I had no idea that defending the legal system against intimidation and corruption was lawfare. I thought that once a jury came to a verdict according to law, that in itself met every standard of our justice system and our Constitution. It seems like it's the convicted criminals who use every means available to escape paying for their crimes who are trying to start a war on law.
Where do we go from here?
- Thread starter rodoheel
- Start date
- Replies: 886
- Views: 12K
- Politics
ZenMode
Honored Member
- Messages
- 851
I think there's definitely truth to this. Some voters perceived it as Democrats utilizing government to go after someone because they didn't like him. Someone one who was an outsider and was saying things they didn't like. You had a multi-year investigation into Russian collusion that turned up essentially nothing while Dem leaders, like Schiff, were claiming to have a "smoking gun". You had state candidates running on a platform that included "I'm going to get Trump". You had state DA's coming up with "creative" charges to turn hush money into something much bigger.
I think people saw that happening and it scared them. It scared them to see essentially one party come together to utilize the power of government, state and federal, to try to destroy someone... and some Dems were calling their shot about their intentions.
That doesn't mean that Trump isn't a piece of shit person and the most prolific liar ever to hold the presidency.
- Messages
- 139
It was a multi jurisdictional coordinated attack against Trump to keep him from winning the election. You keep believing otherwise if it helps you cope with the election loss.
Now Merchan needs to dismiss the fraud verdict against Trump so the Country can move on and he can serve as our duly elected President. The verdict is hopelessly tainted by the testimony of Hope Hicks given the SC's immunity decision, but the bigger issue is that you can't imprison the President elect and President of the United States.
- Messages
- 1,713
See you checking out and believing the false narrative that it was a witch hunt is the real concern.
The tictok generation isn't willing to put any effort into actually understanding.
That puts the future of the country in jeopardy. Now those running for office can simply lie about everything knowing that a great percentage of the population will simply believe and not pursue any evidence.
Was he found guilty by a jury according to the laws of the land and the Constitution? If so, he's guilty as hell if you believe in America. Hell, many of those charges came before he was even a candidate. Don't tell me that a politician thinking of running is sufficient to halt criminal charges against them. That's seriously sick thinking on your part.
He was charged separately in separate places for separate infractions and they were stonewalled by his use or power, money and intimidation. That's the pursuit of justice and you know it and his actions and those of his supporters were a criminal conspiracy.
- Messages
- 1,713
We really should change the criteria so that a convicted felon cannot run for office. Hell more Republicans don't even want them voting, yet they elected one.
uncjhodges
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 226
It’s truly mind blowing to see people twist themselves into pretzels to defend Donald Fucking Trump, a caricature of a human
TangledUpInBlue06
Active Member
- Messages
- 42
But this is a core issue with Trump and Trumpism. He walks a very fine line of criminality but there is usually plausible deniability or people willing to clam up on his behalf, etc., etc. Should we not investigate powerful people that may have broken the law? Of course we should. Powerful law-breakers are the most dangerous kind.
But then, Trump yells "political prosecution!" at any attempt to investigate. Robert Mueller was a lifelong Republican and was appointed special counsel by a Republican acting AG that was part of Trump's administration. That's not indicative of a political prosecution. That's indicative of a prosecution that involves a politician.
So where does that leave us? Should politicians be treated differently than non-politicians? Should we not investigate or prosecute politicians? That's a very bad outcome. Should we not investigate or prosecute politicians who cry political prosecution? That's not any better. Or should we investigate politicians that it appears may have broken the law and bring charges if and when the evidence supports a conviction? I imagine prosecutors would already be very wary of bringing a weak case against a politician because of that "political prosecution!" charge. But creating a political class that is immune from consequences (other than I guess not being reelected?) seems to me to be very, very dangerous.
- Messages
- 139
He's no longer a convicted felon since, under NY law, there's no conviction until final sentencing. Trump hasn't been sentenced; hence, he's not a felon.
Yes he was found guilty by a jury with legal process. No one is disputing that. It's not the jury's fault they were given faulty jury instructions and improperly were allowed to hear the testimony of Hope Hicks. These issues would have been addressed and corrected on his appeal (which is also part of his due process).
Yes he was found guilty by a jury with legal process. No one is disputing that. It's not the jury's fault they were given faulty jury instructions and improperly were allowed to hear the testimony of Hope Hicks. These issues would have been addressed and corrected on his appeal (which is also part of his due process).
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,256
Happy to share. I grew up in a small, rural town and grew up in a working class family. I know the term "working class" gets debated as to its true meaning, but I'd say that my parents were absolutely working class. My dad didn't finish high school and my mom has a GED. My dad was a construction worker and my mom was a part-time secretary. The highest annual income they ever earned together was ~$32,000 in mid-2000's dollars; I know this because I saw their Social Security income history when I was helping my mom file for my dad's survivor benefits after he died when I was in college. I grew up in a family where I had 62 first cousins, and I was ultimately the first of the cousins to attend or graduate from college. I say all of that to say, my entire family was largely non-college-educated and working class, and the overwhelming vast majority of my family still live in (and never once left) Robeson County. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church- the twice-on-Sundays, once-on-Wednesdays kind.
All of that to say, my Republican upbringing stemmed from the fact that I grew up in a largely lower-income, working class, rural, evangelical Christian environment. We supported the Republican Party because they were the party of God-fearing, Jesus-loving, rules-based law and order, support the troops, and family values. When you grow up in that kind of environment, you are naturally afraid of change, of diversity, and of people of different backgrounds and walks of life. It doesn't inherently make anyone coming from that environment a bad person; it just means that they are extraordinarily limited in the kind of worldly experiential opportunities that I believe have moderated me significantly.
I even maintained my Republican bonafides all throughout my time at UNC- I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney while I was in college- but I definitely credit my experience at UNC with being the beginning of my ideological moderation. Yet, I still voted for Trump the first time, barely two years removed from graduating from college and in my mid-20's, because old Republican habits died hard for me, and because the opponent was Hillary Clinton, whom I'd grown up to believe was a horrible person and an even worse presidential candidate. I wouldn't say that I *liked* Trump- I voted for John Kasich in the primary and hoped that literally any one of the other Republican contenders would beat him- but once he was the Republican nominee I had very little hesitation at the time to vote for him.
The beginning of the end for me with regard to my support of Trump was two-fold: the poor way that he handled the Charlottesville tragedy in 2017 by refusing to condemn white supremacists and anti-semites, followed by the disastrous summit in Finland in 2018 where he stood next to Vladimir Putin in front of the entire world and said that the United States intelligence community was a bunch of liars and that he believed the Russians over our own.
I may be more conservative ideologically than many folks in the Democratic Party, but I have zero doubts or questions as to whether the Democratic Party- regardless of what ideological or policy differences I may have on occasion- demands honor, decency, and character from its leaders; or whether the Democratic Party stands for rules-based law and order; or whether the Democratic Party believes in America's role as a global defender of freedom or democracy; or whether the Democratic Party can be trusted with our most sensitive national secrets. That's why I vote Democratic now, and why I will continue to do so for as long as the Republican Party is no longer the conservative party that it claims to be.
lawtig02
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,502
First of all, you were right about this, and I don't think many people were suggesting you were not. It was pretty clear for a long time that, as you were saying, most Americans were not really following the Trump prosecutions, and many of that group concluded they were politically motivated and therefore invalid. So I'm not disputing you were right about the optics of this.
But that still leaves the question -- what are you suggesting DOJ should have done? If DOJ concludes crimes were committed and a grand jury agrees, are you suggesting DOJ should decline to prosecute simply because the indictee is a high-profile political figure? How can that possibly be reconciled with the idea that we're a country committed to the rule of law, and no person, no matter how powerful, is above the law?
I'm really curious how you square that circle in your head.
lawtig02
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,502
Yeah, that first part is just not true. I know Pubs have been told that repeatedly, but it's just false.
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,256
Jeez almighty. It is really rough having to watch two people who claim to be conservatives twist their knickers into knots and going to the mat to defend lawlessness. That's been the worst aspect of Trumpism to me: that people like the ones on this thread were so willing to abandon the rule of law for one single person who would hate them if he met them.
You can think that criminal charges are frivolous. You can question whether the law is being applied consistently or with fairness. You are even free to think that someone is being persecuted solely because of their politics. What you can't do, however, is claim to be a conservative, and claim to love the United States of America, and swear fealty to its Constitution, and still believe that the justice system is wrong *only* in instances where you don't like its outcome. A jury of Donald Trump's peers- a jury selected by both the prosecution AND the defense- heard all of the evidence from both the prosecution and defense, and.....found the defendant criminally liable on 34 felony counts. That's literally exactly how the United States justice system is supposed to work! Like, textbook. You don't like the outcome of the verdict? The defendant can appeal! And appeal again! And appeal again! Guess what.....if that same jury of the defendant's peers had found the defendant not guilty, you'd be singing its praises.
This is why it's impossible to take these guys seriously. They don't have any principles other than "red team good, blue team bad, red team must win, blue team must lose, and if red team lose, it's rigged." One of them is claiming to be a political moderate, which is laughable because I don't know ANY moderate who thinks that the 250 year old justice system in the United States is "rigged" or that we should just completely discount a criminal conviction by a jury of the defendant's peers simply because we want to be able to vote for the defendant in a presidential election. The kind of people who think that way- that the justice system is rigged- are the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
You can think that criminal charges are frivolous. You can question whether the law is being applied consistently or with fairness. You are even free to think that someone is being persecuted solely because of their politics. What you can't do, however, is claim to be a conservative, and claim to love the United States of America, and swear fealty to its Constitution, and still believe that the justice system is wrong *only* in instances where you don't like its outcome. A jury of Donald Trump's peers- a jury selected by both the prosecution AND the defense- heard all of the evidence from both the prosecution and defense, and.....found the defendant criminally liable on 34 felony counts. That's literally exactly how the United States justice system is supposed to work! Like, textbook. You don't like the outcome of the verdict? The defendant can appeal! And appeal again! And appeal again! Guess what.....if that same jury of the defendant's peers had found the defendant not guilty, you'd be singing its praises.
This is why it's impossible to take these guys seriously. They don't have any principles other than "red team good, blue team bad, red team must win, blue team must lose, and if red team lose, it's rigged." One of them is claiming to be a political moderate, which is laughable because I don't know ANY moderate who thinks that the 250 year old justice system in the United States is "rigged" or that we should just completely discount a criminal conviction by a jury of the defendant's peers simply because we want to be able to vote for the defendant in a presidential election. The kind of people who think that way- that the justice system is rigged- are the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
Last edited:
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,256
It's as simply as "blue team bad, red team good." Nothing more, and nothing less.
I'll be completely honest: even as someone who follows politics in what is likely an unhealthy amount, I very truly could not even begin to tell you what the charges in the NY case meant. Couldn't even tell you what they were, other than vaguely knowing that the case was about illegal use of campaign funds. What I did know all along is that I trust the U.S. justice system. I trust the impartiality of its judges. I trust that the jury was constructed in a way that was agreeable to both the prosecution and defense. I trust that the jurors were able to heard every bit of evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense, and was able to consider both arguments, and came to a unanimous verdict. I trust that the defendant has the right to appeal the verdict. Thus, I trust that the justice system worked exactly as it is supposed to in this case. I'd have trusted it just as much had the verdict been 'not guilty.'
And therein lies the difference between actual conservatives like you and I, and the jokers who are cosplaying as conservatives: we don't believe in the rule of law only when it provides us with the outcome that we personally desire.
- Messages
- 139
You raise valid points. But, on the other hand, we shouldn't target powerful people with creative charges that no one else would face.
No one in NY jurisprudence ever faced fraud charges where there was no victim and the victim said it didn't rely on the statements in making its loan decisions AND appreciated the business. This was pointed out by the NY appellate court.
No one ever had
You are wrong about what I believe. I have the utmost faith in the US legal system and love the Constitution of the United States. It's pretty brazen of you to allege that I don't. I'm a practicing litigation attorney in Atlanta with 35+ years of experience so I know and appreciate the legal system and have the utmost respect for judges and juries that I appear before.
What I don't like is the weaponization of the legal system by the DOJ against DJT. There's no question the DOJ worked with the Fulton County and Manhattan district attorneys in the state court cases. I realize we're never going to agree on this but that is my opinion so don't interpret my views as "hating" the US Constitution or the legal system.
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,256
It's not brazen at all. I'm using your very own words. You are quite literally alleging that the Department of Justice was "weaponized" "rigged" and "politically-motivated" because it charged- and in one case convicted, by a jury of the defendant's peers- a career criminal. You are essentially saying that you only think the justice system works when it produced outcomes with which you agree. You may not "hate" the U.S. Constitution or the legal system, but through your very own words you believe it to be rigged- solely because it produced a negative outcome for one particular political figure with whom you align.
lawtig02
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,502
Also not true. I mean, the extremely specific facts of any case are almost always unique, but New York has brought plenty of prosecutions based on the same theory of criminality that applied in the Trump case.
This is kind of the point. A huge part of the reason Pubs thought these prosecutions were improper is because you were being lied to about them 24/7. Is it too much to ask that you at least make sure you're getting accurate information before you draw conclusions that impact your vote?
Maybe that "weaponization" was because no one who has committed so many questionable acts has been shielded by so many people with so many questionable motives. As a practicing attorney, are you suggesting creative approaches to the law within the law are not exactly what lawyers are supposed to do? Need I remind you of Al Capone's tax charges?
MOUNTAINH33L
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 75
Yep. It's totally this and not the fact that Trump is a career con man and crook.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,066
On Democrats and Class, the Writing Was on the Wall
Two writers, Thomas Frank and Joan Williams, provided sharp insight into the Democrats’ hemorrhaging of working-class voters eight years ago. The Democratic Party ignored their perspectives. We asked them to explain how we ended up here — again.
jacobin.com