.
The ever beloved by the GOP Reagan experienced his lowest rating of 35% in early 1983. He managed to survive.
Nixon found out he was not above the law - and resigned to avoid conviction by the senate.
But he was lucky. His own vice president was onhand to pardon him. By accepting a pardon you admit guilt.
.....and yet he was the only one who managed to accomplish anything positive for the people, in a very long time.
ab; If you are a Fox News listener then you are right. If you are a MSM listener, then you are wrong about Trump.
What people are forgetting is when Trump was elected president, he didn't win the popular vote. He won the electoral college vote where small geographic areas have the advantage over large urban areas.
Trump did not win over Biden. That is a lie that he and the people who advised him made up and that he is still propagating. Those investigation are ongoing, even while Trump is campaigning to be president again.
If he loses again, he will just do a Jan. 6 again. He is a sick man, who in his mind will not allow himself to lose.
He may do another Jan. 6 on Tuesday when they read the 34+ charges to him. I have my doubts that he will even show up. He is like Wiley Coyote, if you know what I mean !!!. Miss Georgia (MTG) will be there and so will Miss Colorado (Boebert) will be there as his cheerleaders. MTG thinks she is going to be Trump's VP. Boebert want's the AR-15 to be the National Weapon...God bless both of them.In my view, you missed ab's point altogether.
".....and yet he was the only one who managed to accomplish anything positive for the people, in a very long time."
You went off in so many different directions.Accomplishments? He cut taxes for the rich. What else? I'm sorry, but I'm not rich, so where's a benefit?
To avoid a confrontation, and save my energy, as one often finds the need to do on chats, I will say only this --- If you have the view he did a poor job, he did a poor job in your view. We all have them, I will play safe and agree to disagree.
Sharlee: You think I went in so many directions in reply to ab's post.
I don't think I went off on a tangent at all. Every thing I said about Trump is true, including Fox News and MSM. Isn't this forum about Trump being indicted?
As far as Miss Georgia and Miss Colorado, that is my attempt at political satire. I apologize for that. I should have known better. I have observed conservative are not very good at grasping the nuances of political satire, especially from a liberal viewpoint.peoplepower73: Discussions should go where they will - not where any participant dictates.
No apology required.
Actually sometimes chasing a rabbit down a hole makes the discussion more interesting by being less predicable.
So what else is new Sharlee, they are much too busy gathering stones.
ab:: Biden accomplished nothing, Trump is the only one who accomplished anything positive in a long time when you listen to Fox and MAGA news.
Biden has accomplished more positive things than Trump when one listens to MSM. It's that simple. Both sides are busy gathering stones, But I think the GOP is better at gathering stones and throwing them at the Dems. Conservatives fall in line. Liberals fall in love because they are made up of a more diverse group of people."Conservatives fall in line, Liberals fall in love".
I never figured you as poetic, PP.
I good President protects and defends the U.S. Constitution. A good President protects the homeland, by securing the borders and such, all while being a good neighbor to bordering countries.....within limits!
A good President steps out of the way, so that the citizens are free to make a living for their families in their chosen field. Some have chosen the oil industry, some the coal industry. A good President recognizes that those are honorable professions and that most Americans choose to work, not ask for handouts.
A good President recognizes that these same, salt of the earth, good people, have every right to bear arms, in order to protect their families from ALL enemies.abwilliams: While you are protecting your family with your guns, please start setting a perimeter around our schools because our kids are being slaughtered.
Kathleen, I wish I could!
I wish I could protect every innocent child from the womb on through their college years.
I wish there wasn't evil upon this earth, but there is.
My prayer is that we will turn back to God, soon, because this crazy stuff many in the U.S. are embracing these days, is pretty sick and not of God.
I agree 100%. As I have said, and I am sure many are bored with, I feel he was one of the best presidents we have had in decades, regarding his job performance. I felt secure, I felt the country was secure, and going in the right direction.
The whole thing or story per the links especially foxnews smacks of hypocrisy. These lady pornstars for years has been denying the sex act, and the money involved. But sunddenly and evidently now? Okay now. What does their earn in a day, a week, or a month as trading their body? If one get the right comparison, then the $150,000 is money to smear Trump's 2024 presidential bid in bad light. If Trump is indict, he's indicted. QED. Again for years the pornstars, Tprump, his former lawyer, all deny the story. How can any sensible Judge or Magistrate convince Trump, if he's charge with adultery? Or what? Ha ah ha! Hei hi eh!
As expected, the domestic terrorists that Trump has been pandering to in his social media posts have been activated...
“The first time it was like gold digger, slut, whore. You know, liar, whatever and this time it's like, ‘I'm gonna murder you,’'' Daniels said of the threatening messages she has been getting.
But yeah, tell us again how we should regret saying the MAGA Republicans are the most dangerous threat to America today.The Meidas Touch guys do a nice job of explaining the potential 34-count indictment that should be released tomorrow that goes over why KellyAnne Conway and David Pecker were brought in as witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jkeeguzd28&t=317sThe Meidas Touch guys do a nice job of explaining the potential 34-count indictment that should be released tomorrow that goes over why KellyAnne Conway and David Pecker were brought in as witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jkeeguzd28&t
Line of the video has to be, “He stiffed Pecker.”No need to reply. So many here have made my point better than I could.
Did you think he would go home and cry?
Of course he is going to utilize this to his full advantage. You all, on the left, have pushed for this for seven years now. Get ready for some pushback.Trump indictment full text: Read the court document
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … -rcna78051I'm certain that President Trump's presidential campaign is thanking the liberals for this opportunity.
The name President Donald Trump is now dominating the media. Nobody who is opposing him has any chance to even come close to this level of free media exposure. Everybody now wants to talk with President Donald Trump. His challengers are being forgotten.
Anyone with even an ounce of knowledge of the law can see these charges are based on a bogus created law. It has little or no chance of succeeding. Again, they are basing these charges on a federal felony law where New York has no jurisdiction and trying to connect it to a state law that is a misdemeanor. The federal prosecutors who have jurisdiction didn't bring this case because they felt there wasn't enough evidence. There is also amble case law against this ever succeeding. That is if truth wins out. This is, after all, New York. I suppose that means anything could happen. They were ignorant enough to bring such convoluted charges.
So, liberals, enjoy it while you can. I don't think any of you realize what you've just done. You've galvanized the Republican party and conservatives with a common cause. There are well-known liberals who also are against this. President Donald Trump will walk away from this almost guaranteed to win the Republican nomination for president.
Since this is nothing but an obvious politically motivated ploy, it can and will be used against democrats in 2024.
I bet there will come a time when democrats regret doing this.First, I would suggest that liberals would like nothing more than to see Trump as the 2024 nominee.
Second, on the indictment today:
“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified NEW YORK business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg.
"Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws."
I think it's obvious why Barr didn't bring the charges.
I would direct you to Bragg's explanation of the charges.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-arra … atch-live/
https://www.manhattanda.org/district-at … y%20Bragg.I'm of the same opinion. Bragg gave a gift to the Democratic Party by elevating the least electable candidate among the GOP field. The problem being that Trump should become even less electable when Georgia and DC also indict him and he's forced to bow out.
"least electable candidate among the GOP field"
Who do the democrats have? biden?We have the guy who beat Trump by seven million votes, before Trump organized and incited a domestic terror attack on the Capitol, and who will be under multiple indictments during the general election. Good luck winning independents with that resume.
"I think it's obvious why Barr didn't bring the charges."
Neither did Merrick Garland, and I would think that is due to not really seeing a prosecutable crime.
I still have not gotten an answer to what I waited for. what are the charges? After listening to interviews with attorneys on various networks, I can see they are asking the same question, and very disappointed, and feel the case seems to have no legal merit.
Perhaps we will learn more soon, I am sure Trump's attorneys will request formal charges, and evidence that Braggs spoke of, but did not share. I think he said Trump cover a crime with another crime... None of what he said made any sense to me.The charges are 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and the statement of fact that was released had much of the supporting material to see the path to conviction for the prosecution.
And Bragg laid out the case in his press conference:
“From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects,” the prosecutors said. “In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.”
Considering that is all the undisputed truth, Trump's team will have its hands full.
Much of the right has been trying to make the case that this is just like the John Edwards case. It's just too bad they have the following evidence:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.
You can download a pdf of the indictment and the SOF here:
https://thehill.com/homenews/3933605-re … -of-facts/The charges were very clearly laid out.
Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law.
Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” a crime. In this case, prosecutors will have to prove that Trump is guilty of maintaining false business records with the intent to hide a $130,000 payment in the days before the 2016 election Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged 2006 affair. Each count represents a separate instance of alleged misconduct, but not a different type of crime.
At his news conference Tuesday, Bragg alleged that Trump "repeatedly made false statements on New York business records" and "caused others to make false statements."
"Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements?" Bragg said. "The evidence will show he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election."
Fox really isn't covering the details.I read the indictment in full
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/11677081 … 0election.
I am sticking with the views of the many attorneys that have offered their views on the merits of the case.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-felo … s-records/
Alan Dershowitz on Trump arraignment. I respect his view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bfwtRFjxZ4
Plus -- at this point, it appears by Braggs not sharing the crime that covered a crime... Trump committed he has obstructed Trump's 6th Amendment.
"Bragg violated Trump's 6th Amendment rights in refusing to disclose underlying crime: legal expert
The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants will be 'informed of the nature and cause of the accusation'
"Former President Trump's Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated when New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg refused to disclose the underlying crime the defendant intended to conceal through his alleged falsification of business records, legal experts opined Wednesday.
The Sixth Amendment provides in part for the right of a criminal defendant to "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…"
When questioned by a reporter as to what the underlying crime the indictment fails to name is, Bragg replied in New York State, he does not have to."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bragg-vio … gal-expertWith the trial tentatively scheduled for January, is it possible that the intent is simply to keep him out of the election? It wouldn't be difficult to put it off for another year...
On the other hand, I know of nothing that would keep him from being elected from a jail cell, whereupon he could just pardon himself.Or the DA is progressing on the "new way" to prove the crime . . 1. accuse 2, indict. 3. look for the evidence, 4. and hope you can stir up enough hate to convict on hate alone.
In my view, we could see Trump literally at this point win an election
from jail. Times are changing, and many are demanding respect for our Constitution, and are angry watching it be destroyed."Or the DA is progressing on the "new way" to prove the crime . . 1. accuse 2, indict. 3. look for the evidence, 4. and hope you can stir up enough hate to convict on hate alone."
The grand jury voted to indict based on the evidence presented to them. Bragg followed the process. That evidence will be displayed for the rest of us when his trial begins.Much of the evidence was presented in the Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment. Just the latest omission of the right to show how they continue to live in their own realities.
No, it is totally up to the Braggs if he felt he could prosecute the case. As did his predecessor. The more I have looked around, the more this looks like a very political ploy. It is now being reported that Trump's 6th Amendment was clearly violated. As I said Garland would not touch it, and neither would Barr...
Braggs is obligated to pursue cases he feels he can win, with clear evidence, under the law. Period. He has already violated Trump's 6th Amendment. The more I read, the more I am convened the case is headed to be thrown out, quickly.Barr shut down the Southern District of New York investigation into the crime, but that was based on his own belief that a President is above the law.
Just how has Trump's sixth amendment right been violated? Bragg listed the crimes in the indictment and in the statement of facts that accompanied the indictment, noted they were done to conceal other crimes (election law and tax crimes) which elevated the crimes Trump is being charged with to felonies. In New York, the second crime does not need to be proven, only that there was an attempt made to commit it, and Trump certainly tried to commit tax fraud when he added in taxes to Michael Cohen's reimbursement.
Fox News better get some better lawyers to consult with.Former President Donald Trump's Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated when New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg refused to disclose the underlying crime the defendant intended to conceal through his alleged falsification of business records, legal experts opined Wednesday.
The Sixth Amendment provides in part for the right of a criminal defendant to "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…"I think it was... I have been doing a ton of reading on that subject today. It is clear that Braggs did not provide information on the supposed crime that Trump was said to commit to cover his first alleged crime.
In my view, Seems very unlikely that he has evidence that could support his case as stated yesterday. I posted a couple of links to interesting articles.I also know the first 15 counts of the indictment are past the statute of limitations. They are charging things that happened in 2016, it has a five year statute of limitations, it is 2023, that makes it six years ago.
This indictment is simply ridiculous.In my view, it's ridiculous, and so political. In the end, one way or the other Braggs can just say "I tried, I tried to get him as I promised".
Most legal minds are very dissatisfied that Braggs went ahead with this indictment.
The country has become a laughingstock around the world. With so much going on, many are being diverted to once again an accusation that involves Trump.The statute of limitations is “tolled,” or paused, when the defendant is not continuously present in the state.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news … 0529be6735A status bar in law can't be used for conviction. It's what it's...status bar...pass the time. Alvin Bragg, is making a fool of himself.
My source was NYT, and WAPO, as well as I did read the Fox piece and many other articles. It is very possible Trump will have a case his 6th Amendment right was clearly violated. At any point, it is an interesting twist, and I would think Trump's attorneys will use it to make an attempt to get the case dropped.
Former President Donald Trump's Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated when New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg refused to disclose the underlying crime the defendant intended to conceal through his alleged falsification of business records, legal experts opined on the fact that Trumps 6th Amendment right may have been violated.
NYT -- "Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.
This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.
The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election.
Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus.
Let’s start with the obvious problem that the payments at issue were made around six years ago. The basic facts have been public for five years. There are undoubtedly complicated political reasons for the delay, but regardless, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., had almost a year to bring this case after Mr. Trump left office, but did not do so, and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department also declined. To address the perception of a reversal and questions of legitimacy, Mr. Bragg had a duty to explain more about the case and its legal basis in what’s known as a “speaking indictment,” which the team of former counsel Robert Mueller made famous in its filings.
Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Astonishingly, the district attorney’s filings do not make clear the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony. Neither the 16-page indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts specifies, though the statement of facts does drop hints about campaign laws. In a news conference, Mr. Bragg answered that he did not specify because he was not required to by law. His answer was oblivious to how law requires more than doing the minimum to the letter — it demands fairness, notice and taking public legitimacy seriously.
Dig deeper into the moment.
As a result of all this, Mr. Trump and the public still know shockingly little about the case — not which particular statute he allegedly violated or whether it is a state or federal campaign crime, a tax crime or something else. That’s why the indictment really contains only 34 half-counts. This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime, yet it is also standard when charging some cases to specify “crimes in the alternative.”
Giving only partial notice might be standard operating procedure in Manhattan, but that standard procedure — suddenly in the bright lights yesterday — seems like a systemic infringement of a New Yorker’s right to know “the nature of the charges and evidence against you,” a normalized SIXTH Amendment VIOLATION. On the bright side, maybe the backlash will force Manhattan prosecutors to end this general practice. Still, it is hard not to ask whether Mr. Trump was actually treated worse than other similarly situated defendants, because after so many years of delay, surely a Manhattan prosecutor would have informed another defendant of at least the basic underlying crimes and their statutory basis.
The public could be forgiven for imagining that Mr. Bragg has not settled on his own theory. Unfortunately, he has given fodder to those who would portray this case as a political prosecution still in search of a legal theory.
They Had $350,000 and a Dream to Live Together. Could They Make It in Manhattan?
Even based on the half-felony that we do know — the false business filing with “intent to defraud” — it remains UNCLEAR whether a court has ever allowed a false-filing conviction based on an entirely internal business record that no other party, like a bank, insurance company or customer, would have relied on. I am yet to see any legal experts who have argued for this statute as a basis for the case against Mr. Trump who has identified a New York case along these lines.
In my own research, I have not yet found one. That hole in the case should have given prosecutors pause: What, in practice, is the meaning of “intent to defraud”? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it. Even if one can argue that the statute should apply to internal records, this is not the ideal time to test a seemingly novel (or even a very rare) application.
Because of pre-emption, it’s entirely possible that the State of New York cannot prosecute a state case based on a federal election filing violation. The underlying crime, as best as we can tell from Mr. Bragg’s news conference and a statement to the press, is a campaign finance violation — spending money for a campaign cover-up without reporting it. However, for a federal election, there is what one might call “double pre-emption” or “confirmed pre-emption”: Both Congress and the State of New York agree that cases about federal campaign filings are for federal courts only, not for states.
The Federal Election Campaign Act has a broad pre-emption clause: “The provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.” New York State law confirms that state “filing requirements and the expenditure, contribution and receipt limits” under state law “shall not apply” if there is a federal requirement and a federal filing (in other words, they don’t apply to federal elections).
Federal pre-emption applies most strongly when the subject is the candidate’s own campaign conduct (as opposed to donors’, for example) and when it relates to core issues like filing rules (as in this case against Mr. Trump). Some defenders of yesterday’s indictment cited some examples of federal courts allowing states to proceed based on state law, but those cases were not about basic campaign filing rules but about a fund-raiser funneling money to his own for-profit business, or they were about rules for donors’ contributions or political action committees, as opposed to the candidates’ conduct. These legal experts did not specify any case allowing a state to prosecute a candidate for his or her own behavior in a core area of campaign regulation like filing requirements.
Federal courts allow for states to regulate the “times, places and manner” of elections, voter registration, ballot theft and the like. They allow exceptions for pre-emption when the state laws are “more tangential to the regulation of federal elections.” This state filing law is not tangential to federal campaign filing law, nor is this allegation tangential to the field of federal campaign law. But federal courts have emphasized that the federal law applies most strongly to candidate behavior, especially on filing questions. The application of this state filing law overlaps much more closely with the federal law’s field of campaign finance and filing.
There is good reason for pre-emption for federal campaign finance: the danger of local prosecutors bending state law against federal candidates of the opposing party. Congress and New York have traditionally agreed that federal campaign finance and filing law are for federal courts.
Pre-emption, abstention and federal jurisdiction are complicated. Even if there is a valid argument that somehow the state statute and this case are only tangential to federal election law or that federal courts should abstain from taking it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers still can go back to the game book from their tangle with the previous Manhattan district attorney, Trump v. Vance, and the subpoena for tax returns. Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed for an injunction in federal trial court, took the appeals up to the Supreme Court and delayed the subpoena for about a year. This case is headed up the same road. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of federal pre-emption in cases with less clear pre-emption language, and Mr. Trump has a substantial chance of winning, given the clarity of the federal pre-emption language and confirmation of pre-emption in New York State law.
Even if Mr. Bragg prevails, would a trial eight or more years after the underlying events, either at the height of the 2024 election or soon after, really be a win for the rule of law?
Perhaps Tuesday was really an indictment of the Department of Justice under William Barr and Merrick Garland. If anyone should have brought this case, it was one of them. And if the Garland Justice Department should bring a case, there are stronger, more recent and much more serious charges to bring."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opin … tment.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ats-wrong/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bragg-vio … gal-expert
https://www.wnd.com/2023/04/analyst-con … ndictment/Kudos to you on your research and investigation in this matter.
We may well have to wait until the authorities get the courage to charge Trump in the more serious of crimes, in Washington DC, and Georgia.I do feel if Trump committed crimes the crimes will be presented in strong cases. The Braggs case seems to be getting off on the wrong foot. However, I would think if Braggs presents more information to Trump's attorneys in regard to what evidence he claims to have on the second crime, it will be game back on. Thus far, I have not heard anything about that. I would think if he has more info he will provide it before Trump files that his 6th Amendment was violated. He will fight like hell to try to have the case tossed out. This 6th amendment issue may be what he will use first, who knows?
One positive that may come out of this, DC, and Georgia will be very diligent if and when they indict Trump, dot the i's, and cross the t's.
The DC and Georgia crimes would be much more serious and certainly will need true factual evidence to prove their cases. Hearsay will not be permitted in a true court of law. I think if he is indicted they most likely have true factual evidence of crimes.Well, it is true that Briggs would not look good if he failed to follow through and is careless to allow the serpent to once again skirt the law with technicalities.
Your point is that Braggs need to prove the circumstances where what would normally be misdemeanors are to become felonies worthy of all of this time and effort.
I have heard mixed reviews regarding Briggs' prospects from a variety of sources. But, I have to agree with you and GA about the prosecution's need to make sure that all your "ducks are in a row", particularely when you are dealing with a master criminal like Trump."I would think if Braggs presents more information to Trump's attorneys in regard to what evidence he claims to have on the second crime, it will be game back on. Thus far, I have not heard anything about that. "
That won't happen until the Discovery process begins. Prosecutors said they expect to produce the bulk of the discovery in the next 65 days.
That was an interesting take on the case, for sure, from a writer who also went against Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. It's easy to see his slant.
But he does raise some pertinent points to wonder if New York can argue that since each state runs it's own election for the Presidency and then reports on the state choice, if New York laws then would preside. I think you can argue it from that point of view also.I also thought the article was interesting, as well as the WAPO article. I am no lawyer, and can only look at what's floating around online. From what I have read, this case looks complicated and is being handled a little out of the norm. I do think If DC or Georgia decide to indict they will dot i's and cross t's. They will go by the book, in my view.
I agree 100% Mike.
Bragg couldn't end that press conference and get out of there quickly enough!!
What a joke!Seems to me he presented a thorough yet concise accounting of the charges. I don't think there was much more he could say as it is an active case.
He made little to no sense. After listening to many of the Attorney's interviews, I can see this Braggs has bit off more than he can chew.
They really could care less. The Biden family have committed more crimes than Trump; however this is ignored. Also Bragg is releasing violent criminals who should be imprisoned. Down is up & up is down.
Really? Please state the crimes the Biden family have committed.
C'mon, everyone knows what crimes the Biden family has committed. Let us not go there.
Why not? You guys on the right keep saying it, but cannot cite a single law to back that ridiculous claim.
Biden & his family has committed so many crimes but of course, they won't be touched because he is protected, favored by the powers that be.
Glad you asked the question.
"Evidence obtained by Committee Republicans reveals Joe Biden lied to the American people about his involvement in his family’s business schemes. The Biden family business model is built on Joe Biden’s political career and connections with Joe Biden as the ‘chairman of the board.’ Biden family members sold access for profit around the world to the detriment of American interests. If President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries and they are impacting his decision making, this is a threat to national security. The American people deserve transparency and accountability about the Biden family’s influence peddling. With the new Republican majority, Oversight Committee Republicans will continue pressing for answers to inform legislative solutions to prevent this abuse of power."
The Congressional oversight committee is looking into six different situations of the biden family's criminal activities.
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid … stigation/There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
And what law does a family member peddling influence fall under. I ask again without an answer.
And it's funny that your repost makes the claim that Biden is involved in his family's business dealings, which we've talked about in these forums as making assumptions pertaining to golf and lunch dates with this son and son's acquaintances. Then your repost says 'if President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries...' The if is another reach.
But again, what is the crime?Good question.
It is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
Whoever—
(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A)to influence any official act; or
(B)to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c)Whoever—
(1)otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A)directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B)being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2)directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3)directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d)Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Didn't we already go through this in 2020?
"An election-year investigation by Senate Republicans into corruption allegations against Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter, involving Ukraine found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by the former vice president, closing out an inquiry its leaders had hoped would tarnish the Democratic presidential nominee."
"The 87-page report summing up the findings, released by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges."
Also, Hunter Biden has been under a separate federal investigation for roughly five years now...where's the beef already?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/p … hnson.htmlActually, no we didn't.
"American policy toward Ukraine"
Their wrong doing far exceeds this one investigation.
Biden family members sold access for profit around the world to the detriment of American interests. If President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries and they are impacting his decision making, this is a threat to national security...The Congressional oversight committee is looking into six different situations of the biden family's criminal activities.
There's been a point that based on NY trying to use federal election crimes as the charges that bump them up to felonies. But first there are bookkeeping fraud crimes, and then they were done to cheat the tax code which is also a second crime as Cohen was paid taxes on top of the reimbursement.
That they were done to influence a federal election is just a third criminal option if they are allowed to prosecute those.After seeing the indictment, even CNN's legal pundits are shaking their heads over the charges. They don't think the DA can get a felony conviction.
GAAt this point the public has no sense of the additional evidence Bragg’s grand jury has undoubtedly accumulated in the form of written records or perhaps even audiotape evidence to back up the fundamental theory that Trump engaged in this elaborate silencing scheme to help him win the presidency. And we won’t know more for some time. Not sure what CNN pundits know? Speculation at best?
Yes, it is all speculation—relative to being about to prove the charges, but after the release of the indictment, there is no speculation about what the charges are.
As for what the pundits know . . . both sides put their most credible (at least in their minds) 'experts' in primetime slots. They are lawyers, scholars, and in some cases former DAs and such. So the experts are at least legal experts and in several cases, they are legal experts with related experience.
Their speculation concerning the path from state misdemeanor to federal felony does merit consideration. Too many times that 'legal and experience' credibility is wiped out by partisan spin, i.e. Rudy Guiliani and Susan Powel, but when CNN's legal experts can't present justification it doesn't look good.
That's just a layman's perception. I don't know even know enough to speculate, but I bet the media's legal teams (that have been scrambling and digging up sources in order to support the DA) do.
GAI'd be interested to see the same video you watched. Here is one from CNN that I found that kind of backs up Bragg:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … of-vpx.cnnIt was not one video. It was CNN, live from about 3 pm, or so, after the indictment had been released. I wasn't glued to the screen, but each 'panel' discussion they filled the afternoon with was worrying about supporting the misdemeanor to felony connection.
The linked video is red meat for the "optics" problem Ken mentioned. I bet even a Trump-leaning conservative will probably find the explanations of "complicated combination of laws," "Bragg got creative with charges and won," and 'that it's a novel idea doesn't mean it won't work' as political BS.
GA
It's going to be interesting to see what else they have.
Since you mentioned CNN/the charges ...I remembered I was reading this before. We'll see.
A major question was whether Bragg would charge Trump with a felony and how he would go about doing so, since falsifying business records -- the count that Trump is charged with 34 times -- is a misdemeanor unless prosecutors can prove that the records were falsified with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.
The new statement of facts only hints at the approach Bragg is taking, but the prosecutor laid out his legal theory more clearly during a news conference after the arraignment.
Bragg said the business records were falsified in 2017 with the intent of concealing criminal conduct connected to the 2016 campaign. He referenced a New York state law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
Bragg is not charging Trump with a violation of election law or a conspiracy related to that alleged campaign-related conduct. The indictment says for all 34 counts that Trump had the "intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof."
The statement of facts cautions in a footnote that it "does not contain all facts relevant to the charged conduct."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics … index.htmlYep, it's all speculation for now, but it is strongly looking like winning a battle but losing the war for Democrats and the DA.
GA
The optics... as it is seen by all other nations, is what really matters.
It diminishes the power and prestige of the Office (President).
It shows that a minor, state-level DA can have a former President brought up on charges, not just a former one, but one that is campaigning to become President again.
Its not a good look the effort to destroy Trump, from Impeachments, to contested elections, to this.Why does holding a former president to account for his criminality in getting elected have bad optics? If anything, it says just the opposite. If you attempt to cheat to get elected, you will be prosecuted. If you cheat to get re-elected to a second term, you will be impeached. If you commit fraud to try and stay in power after you got crushed in an election, you will be prosecuted. If you organize and incite a domestic terror attack on your own country, you will be impeached. If you steal classified documents and then go on television to note how Nixon did the same thing and then got paid when he did it (giving prosecutors the motive they were missing), you will be prosecuted.
And if you try to take power from Democrats you will be impeached and both persecuted and prosecuted.
What is more important is how WE see it as American citizens. The concept of no one being above the law has to be more than lip service and optical illusion. Trump is just another man, not a celestial figure.
The way you avoid having to air dirty laundry is not to soil it in the first place."What is more important is how WE see it as American citizens."
Good point, and a very good explanation of just why the left turned the impeachment process into a dog and pony media blitz of America.
You're right, the optics are bad, both globally and nationally. And that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence—right now.
Now that the deed is done, I'm rooting for the DA. If he fails the zealots on both sides will go nuts, dangerously so.
GAThe bad optics, IMO, are that Trump was ever elected to the office of the president.
That's one view. It might even be the view of half of America, but what about the 'view' of the other half? I think that the view of this DA's action is that of a lot less than half of Americans.
GAPay up. The CNN poll that everyone points to notes that 60% of Americans support the indictment, including 62% of independents.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/03/politics … index.htmlI also remember CNN telling us that Hillary was going to win in a landslide. You can trust those numbers if you want.
I trust random polling more than anyone who believes a word coming out of Trump's mouth. That's for sure.
What proof that you have, Doc, that "your numbers" are better?
I do not have "numbers" and would not trust any site, liberal or conservative, to tell me the truth on that subject.
By their very nature, polls are opinions and not truths. Maybe that's where your confusion lies.
A CNN poll is worthless biased garbage, which 90% of America knows.
Garbage, but those who support the indictment will be sure to tell us about it.
"Dewey Wins!"Very confrontational... almost obsessively so.
Same with the way they have engaged Russia over Ukraine, are dealing with China, are dealing with us Americans... the whole mantra about Trump supporters as #1 enemies of the state, domestic terrorists, while at the same time pushing insane gender policies, equity, etc.
If you want the world to burn... they are pursuing all the right things that will set it afire.
To those with far-right views, they would say such stuff about polls that don't agree with their jaded world views.
I've been wrong before. It happened once back in 78'
GAI remember that one, you put money on the Oil tanker Amoco Cadiz captain keeping the ship in the water.
You are quite modest, so you haven't been wrong since 1978. That is quite a track record.....
You misunderstand. When I was wrong in 78' it was related to me thinking I made an inaccurate statement. It turned out my statement was accurate, so my 'wrong' was simply that I was mistaken in thinking I was wrong. I thought I was wrong but I was right, so yeah, that's a pretty good track record.
GA ;-)
Not me, the DA is... well, an errand boy (a tool) for forces that wish Americans no good will IMO.
A minor position holder, in the grand scheme of things, should not be able to hold the highest office in the world (supposedly) to task for some infraction of the law that can't even be agreed upon to be a felony.
This is very biased law at practice, this is a Salem Witch Hunt, they have already decided (as if the impeachments did not show this) his guilt, it is a show trial to get enough Americans to agree with the declaration that Trump is indeed a Witch.
I'm surprised you don't recognize not only this, but just where it will leave our "Democracy" our political system and how it will make our legal system just a political tool to keep those who are not 'chosen' from ever attaining a position of power within the government again.
Of course, this administration has gone a long way to cooking the goose, but the work could still be undone by the next President. If Biden's
Equity https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/ and Environmental Justice https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/ along with the Administration's plans for the CBDC takes hold, well, lets just say, if you want freedom, liberty, and control of your own assets, you will have to find some other nation to live in.Until the trial starts everyone's opinion is speculation. I'm not speculating on the details of the indictment or which interpretation is correct. I'm speculating on the 'here and now' effects of the DA's decision.
The situation already has the look of political persecution to Republicans. In the context of historical efforts, that 'look' is a valid perception. Even if, if, by trial, the indictment is revealed to be completely valid and logical, a large segment of conservatives will drop their harshest claims. True Trump supporters never will.
So without an opinion on the validity of the indictment, I'm rooting for the DA so there will fewer Republicans going nuts if the indictment gets a conviction. If the DA fails, all Republicans are gonna go nuts. The base will be further validated (in their minds) and the 'leaners' might go solid Trump.
GAI think we all know if they wanted to pursue such charges they could easily make them stick to any President of the last 30 years.
Biden, Trump, Obama, the Bush family and especially the Clintons that started out their trek towards the Presidency getting illegal funds from a billionaire Chinese investor, if my memory serves correctly.
From the Clintons that went from broke to being worth hundreds of millions, same for the Obamas, Bush Sr. ex-CIA Director, his family has deep ties to less than morally upstanding sources of money.
Trump is guilty of doing the same thing the rest of them do, probably not as well as half of them... the crime(s) he is REALLY being persecuted for is exposing their corruption, their collusion, insulting them, causing havoc, costing Clinton her chance at the Presidency, costing folks like James Comey and John Brennan their jobs.
Michael Moore said it best... for all the Americans that had lost their jobs, their 401ks, pension plans, their homes, their hope: "Trump's election was the biggest 'f--- you' ever recorded in human history."
“The people that came out for Trump,” said Moore, “I'm not talking about the racist white supremacist part but people tired of the system and Trump told them it was rigged.”
Surprisingly, Moore agreed with Trump’s stake, saying, “It was rigged and he was right when he said that.”
Trump became the embodiment of the discontent, he became the champion of those who distrust their government, who wanted to force change, who wanted to see those career long politicians that run DC for 30, 40, and in Biden's case 50 years. They wanted them out.
Obama was the embodiment of the positive "Hope and Change".
But nothing really changed with Obama, people's lives (economics = better lives) did not improve, Obama care made life worse for millions more than it helped, etc.
America then turned to Trump, who promised to 'Drain the Swamp". Who sneered at the people in DC that so many Americans feel are at the core of the Country's problems.
The destruction of Trump will never be complete, it will never be enough, there will always be more charges and more crimes, for years to come.
Because of what Trump embodies and represents, they will make him a highly visible example to all... while continuing to extol how anyone that doesn't support the government is a traitor, a domestic terrorist, just like Trump.You don't have to convince me, and to the points you make, there are a lot of Republicans you won't have to convince either. This indictment was a dumb move by Democrats. After 6 years of validly perceived persecution (e.g. impeachment for "abusing his discretion") they should have seen how this prosecution would be viewed.
It's a simple concept: 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'
It appears that at least two of the remaining investigations—of much less obviously political appearance, are nearly done. A few weeks' wait for the 'big guns' makes a lot more sense than a jab that just invigorates the opposition.
Unless. . . the Dems real plan is to help Trump win the nomination. If so, then this indictment move borders on brilliant.
GA"It appears that at least two of the remaining investigations—of much less obviously political appearance, are nearly done. A few weeks' wait for the 'big guns' makes a lot more sense than a jab that just invigorates the opposition."
At that time it will be more than a "jab", he will be disenboweled in comparison. It can't take too much longer, as it has taken too long already.That's a very dangerous gamble by the Democrats, if it is their plan to ensure Trump win the nomination.
There is a great chance that things will be much worse for most Americans come November 2024.
I'll be honest, I have spent a fair share of time trying to discern what is going on with Ukraine and where things are likely to head. The fog of war is THICK... amazingly so... in fact, I've never run across anything like it.
If things continue to worsen for Ukraine and if Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, etc. continue to move away from America, our economy will suffer, the Dollar will suffer, and this could be hitting us hard by November 2024.
In that case... who-ever the alternative is to Biden and the Democrats is going to win. Only a complete rigged election could keep that from happening... Americans ALWAYS vote their pocketbooks when the economy tanks... Carter is a prime example... and Biden reminds me a lot of Carter, making a disaster of foreign relations and pushing all sorts of progressive agendas that aren't too popular.
Carter was the first President to put Solar Panels on the White House... wasn't a popular thing back then, didn't help him win any votes.
Much can be said for Biden's progressive pushes, which to many Americans are a lot more disdainful than Solar Panels were back in 1979.I disagree with your last paragraph to some extend
The solar panel wouldn't mean any thing to most American middle class andthe poor.
But the Iran fiasco. where Jimmy Carter, was unable to rescured the 53 American hostage, is probably the cause of his lossing the election for a seco d time.
It was Canada, that rescured the hostages. Thank you, Canada.This is simply a false pretext.
Trump is the person who made the relationship with the strongest blocks worse.
He threw the relationship with China with his agrasive taxes to far below freezing point. The same thing he tried with Europe. he treats other worldlings with contempt.
Pushes worldlings and the Queen of the UK rudely aside for photo shoots.
Biden is trying to regain trust with the EU, but it has been very deeply dented by Trump.
And what you are describing is that you believe the electors were stolen. You are already giving a pretext for when Biden wins. If Biden wins the elections are stolen... You are fuelling conspiracy theories with such a statement. Already complaining.You are reading a lot into that statement that wasn't there.
You see the Trump - China relations entirely wrong. Trump got into an economic squabble with China. Biden has gotten into a military escalation with China. Two very different things... that get very different reactions.
While you think Trump's relations with the EU/UK were bad... most Americans (not the elites) are fine with that... we don't really care about the wants or whims of the UK/EU.
I would much rather have good relations with Saudi Arabia (oil/OPEC) and Brazil (Food/Resources) and Russia (Food/Resources) the only thing we get from the UK/EU is progressive social nonsense and manufactured goods that we would be better off making ourselves, it would put Americans to work.Ken, I agreed with you entirely. Though Trump want or rathar tried to persuade Xi and China to buy American grains, that would cement a good commerce and other relations.
"I would much rather have good relations with Saudi Arabia (oil/OPEC) and Brazil (Food/Resources) and Russia (Food/Resources) the only thing we get from the UK/EU is progressive social nonsense and manufactured goods that we would be better off making ourselves, it would put Americans to work."
While I have to admit that as of the last week or two the danger regarding America's financial status within the international community has been a cause for concern, but consider this, the EU and U.K. have something that we share in common that authoritarian, tyrannical and despotic governments of China, Saudi Arabia and Russia lack.
The rule of law, the principle of self determination of people, freedom of speech and religion among other things. We are handicapped when compared to tyrannical regimes who do have the go to the trouble of getting a consensus of its citizens to approve anything they do or don't do.
So, to accomodate these countries and their ambition may well involve a certain amount of convenient expediency. If we are willing to submit to expediency abroad, how much easier does it become to compromise our founding principles at home?
In the face of competing objectives, Democracy can be most inconvenient, but I will side with the Europeans as we share fundamentally the same values of the role of government relative to its citizens. As Americans, these ideals can never be "negotiable".
That is the challenge and the quandary that we find ourselves in, and why there can be no simple solutions from anyone.A good retort and one I believed was fitting some 30 years ago.
I don't believe it today, many of those freedoms (Speech, Religion) are fast being eroded, many others are being subverted and twisted into parodies of freedoms and rights.
Like men having the right to be women, children having the right to change their sex, equity being forced by panels and review boards, and soon enough, access to your "money" will be based on whether some monitoring system believes you deserve it or not.
Equity doesn't correlate with "the principle of self determination"
"I will side with the Europeans as we share fundamentally the same values of the role of government relative to its citizens."
I invite you to travel to the UAE or Saudi Arabia, go to Dubai and then tell me you feel safer walking the streets of NY or San Francisco.
No, I don't support many of the EU/UK beliefs, any more than I support many of the ones in China. I have no desire to be more like the EU/UK, we used to be proud of the fact that as Americans, we weren't like them.As the phrase goes, you've said the quiet part out loud. We used to be proud to be American—across the spectrum. Now, that phrase is just a political label for the Left. A 'code word' or 'dog whistle' for 'Right-wingers' that hold that idea as a core value and are still proud to be American.
This would be a good place for some sarcasm, like listing a few of the Left's favorite labels for those folks. But I'm not good at sarcasm and the old standards (Flag-waving pick-up truck-driving Red necks, etc) jumped to mind, so I'll leave that part to someone better at it.
GAThat's hard to correlate the two these days.
Proud American and Right-Winger.
What are we proud of today?
Not the Boy Scouts...they no longer exist. Well, not the boy part.
But we are promoting sex identity education and sex changes to pre-pubescents. Well, we will get there soon, still some zealots out there trying to stop progress.
And while on the subject of children, we are finally getting to the point where the redefinition of pedophilia could help offenders demand rights.
Just a few months ago the public push began to destigmatize pedophiles by redefining them as “minor-attracted persons” (MAPs). Those rights are just as important as the rights of Men to be Women.
Oh, and then there is Equity, time to do away with that old merit based system, time to rid ourselves of the concept of self determination, our government is going to create panels to determine if you are qualified, based on race, gender, political beliefs, and assign your lot in life and the position you can hold accordingly. Perfect! Down with the Patriarchy... or is it White Supremacy, maybe both, yay! Two birds with one stone.
Any "Flag-waving pick-up truck-driving Redneck" that is proud of this country is simply ignorant of the changes being made and the direction things are going. Which is probably the bulk of them.Yes, you can be a proud American and not be a Rightwinger. I was reminded of JFK and his "Peace Corps" showcasing the best of America rather than the worse. His plan to land a man on the moon and return him in 1961 was the best expression of a pride associated with meeting a challenge and goal.
The problem was that the "merit based system" was not always that, now was it? That same government and WASP custom had a history of excluding those based on race, gender etc, not allowing them to access to the same starting point in the race for success. So, why did they do it, and now want to say that it never happened? The cheating has affected what and why we are where we are, today. How easily is that forgotten by Conservatives, well, I don't forget.
So, yes, the rallying cry is "down with patriarchy and white supremacy".
Pride can express itself in any number of way, not just that as defined by flag waving-pickup truck driver.Those days are long ago. Those things that were good, JFK, Peace Corps, and the bad, societal racism, are long gone.
The Peace Corps has been replaced with a multitude of conflicts and occupations, Syria, Ukraine, etc and societal racism was long ago addressed and removed from legal and cultural acceptance.Yes, but pockets like Bragg, moving an indiction against Trump, exist. It's my confidence that the move will arrive safely in the waste basket. Bragg, was Africa-American. Let's note that Lord Mansfield, in setting Somersett free in his land mark judgement, was not racial. Same with Abraham Licolm, in his Emancipation Proclaimtion. But when blacks vote Dems, the presidents are not always black. Let the past go.
Ken, it is not ancient history, not the Middle Ages nor the Renaissance. It was within my lifetime and I am far from convinced that what appeared to have been forever changes are, in fact, that in totality. Things have generally been better, but recent times has shown me just how fragile that perception of those conditions may actually be. So much like a cancer that was supposed to be in remission but has returned.
I did feel a little of that Sixties pride with the televised announcement of the Artemis Crew that will circumnavigate the Moon within the next couple of years. Diverse in abilities; white male and female, black and white. No sacrifice or compromise in effectiveness. Quite different from the "Right Stuff" astronauts of the Project Mercury."No sacrifice or compromise in effectiveness."
And you know this because you have studied their abilities thoroughly and completely know and understand what their tasks will be? I doubt it.
Personally, I looked at the group and thought "Well, political correctness for sure!". But then I expect government to be PC and not to overly worry about what happens as a result of that.And who are you to say that the NASA administrators are going to place unqualified people in these positions? And that your assumption takes priority over their knowledge and experience as to what they need? It is attitudes like yours as to why our relations is to remain in the mire. Where does that arrogance come from?
". . . attitudes like yours . . " Mire? 'Ol hell, I probably have some on me too.
That devil's poking me to mention presumptions' but I told him no. Turning questions into assumptions is already hard enough.
GA ;-)You don't really want to come off like Wilderness, do you? That only white males are the only demographic that can be considered best qualified to do any and everything?
That's what I meant by having some of that mire on me too. I didn't know he thought white men were the only ones that could be the best at any task. I didn't read that.
GAWhat other basis would he have to "presume" that the selection is PC, what would it have to be not to be PC? It is not hard to read inbetween the lines. Wilderness does not know anything about the qualifying standards set for the astronauts. Where would you think the source of his comment would come from, and what lies behind it?
Nope, not gonna tag me on this one. Those are questions for him, not me.
However, the point I read from this, and similar statements, is that when a task requires a critical skill set, making any 'diversity' criteria primary is almost never a good thing for the task.
Not being specific to the astronaut example, and not being derogatory, consider the many anecdotal and documented instances that show 'PC' selection criteria altering the selection process produces just the point Wilderness made.
Consider Ken's list of degraded qualification requirements in the military. Nathanville's mention of a recent RAF flap. And our own Supreme Court selection process and our universities' reverse-affirmative action controversies.
Those examples aren't saying diversity is bad, or that diversity can't have a role in the selection process, they are saying it's bad when it is not tied to the task but is used as a primary selection criterion.
That is what I got from reading between the lines. Maybe I got it wrong too.
GABut you did answer, so here it is for you and for him.
Who presumes that NASA did not consider critical skill sets of its candidates, as the primary consideration. And that diversity is always in conflict with selecting the best. Has it occurred to anyone that the best is not always a white male? Geez, the only normal selection in that conservative paradyme is that it is only possible to have all white males selected where you can expect them to fully qualified without question and not part of a PC process.
Don't you folks realize that these kinds of assumptions remain at the heart of our beef with you?
It was presumed that I was an affirmative action hire when I was selected into the journeyman level of my chosen profession. There was no way according the quiet bigots in my shop that I actually could be qualified and be best qualified among several candidates? Perish the thought. They attack Obama and his qualifications for the presidency. No one really takes into consideration that maybe, just maybe, non-white, non male people selected for varied positions could be qualified for their jobs?
I begin to realize that so many of these attitudes have to be subconscious and that you cannot help yourselves, but with so much time having past, I though that you all would be better? The First Lady's incident with the women's basketball team was a case in point. Jill Biden is a nice lady yet the the power of racism cannot be denied as it is found within the very engrams of American culture.
Do you know what it makes you folks look like in the eyes of so many of us?
At least you were humble enough to see that you can be and are wrong about this. Sorry for the vent.....I begin to realize that so many of these attitudes have to be subconscious and that you cannot help yourselves, but with so much time having past, I though that you all would be better?
Yup. Although (general you) can always "help yourself" if (general you) educate yourself.I thought that "education" was it, but is it really? I converse daily with educated people on this forum and I still hear affirmations of all the negatives, daily. Jill Biden has a Doctorate degree from what I understand, how could she have made so glaring an error in the D.C. Invite?
When I look at America's past and its present, these attitudes persist and while they are shrouded and changes with the times by the masters of disguises, the person behind the curtain pulling the strings is, fundamentally, the same one who has always been there.
Education does not seem to remedy the problem of primitive and retrograde thinking among far too many white folks in regard to this issue.Yeah, I know what you mean. I meant educate on the issues, listening to other people and to their experiences. Not just school/college education.
But I don't think I'm wrong.
My comment wasn't about any of the stuff you said. From the start, I said the issue was diversity criteria (gender, color, et al.) being promoted to primary selection criterion. There was nothing about a judgment of the qualifications. Nothing about whether the astronaut crew was or wasn't the best crew choice regardless of their diversity. That's all on you.
My issue was with the presumption they (the crews, teams, groups) were the best because the diversity factor had nothing to do with it. There are too many real-world examples that show that presumption to not be so reliable. Unless you disagree with the examples given.
However, my word choice might be the reason you think I was arguing all those things you said. Your comment about not understanding the image being presented is a valid one. I frequently try to make the same point.
Maybe it is subconscious. So help me out. Look at my response again, what particular wording or inference caused it to read as saying what you responded with? I'll even concede 'obvious' inferences if you find one.
GAOk, I always found you to be a man of reason
Let me spell it out for you.
Who would believe that NASA in a critical mission would put diversity above competence? Who is saying that? The back side of Moon is a pretty lonely place to find oneself among a ship of fools. i remember the Tuskegee Airman as among the finest fighter pilots during the WW II. That reality was covered up for years. We have had several people of color and female astronauts as part of the Shuttle Program, I guess they too were eminently not qualified? Out of a sea of a 1000 faces the one black face must be a PC hire or otherwise not qualified. This is the overriding message that I am receiving from your folks. And, you know, it doesn't bode well.
Wilderness, implies, no, blatantly states that the current crew of the Artemis program are part of a PC effort which is a biased code word meaning not "white only". You just as well put up a sign.
To address your primary point, there is no evidence to support the inane idea that diversity among candidates is more important than qualifications to do the job, or that NASA would conduct business in this way. Who would think that is how NASA operates except the most disgusting racists and bigots that believe that diversity can only mean "white only"?
Yes, much of IT is subconscious, bigotry is a powerful force in American life and I am reminded of that daily. I could not imagine treating people the way these bigots do, solely because they are different..Yes there is bias, subconscious bias perhaps, learned or taught in some.
It is not a White thing only, it exists elsewhere, China is a good example, Japan is another.
For all the evils you remind us of, it was also White people who did away with slavery, that instituted civil rights, equal opportunity, scholarships and preferences... and now Equity.
You won't be seeing China doing those things anytime soon. Nor Japan.
The issue I have with Equity is that the example given in the Ranger selection circumstance I provided is how Equity is going to work... decisions will be made regardless of qualification, ability or merit... someone of a particular sex (all types) or race is going to fill or achieve positions based on a quota effort.
That should, in effect, make it a more friendly hiring environment, or latter climb, for those who are not straight white males.
There are probably going to be a lot of young men re-gendering themselves to get ahead in America in the future.Well, Ken...
"Yes there is bias, subconscious bias perhaps, learned or taught in some"
I would change that to "many", many more than I would like to believe.
---------------
Whatever whites did was compelled by the bang of the gavel or the point of the bayonet. Slavery was part of an exploitative capitalist system. Advancing 19th Century Industrialization would has made it more of a burden than advantage, so the "thanks" is basically misplaced. So even after the slaves were freed, more terror awaited them for the remainder of the 19th and much of the 20th Century. So, who do I get to thank for that?
-------
"that instituted civil rights, equal opportunity, scholarships and preferences... and now Equity."
All of which you continue to complain and gripe about
--------
I have lived in the Caribbean for 6 months, travelled across Westen Europe for two months and while not having travelled to the Far East, lived in Hawaii for almost 4 years. A place with a substantial Asian population and strong Asian influence.
And in all of that, American bigotry on the mainland is distinct as to its intensity and all encompassing nature. I never experience being defined solely by my race upon my first visit to Europe in the 1970s. All the defense mechanisms I kept as necessary and part and parcel of American life, all of the sudden was excess baggage the very moment I step from the plane at Heathrow. I was overburdened, carrying luggage that I did not need both physically and psychologically. Much like walking around Waikiki Beach in a spacesuit. My nationality was more of a focus than my race and ethnicity. People gave me the opportunity to present myself as a man and whatever negatives that were attached to me was my own doing. Totally liberating. That is why I stayed away from the "Ugly American" types. I could then understand why so many prominent black entertainers, writers and intellectuals left for Europe during the first half of the 20th century.
There was some issues in Panama, where I lived. But I made it clear that I was an American black that would not tolerate being subjected to condescension or discrimination, that is if you wanted any of my money. A little militancy straighten all of it out and it went a long way.
I missed Hawaii as the only place where being a WASP was not always to your advantage, particularly on Hawaii's Big Island.
As for the Ranger program, of course I am opposed to anything that does not give the weight of selection factors to meeting or exceeding qualifications.
I am old fashioned only to the idea that men can cease being men and women can cease being women. They could pass by the "privacy" issues between the sexes if their genitalia were surgically altered. But, even with that what it is that make us either male or female go beyond physical differences, it is a biological state of being that cannot be surgically removed.
But they are merely different, and that does imply that they have to be either less or more.I can understand what you are saying, only so much as someone can who has not lived it.
I do not have the experiences that can truly relate to the oppression a black man could feel here in America, especially one that has lived through the sixties.
My arguments may confuse you as to my meaning at times, I have seen the misunderstanding many times in your replies. I see why that is.
And your argument(s) that the fight must be continued for the chance of losing the progress forward is sound.
I just don't accept the cost, I cannot correlate that doing the right thing for POC has to go hand in hand with accepting Pedophiles as "minor attracted persons", or accepting men who think they are women as such, or sex change for children as OK.
I don't accept that it is just progression that needs to happen, these new issues should not be issues, they are a sign of sickness taking hold of society.
The civil rights movement and equality, equal opportunity, based on merit not race, had/has to happen. Men allowed to compete as women, 'Minor attracted persons' accepted as normal, children pursuing sex change... NO.
There was a time when I was a Democrat and I believed in what they stood for. But not now. That doesn't make me a Republican, that doesn't make me a Supremacist or a Terrorist.
It just means I am not going to accept the insane as sane, I am not going to accept the wrong as right... regardless of how many EOs or Laws are passed telling me I have to accept a man as a woman, or a 'minor attracted person' as anything other than a threat to children.I am not on board with the absurd, where the left extremists are taking us, but the extremists on the Rightside offer little comfort.
I say no need to lower standards as long as the standards are shown to be relevant to successful job performance. Keep the bar where it should be. There are women, perhaps fewer who can qualify as a firefighter, but they are there all the same. We use the standards to select and not simply say that women are not eligible. For example.
I am naturally more cynical, having been around a lot longer and watching progress and regress of considerable periods of time. I don't expect you to understand but you can and do listen and that is a good start in of itself.I would like to be supportive of the things that really matter to you, I never disagreed with those positions you hold dear.
I remember how we would debate... and I would say, all those gains are being thrown away, the balance, the equality, just when it seemed like we should be celebrating it seemed like it was all about race all over again.
I see it differently now, I was wrong, but I was right as well... we will be a majority Hispanic population soon enough. The fight for EO has shifted focus from POC to LGBTQI+ ... and the senseless warmongering...
Remember Tulsi Gabbard and my support for her?:
You often say you know the costs of war. What do you mean?
Tulsi Gabbard: "I am a soldier. I have been serving in the Army National Guard now for over 16 years, and I deployed twice to the Middle East. I've served in Congress now for nearly seven years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Homeland Security Committee. And so from both perspectives, I understand the importance of our national security."
https://reason.com/2019/12/16/the-anti-war-candidate/
But because she didn't agree with our efforts in Syria and elsewhere, they called her a Russian puppet, anti-American.
Eventually she saw these warmongering Democrats for what they are.
Eventually she parted ways with the Democrats, as I have.
I know you don't like her, but she was a Democrat once, like I was.
I can't support Biden or the Democrats, from his EO on LGBTQI+ to his arrogantly pursuing and escalating war with Russia, he has been bad for America in ways even I didn't foresee.
If you are going to spell it out for me, at least spell out responses that address my responses. Including the one asking for examples from my comments. It wasn't a trick or sarcastic question, it was real. Yet, you diverted back to the stuff of your rant.
NASA, Wilderness, the competence of people of color, a claim that NASA's diversity is purely 'PC' stuff, none of that was in my response.
When you did address my 'primary point,' you did it with NASA again. I wasn't claiming anything about NASA. But I was talking about the reality that 'PC" criteria have been placed at the top of the selection criterion a lot of times (not particularly NASA) and that is discrimination at its worst.
Also, since you have put me into the category of ". . . disgusting racists and bigots that believe that diversity can only mean "white only", maybe my 'acid' problem is rubbing off on you.
GAWhen you did address my 'primary point,' you did it with NASA again. I wasn't claiming anything about NASA. But I was talking about the reality that 'PC" criteria have been placed at the top of the selection criterion a lot of times (not particularly NASA) and that is discrimination at its worst.
Alright, you might have said this in the first place and it was not clear. The gist of conversation seems to be you sympathizing with the view of Wilderness or once again, yet "sitting on the fence".
-------
Also, since you have put me into the category of ". . . disgusting racists and bigots that believe that diversity can only mean "white only", maybe my 'acid' problem is rubbing off on you.
My acid always stays where it belongs, your misunderstanding that I categorize you with the worse of American bigotry is your perception and is incorrect and is that on on you...."The gist of conversation seems to be you sympathizing with the view of Wilderness or once again,"
Which is exactly what he did, with the caveat that the specific topic was NASA and that NASA is no different than other groups making selections of people. "PC" has been moved to high up on the list of necessary criteria to meet, often at the very top, and it is discrimination at its worst.My issue with you remains: that diversity is the equivalent of inherently unqualified. You cannot prove that NASA is Woke, speaking in rightwngese.
Is a diverse ethnic and gender labor pool as opposed to needed skill sets and related competence issues mutually exclusive? You can neither demonstrate or prove it.
From your viewpoint, they are.
From my viewpoint, they are not.
If it is not all white, there has to have been discrimination involved, that is how I interpret your message.
"Alright, you might have said this in the first place and it was not clear."
Yep, I did. And in the 2nd and 3rd place too.
GA
This captures the essence of the point I was trying to make.
I also have to agree with Credence, you cannot ASSUME that because there is someone of another race or gender, that it is an Equity over Merit selection. That in itself IS racist.
But as where I was pointing out the reality of such efforts in the Ranger selection example and as you pointed out with the Supreme Court selection, the decision was made that regardless of qualification, ability or merit, that someone of a particular sex or race was going to fill or achieve that position."I also have to agree with Credence, you cannot ASSUME that because there is someone of another race or gender, that it is an Equity over Merit selection. That in itself IS racist."
Absolutely true. But at the same time, when you see a large group with almost perfect diversity, all races, both sexes (soon we'll look for all genders, too), etc. it becomes beyond probability that it just "happened"; that there was nothing forcing such a choice. Merit vs Equity does not result in such a balanced selection - that can only come from man's intentional choice.Equity initiatives will be overseen and enforced by boards and panels in all government positions/jobs and once this has been implemented and established within government it will then be exported and implemented in the private sectors.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … overnment/
Scroll to the bottom of the page below to see the various agency plans for Equity.
https://www.performance.gov/equity/
https://www.performance.gov/equity/rfi-summary/
It will be interesting to see where this goes in the following years.
You're right about that "ASSUME,' it is as dangerous as 'presume.'
GA
You could not have gotten it more right. Whenever we see such a perfect example of diversity you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a major factor in the choosing. It did not happen by chance, and it was no coincidence that the top skill sets just happened to be so diverse.
Do the NASA administrators get their funding from Congress? Then they will do what Congress wants them to, and Congress demands the appearance "equity" and "equality" in all matters without regard to ability.
Astronauts are not selected on the basis of a popularity contest. Your assumptions lie at the very heart of race issues today. It is dumb to think that NASA can afford not to have its best selected for this critical mission. And you believe that anything non-white intrinsically cannot be the best? I guess that it is alright only when it is all white?
You have a burr in your saddle and now I get a true shapshot of "white resentment" in action. I should frame it as it is textbook.
I have taken on a very low opinion of you based on this revelation of yours.
Conservatives, regardless how they present themselves harbor racist ideas at their foundation and why I continue to never trust them."Astronauts are not selected on the basis of a popularity contest."
We can hope not, but how can we be sure? Because absolutely it is dumb to think that politics does not play any part in such a visible, photographed thing. It is almost made for media and appearance counts more than anything else to our administration.
You may find recognition that politics plays a part to be "white resentment", but that is dumb. Politics is a fact of life today, more so than at any time in the past, and intrudes on every facet of our lives. In the atmosphere of "equality" it would be exceedingly foolish to think that race "equality" played no part of that selection, particularly with the variety of races and sex presented. My god, our president made a point of advertising his own racism in hiring for SCOTUS as well as other posts in his administration...and you think NASA will not follow along. Join the real world, Credence, where racism and sexism not only exist but is open and cheered.
How about summing it up with the tag -- Deplorable. I don't think many can beat Hillary Clinton when it comes to labeling or sarcasm.
Without the name-dropping, Yep, that is the root. Even if the issue is some tangent that is stated as supportable statistical fact; undereducated educated, poor, religious, etc., it is still an offshoot of the root. It's just a matter of degrees.
GA
Well, Ken, this has been a very revealing conversation between us.
The freedoms that I am talking to you about can never be out of style or the America that we have known will simply cease to exist and I don't think that I am willing to work with what would replace it.
I will risk the buzz of activity on the streets of San Francisco or NYC over the eerie quiet of a Beijing, Rihyad or Moscow. Their relative quiet is not the quiet of freedom but the quiet of subjugation and fear. Where you could subject yourselves to long prison terms or even lose your head for speaking out of turn.
Self determination refers to people being able to rule and control themselves within a government of consensus among them. The idea of equality among those people is an important tenet of that principle. In that sense equality is different from equity.
We are more like our Western European allies than we are like China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. Being similar to the former is preferable to being similar to the latter. With the shared pursuit of democratic principles, we are "like them" in the most important way.
There has always been factions within the society that compete for rights and inclusion. Despotic regimes simply silence them. Well, in America, me and mine were subjected to our "all American" form of domestic terrorism. There can never be a good template model in the world of an authoritarian regime.
Is this what lies behind much of conservative thought today, too many competing voices? Is this why they brought the authoritarian tyrant Orban from Eastern Europe featuring his speeches at their CPAC last summer? Is this why Tucker Carlson as the water carrier for the right extols Orban's society and how it put a muzzle on dissent and silenced the disharmonious?
This sex and gender stuff is an aberration, there is so much more to freedom of expression that goes far beyond the example that you give all so frequently. To address that issue can't involve tyrannical approaches that encroach on other fundamental freedoms."This sex and gender stuff is an aberration"
Disagree. Much of the lefties programs and goals are centered on the concept of victimhood, and the sex and gender stuff is exactly that. "You are mistreating me because I'm not like you" is the chant, however unspoken, among liberals today that demand what is not theirs and that they won't work for.It is the same as conservatives always wanting to silence disharmonious voices. Your structurally racist society at the outset created the need to make recompense to victims of it.
It is true, you have been mistreating people who were not like you, that is the foundation of America's greatest sin.
We demand equal opportunity and equal access like everyone else, only conservatives say that that request is "over the top"."the need to make recompense to victims of it."
As I said; victimhood.
"We demand equal opportunity and equal access"
You don't want equal opportunity and equal access - that "level playing field" you demand is tilted far, far away from flat. Instead of "equal" opportunity we see a massive effort to give priority based on sex and race, all because of that victim concept.
When you spoke of accommodations necessary to coexist with aggressor nations, what does your "convenient expediency" mean?
GAI refer to a faction of our society that in the interests of real-politik, supports Russia and its right to invade an errant nation within the sphere of its influence. That flies in the face of what supposed to be our values of respecting the borders of a sovereign nation.
I refer to the real politics of keeping the oil spigot with Saudi Arabia flowing, while in conflict with them over several human rights violations.
Appeasing tyrants for a perceived economic advantage putting our own values and national standard on the back burner as a result.With the exception of some extreme faction hiding in the woodwork, I don't know of any that support what you claim—that Russia had a Right to invade, or are supportive of Russia's invasion. Who are they? Do you think their voice is powerful enough to warrant the importance you are giving them?
Your Saudi example is one of degrees. Your 'real politics' criticism seems to say we should not deal with any nation that doesn't have the same national cultural values that we have. That would be a pretty small world.
GAIt is not so extreme, for a variety of reasons 20 percent of the Senate Republicans opposed aid to the Ukraine.
You are right about cultural values and such, but one value of Russia is to control those nations in its immediate vicinity, how do we coordinate their objectives with our principles. We accomodate, yes, but how far?You're kidding, right? "If you're not on my side then you're a dirty Commie!" Seems I've heard that mantra before.
. . . and because they disagree with the majority they are extremists of the type that hides in the woodwork?
Also, were any of those 'various reasons' stated to be because Russia had the Right to invade, or they supported Russia regardless?
GAThere are Those that stated that our in involvement was not in the national interest or interfered with more important concerns regarding our relationship with Russia. Ignoring the crisis and looking the other way says that while you may not support Russia directly, you support Russia by staying un involved as Putin would have desired.
I just said that there is GOP faction that is opposed to Ukraine Aid and in this political climate that says give aid and support to Russia.FYI...the president who stabbed Ukraine in the back the worst was obama and biden. They did NOTHING when Russia took over the Donbas and Crimea. They sent "non-lethal" aid. What were Ukrainians supposed to do?...throw blankets at the invading Russians?
The GOP faction isn't interested in Ukraine getting aid as much as they are interested in having an accounting of the aid given to Ukraine, which makes sense. There are also some members of the GOP who don't want the US to be involved in any way. This is true.Yes, you can go partisan if you wish, but I don't buy it.
Obama and Biden have been so irresponsible but the Trump term in between was as innocent as wind driven snow?
Trump intimidated our European allies from the beginning. Who did you think would contribute to maintaining the peace in the region?
Trump is the biggest example of a Monday morning quarterback, a 20/20 hindsight bullsh*t artiste, extrodinaire....
He sucks up to Putin and really thought that he could have restrained him, were he in charge. I have no reason to believe that he would not have sat idly by while the Ukraine was devoured by Russia.
I now direct you to Neville Chamberlain waving that scrap of paper in 1938, I have a guarantee of "peace in our time".....Not the problem.
Obama wasn't nor Trump.
It was an action reaction affair.
The choice could have been to pursue peace.
The choice could have been to accept the Minsk Accord. Zelensky chose not to.
Zelensky chose to antagonize and demand Crimea back, Biden fully supported and antagonized as well.
Putin chose to marshal his forces along the border and then demand that the Minsk Accord be adhered to and Crimea be recognized and NATO stay out of Ukraine.
Biden and Zelensky responded with a FU.
Then, after years of preparation for this war, which many in the DC area wanted, did it begin.
I do prefer a somewhat factual recounting.
Not the Putin bad, he invaded Ukraine without provocation and plans on taking over all of Europe nonsense.Again my Russian friend,
1. Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia as per the United Nations Resolution. The world agrees with this fact.
2. The Donbas region was illegally annexed by Russa as per the United Nations Resolution. The world agrees with this fact.
3. This has been described as the biggest land grab by any nation since World War II and Nazi Germany.
4. Ukraine is a free and sovereign nation with every right to defend its borders
4. Russia is an established war criminal as per the International Criminal Court.
5. Putin DID invade Ukraine without provocation as determined by the United Nations. The word agrees on this point.
6. Putin's desires to rebuild the old soviet union is well know in eastern and western Europe. He has even stated this in speeches.
Do you feel Russia would be justified in invading Finland since they are now a member of NATO and share a border with Russia? Is this provocation enough in your mind for russia to launch an invasion as was launched against Ukraine?Mike that is BS. Not ALL of the world agrees, not ALL of the world condemned and that was 10 years ago... 10 years ago.
Since then, Crimea has been FULLY incorporated into Russia and the rest of the world went along its business.
No one was held to that resolution, it wasn't even the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
AFTER the Minsk Accord was spit on by Zelensky.
AFTER Zelensky, who didn't come on the scene until 2019, put into Ukrainian law that they were going to take Crimea back... in essence they declared war on Russia!
That's the sticking point... Ukraine, with Biden's blessing chose to instigate and agitate for this war. Period. No debate. Its provable, factual, written, spoken.
And NO the entire world does not agree.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, China, Syria and others do not agree... they are NOT choosing America & Ukraine over Russia.
And HALF the world doesn't care what the ICC says. HALF the world doesn't recognize its authority.
I keep stressing this... this is NOT Russia vs. the world.
This is Russia, with a growing number of allies and alliances... this conflict is NOT just in Ukraine...it is in Syria... it is in global trade and economy and it is growing, expanding.
I'm sorry Ukraine is being torn apart... but I am not going to ignore the fact that Zelensky and Biden went looking for this war. Biden promised this, in effect, back in 2014... and by electing him we ensured it was going to happen."Ukraine, with Biden's blessing chose to instigate and agitate for this war. Period. No debate. Its provable, factual, written, spoken."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. russia is the one who illegally annexed parts of Ukraine and they are the ones who invaded. russia is the aggressor. THAT is a fact and is indisputable.
I'm not going to ignore that Russia invaded a sovereign nation. They did it only to expand their territory.
Russia was the one looking for war. You cannot simply annex part of another country and then claim it as your own. This is something that was done by Nazi Germany and now Russia. How do you think they built the soviet union? Countries stepping all over themselves saying "Oh, dominate me, replace my native language with Russian, replace my street signs and names of towns with Russian versions. Forbid the teaching of out native language in schools. Make our cultural ways and clothing illegal."
That's not what happened. russia has a history of this and it is being stopped.
Crimea will be returned to Ukrainian control in just a matter of time.
The civilized world supports Ukraine and its allies.Its a sad mindset.
Its not a matter of time, its a matter of lives.
How many more lives is Zelenksy going to throw away... for a place where everyone speaks Russian... for a place that was incorporated into Russia back in 2015.
How many hundreds of thousands have died for this stupidity.
How many more hundreds of thousands must still be killed, before it is finally realized that Crimea isn't going anywhere unless the fools in DC decide its worth WWIII and war with Russia.
President Donald Trump is the one who sent modern offensive weapons to Ukraine. He started it at the beginning of his presidency and it continued during his presidency. Without these weapons, Russia would have been able to capture Ukraine in seven days as was their plan. President Donald Trump also encouraged other NATO member states to support Ukraine with military equipment. Putin would never have invaded Ukraine during the presidency of Donald Trump. Putin stated in an interview that he was afraid of what President Donald Trump would if he challenged him. HE thought President Donald Trump was crazy.
biden appeared weak and pathetic and Putin laughed at him as does much of the world. Putin felt empowered by biden's incompetence and felt invading Ukraine would be easy with biden in the White House.
In short, No "that" doesn't say what you said. It is your opinion that it did. And that opinion is only supported by an interpreted inference. I've seen other rationalizations of claims such as yours, and they didn't work either.
You are simply inserting meanings and inferences ("that says," "ignoring the crisis," "looking the other way") that denigrate someone you view as evil. Those words weren't there, that context wasn't there. You put them there, this one's all you.
I've seen other reasonable 'resistance' explanations that don't seem so extreme: questions of financial and supply chain accountability (you should be for those, right?), and a couple of others that I don't recall. Were any of those reasons "various" ones?
If you ain't with us, you 'agin' us? Surely that isn't what you mean.
If you keep up you'll need a longer-handled shovel.
GA"I've seen other reasonable 'resistance' explanations that don't seem so extreme: questions of financial and supply chain accountability (you should be for those, right?), and a couple of others that I don't recall. Were any of those reasons "various" ones?"
-------
What are you on the warpath about this time, touchy aren't we?
What are you talking about?
I know there are other valid reasons why certain Republicans are not in on the Ukraine support, that have nothing to do with deserting the Ukraine, it is as one other poster, Mike has mention that there is still a sentiment that is opposed to any American involvement. I can listen to guys like Ken and see that his point of view is not necessary an isolated one. So, you can
Bottle the acid now.....It's not a warpath, it's the path you laid. I simply asked a question regarding something you replied to Ken: ". . . may well involve a certain amount of convenient expediency."
I asked: "When you spoke of accommodations necessary to coexist with aggressor nations, what does your "convenient expediency" mean?"
Then I just followed your answers. You've gone from; "a faction of our society that in the interests of real-politik, supports Russia and its right to invade an errant nation within the sphere of its influence," to ". . . 20% of Senate Republicans," and "various reasons," and . . . See, I was just following your path.
No worries, you stopped digging.
[EDIT]
I saw your reply and had to come back. "Bottle the acid"? Come on bud, there was no 'acid.' Gimme a break here, I've been careful since your first mention of it.
Go back to our start and follow the path of 'my' responses. They were open and inferred challenges to your answers, but they stayed politely to your points.
I kinda see it like being a good buddy, ya know, staying with you while you backpedaled, in case you fell.
GA ;-)
As speculation, I also think promoting Trump would be a dangerous road for the Democrats. It seems illogical for them to do so. The way the office seems to be weighing on Pres. Biden, a 2024 run may not be a choice. If it is, it will be hard for him to get over the 'voters' facts you mentioned.
Surely it isn't just Republicans that see the effects of the office and age on Pres. Biden. Whether he will be capable in 2024 seems a fair question. I'm thinking this is more of a dumb mistake than a plan.
GA
If he broke the law and we have evidence of him breaking the law ( the grand jury voted to indict based on that evidence) wouldn't it be political to not charge him?
Also, was the Edwards prosecution a witch hunt?
Ken,
I think t is apparent some Americans could care less about anything but getting Trump. They don't have the ability to see the damage that the Democratic party doing to the nation.
There are many articles out today chronicling past presidents (some hundreds of years ago) paying hush money to silence women they had affairs with.
NOTE: None of them were attempting to affect the outcome of an election they were currently a candidate in or attempting to perpetrate a fraud on voters.John Edwards. Presidential candidate. Hush Money from a donor.
Here is speculation about the multiple routes Bragg has left himself to get to a second crime - both election law and tax law violations - that I mentioned yesterday:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/surprise-acc … 26001.htmlI agree, Ken. It's a mess. It is not suitable for America.
The mess Bragg cooked up is only dream not a reality. It puts America in bad light globally. It'll end up shamefully on his face.
Yes, Bragg has let violent criminals go free to attack innocent people.
The Great Rush Limbaugh used to have a saying.
"Liberalism Generates the Exact Opposite of it stated Intent"
This indictment of President Donald Trump is not hurting him. It is in fact, helping him.
Before the indictment President Donald Trump was trailing biden, now he is leading biden. Since biden is the only one democrats have to run for president, this was not a good move on the part of democrats.
"Rasmussen Poll Stunner: Trump Gains 10 Points on Biden Since Indictment
Since his indictment last week, a new Rasmussen poll shows former President Donald Trump has taken a strong lead over Joe Biden in the race for president.
On Feb. 15, the Rasmussen poll had Biden leading Trump by 45% to 42%.
But in a survey conducted April 2 and 3, immediately after the announcement of the former president’s indictment but before his arraignment Tuesday, Trump took a big lead of 47% against Biden’s 40%.
"This is a 10-point net gain for Donald Trump," “Former President Trump has completely turned around the 2024 race for president.”
Other polling released this weekend showed the indictment had given Trump a boost with 51% of GOP voters supporting him over Ron DeSantis at 21% — a lead of 30 points."
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump- … d/1115150/Then there's no reason for all the whining.
Time to consider this --- Can Trump get a fair trial in New York? Alan Dershowitz, one mans view... do you disagree?
"Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz warned Wednesday that former President Donald Trump has "no chance" of getting acquitted in liberal New York City in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's unprecedented legal case.
"There's no way he can get a fair trial," he told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "I don't care if Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thurgood Marshall defended Trump in New York, he wouldn't win this case. Hung jury? Maybe. Acquittal? Never."
Dershowitz's comments came on the heels of Trump's Tuesday arraignment where he pled not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records linked to 2016 hush-money
payments.
Earlier in the "Hannity" segment, Dershowitz elaborated on his belief that Trump faces an uphill battle.
"It reminds me of when I was a civil rights person in the South… even if you didn't spit on the sidewalk if the sheriff said you spit on the sidewalk and charged you with it, there's no chance you could get acquitted by an all-White Jim Crow jury."
"Everybody knew that. You were innocent, but everyone knew you were going to be convicted," he continued.
Though Dershowitz said he didn't want to draw comparisons between the Jim Crow South and New York City, he explained that finding 12 jurors with an objective view in the Big Apple is next to impossible."
"[They] don't want to walk around town and have people say ‘That’s the juror who freed Donald Trump and allowed him to be president,'" he added.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-ders … rs-courage
ThoughtsA fair trial?
The US still has Guantanamo Bay where a lot of people are still waiting for their trial... How fair is that?
When a political figure is adjudged, of course, it will be seen as political. But it is on the judge not to look at the political side.
Same as a judge should not look at the colour of the skin of somebody, or their religion.
But does this mean that you should not bring people to justice because you will be afraid that it can be interpreted as political or racist? No, of course not, then it will be impossible to bring anybody to justice.
You can ask if you trust the justice system in the US. But that is a much broader discussion.Does this mean that just because the US has Guantamo bay they can keep going with fake prosecutions?
You do realize those held a Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war. They aren't entitled to the legal protections of a civil trial. Even the Geneva Convention says nothing about providing prisoners of war with any type of trial.
And that equates to deceiving one's self as seen in Bragg.
These presidents are human beings...mere men, though qualified with academic degree(s). They're subjected to all the weakness of the man in the street. Presidents? Yes, presidents that..in a sence are tempt(with evil) beyond their station?
It's not that Barr did not see a case, he just believed that the Presidency was not subject to the law. As to Garland, he had bigger fish to fry with the January 6 prosecutions. The perception that neither saw a case is just that, a perception.
And what no conservative seems to want to acknowledge is the tax crime side of the charges. Bragg has set it up so he doesn't need the campaign finance crimes to reach the felony level by including those crimes on top of the falsification of business records.And Braggs predisessor? I did not add it due to not wanting to use overkill. I can see your point, and I think you are right. But the fact is Trump's attorneys may bring up the reluctance of the three to prosecute. We can read to suit our own thoughts. But I think that Trump's attorneys will use those facts, and it will be hard to defend, in my view.
I mean will it not look as if all three were not willing to prosecute a crime? Is this not all threes job? I don't think it would look good to use any excuse at this point, for any of them. I would assume all three could be questioned in court on their particular reasoning. I don't think it would bode well for Garlend to say I was just too busy or I had bigger fish to fry.
I think if Braggs has come up with current brand new evidence, we will see an altogether different trial. My common sense tells me -- he has new evidence that is damming.Bragg's predecessor was retiring, so he didn't want to bring it since he knew how long it would take. And them bringing up other prosecutors choosing to not bring the case is immaterial to the facts of this case.
The SDNY was told to back off by Barr. Barr didn't think the President could be charged. And Garland has his hands full elsewhere. Is any of that really any evidence that proves Trump's innocence? None of them are fact witnesses to the crimes, so their opinions about whether they would or wouldn't have brought the case really has no bearing on the case Bragg brought.
To back up the point I have been making, notice in this segment, the guest notes the multiple crimes of falsification and tax fraud with respect to the charges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkI-8EY3Q2o&t"I invite you to travel to the UAE or Saudi Arabia, go to Dubai and then tell me you feel safer walking the streets of NY or San Francisco."
You are safer in these middle east countries because you are an American and have a strong government to protect you if you safety is compromised. But for people from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Indonesia who do most of the labor in those countries, it is not the same and they live with great risks to their safety.
Just an aside. I'm not particularly up to the moment on this string. This comment just caught my attention.It's not that they're not willing to work for it, they just need a chance that they were never historically given as white men tended to hire white men for employment. As usual, the right omits the past history of discrimination that existed and is the reasoning for some of the equity we see in today's society. Without those forced policies, there's no doubt that white men would defer to white men.
For pronouncing the Emacipation Proclamation fearlessly, Abraham Licolm, is not white. He's black. I wrote that statement in a history assignment years ago at the university.
Bragg's black and hate Trump, and want a pound of Trump's flesh!
When will wonders end?
Just for a giggle when are we going to focus on left-handed people as a minority? Lefties are 12% of the world's population. They are treated unfairly simply placing the utensils at meals on the wrong side of the plate. The righties fight them with their elbows for more room (Power struggle) sitting next to them for a meal. I am sure others can creatively think of the causes of why they are oppressed.
"What's special about left-handers?
Left-handed people are said to be good at complex reasoning, resulting in a high number of lefty Noble Prize winners, writers, artists, musicians, architects and mathematicians. According to research published in the American Journal of Psychology, lefties appear to be better at divergent thinking.
9 Weird Advantages of Being Left Handed
https://www.educationandcareernews.com/ … ft-handed/
Again, just for a giggle . . .Thanks for the giggle. The research seems to be general. And I had 3 left handed brothers. None of them fit into the data you provided. I'm still giggling.
In the space Challenger propram, there's was this non-man monkey if I'm corracted? My only foolish question is this: what was it's race that qualfy bigotry? Is it the same as all whites, or the only one black face with the screw?
Trump, is in the race to president. He'll fight on in spite of the indictment. The Democrats knows that Trump, is unstopable. They'll do anything unimaginable to throw roadblocks.
Can you define PC criteria. I googled it and the only thing that I could find had to do with Personal Computers. I'm afraid PC criteria is another term like Woke that the right is using to denigrate the left and BLM. However, I think many on this forum are arguing over something that doesn't even have a clear definition.
I have not participated in this conversation, but have been following it. I think PC in this conversation stands for political correctness.
"conformity to prevailing liberal or radical opinion, in particular by carefully avoiding forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."I feel like you and I have both been sitting by with our popcorn as this thread took a turn away from the original intent.
The term PC Criteria, is vague and had no meaning. Why the woke's in the forum are trying to use it to determined the suitability of man x or lady y for a specific high profile job, or acid v.base test baffles me. The argument is a distraction.
As a rhetorical question, because I think you do; do you not understand the intended message carried by the "PC" or "woke" labels—as they are typically used?
GA
The term PC criteria is vague to defined. It makes no sensd however. Why the woke's in the forum are using the term for and against xyz or abc baffled me. Do they mean the PC criteria can read or determine a person's character and suitability for a job or task better than a group of human beings? What does PC criteria mean?
Were you not the one that complained about conversation that digressed from the topic? What is this question about the definition of PC have to do with the Trump indictment?
It's politically correct but not politically convenient?
Credence, of course I'm the one that complained that we've digress. Have you now become a moderator? Of course again, PC criteria has nothing to do with the Trump indicted theme. But while you argued, debated with Mike, Ken, and others about the PC criteria, I don't say a word. But I do said we get back to the main topic, right? Sorry that you find my post offending.
An interesting opinion from a Yale law professor:
Even before the unprecedented indictment of former President Trump, Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg was widely accused of relying on a dubious legal theory. Many observers said the idea that a New York grand jury could charge Trump with covering up a federal crime was untested. They were wrong.
In the days before the indictment, some legal analysts warned that New York lacked jurisdiction to charge Trump with efforts to hide federal crimes such as illegally financing and influencing the presidential election. Bragg was criticized across the political spectrum for trying out a novel legal theory in a historic indictment. Even those hoping to see Trump held accountable were concerned that the questions surrounding the case could exacerbate national polarization.
When the indictment was unsealed, sighs of relief greeted the revelation that Trump could also be charged with concealing state tax crimes, which are well within Bragg’s jurisdiction. But the fact is that Bragg is on solid legal ground in accusing the former president of covering up federal crimes, too. There is nothing remotely novel about charging a defendant in one jurisdiction for trying to commit a crime in another.
Take the 1894 case in which two men, William Hall and John Dockery, fired shots from North Carolina across the border into Tennessee, where the bullets struck and killed someone. They were convicted of murder in North Carolina, but the conviction was overturned on the grounds that the killing took place in Tennessee, where they should have been brought to trial.
But what if Hall and Dockery had missed? In that case, the court made clear, North Carolina would have been within its rights to prosecute them for attempted murder. The attempted crime can take place in a jurisdiction other than the one that would rightly prosecute if the attempt were successful.
Or consider a much more recent case in New York. In 2009, Theophilis Burroughs took a deposit from undercover New York police officers and agreed to meet them in South Carolina, where he would sell them illegal guns. Had the plan been completed, Burroughs would have violated South Carolina’s gun laws, not New York’s. On these grounds, Burroughs claimed that New York had no right to prosecute him for the attempted illegal sale.
But a court rejected his argument. If you try to break South Carolina’s laws in New York, the reasoning went, you are committing a crime in New York: the crime of the attempt.
Trump, likewise, is not charged with successfully influencing a federal election. That would require showing that the election would not have proceeded as it did if he had not paid hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, which would be a very tall order. Trump may well have won in 2016 even if Daniels and McDougal told their stories before the election. If success would have required flipping the election his way, there would be at least reasonable doubt about such a charge.
Trump is really being charged with an attempt to illegally influence the election. To prove Trump is guilty of the crimes he is charged with, Bragg needs to show he was trying to hide something illegal by falsifying business records. And the crime Trump tried to commit that way need not be a crime in New York. That is, it’s as if he fired a shot across the border and, for all anyone can tell, missed.
This isn’t to say we know how the case will turn out. People with the money to hire first-rate defense attorneys are regularly acquitted of quite ordinary charges. And judges are sometimes moved by specious arguments to the effect that ordinary charges are extraordinary.
But there is nothing extraordinary, much less new, about being charged with attempting to commit a crime in the jurisdiction where you made the effort — even if the successful crime would have taken place elsewhere.
- Gideon Yaffe is a criminal law professor and a member of the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School. He is the author of “Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law.”
Related Discussions
- 98
GEORGIA INDICTMENT
by IslandBites 6 months ago
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is expected to present her case this week against former President Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 98
Keeping Up with the Acts of Domestic Terror of the MAGA Cult
by J Conn 8 months ago
Let's make it's own thread so we can keep track of the ongoing acts of domestic terror by the MAGA cult.I saw IslandBites post the link to the names and addresses of the Georgia Grand Jury that were posted online.Then there is a woman in Texas just arrested: ...
- 314
Trump indicted by grand jury for Jan. 6, effort to overturn election
by Mike Russo 6 months ago
The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against...
- 1
Trump’s 2020 fake electors charged with state crimes in Arizona
by IslandBites 42 hours ago
A state grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday indicted so-called "fake electors" who backed then-President Donald Trump in 2020, as well as key Trump aides, after a sprawling investigation into the alleged efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the presidential election in the state.Only the...