Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:26 pm DC, have you seen all the charges Trump is accused of?

isn't it like over 30 counts?

It's 34 counts (which, ironically enough, is possible grounds to claim prosecutorial misconduct). And MAYBE he has something other than what we've all heard about for two years. And maybe there's a legitimate/not-political reason he reopened the case after also initially declining to pursue it himself.

And if so, and if those charges/reasons are more substantive than what we've seen, then I'll follow Keynes's advice.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:32 pm When your argument boils down to "grand juries iz alwayz rite," you have waved your own white flag.

As for federal vs. NY law, you're trying to make the case that NY law better addresses campaign finance violations that BOTH the DoJ and the Federal ELECTION Commission declined to pursue?

Oooookay.

I have made no statement on this either way, but if you want something more definitive, I think the jury has spoken and as per the law it should be allowed to play out and see what comes of it.

I would quote trump himself making this statement the day before the indictment about the grand jury and the process.

I HAVE GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY, & PERHAPS EVEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE... THE GRAND JURY IS SAYING, HOLD ON, WE ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP, WHICH MOST GRAND JURIES ARE BRANDED AS BEING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

Your know it is a real trump quote because it is all caps. He was obviously expecting different results but his statement is clear.

You and Randall et al have stated that the grand jury is wrong and I assume you must have something to back that up. What do you base that on?

State laws and Federal laws are not the same. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other. But there are differences. In Missouri I can walk into a dispensary and buy an 1/8 ounce of weed and it is legal. But both ends of the transaction are a violation of federal law and would be prosecuted in Kansas.

My question was why is the fact that the feds declined to prosecute, but the State and a grand jury has decided that NY State laws have been violated proof that this system is rigged against your boy trump?

The Feds tried to prosecute Edwards years ago for similar. The Feds learned the lesson that it is not a violation of Federal law, so kudos to them for not wasting time trying to prosecute trump. But so far a grand jury has found that trump's actions may violate NY State law. Once again if you and Randall disagree with their findings, on what grounds do you base your legal disagreement?

whaddya mean if those charges/reasons are more substantive than what we've seen?

for real, what charges have we seen? I know there are apparently 34, including at least one felony, but I haven't found an itemized list.

I'm kinda curious if the charges stem less from the paying-a-porn-star stuff directly in itself, and more after-the-fact fraud or obstruction-of-justice type stuff.

but, regardless of IF...kinda sounds like DC has already doubled down on declaring this is all NBD regardless.

I'm almost tempted to wonder if DC would still be so dismissive if the charges were against like the Clintons or sumptin, but meh whatever.

anywho so tell us more about Hunter!

You're honestly hinging your argument on the infallibility and independence of (NYC) grand juries?

You could make a weaker case, I suppose, but I'm not sure how.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:12 pm whaddya mean if those charges/reasons are more substantive than what we've seen?

for real, what charges have we seen? I know there are apparently 34, including at least one felony, but I haven't found an itemized list.

I'm kinda curious if the charges stem less from the paying-a-porn-star stuff directly in itself, and more after-the-fact fraud or obstruction-of-justice type stuff.

but, regardless of IF...kinda sounds like DC has already doubled down on declaring this is all NBD regardless.

I'm almost tempted to wonder if DC would still be so dismissive if the charges were against like the Clintons or sumptin, but meh whatever.

anywho so tell us more about Hunter!

Settle down.

My argument is precisely the OPPOSITE of whatboutism. It's that this case is poorly considered and will result in further partisan division in matters that should be non-partisan. In other words, it will CREATE whataboutism on a grand scale. "You got Trump fer boolshit! Well...whatabout Hunter? We're gonna get him now too!"

Wait

Let’s recap…

so the argument that this case will CREATE whataboutism on a grand scale is actually the OPPOSITE of whatboutism…?

Bro but if I wanted to discuss how 2+2=5 I would just engage everyone besides you in the war thread.

And as far as resulting in further partisan division in matters that should be non-partisan…who is making this partisan, again?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:49 pm Wait

Let’s recap…

so the argument that this case will CREATE whataboutism on a grand scale is actually the OPPOSITE of whatboutism…?

Bro but if I wanted to discuss how 2+2=5 I would just engage everyone besides you in the war thread.

And as far as resulting in further partisan division in matters that should be non-partisan…who is making this partisan, again?

so the argument that this case will CREATE whataboutism on a grand scale is actually the OPPOSITE of whatboutism…?

It's confusing for you, I know. But sound it out.

And as far as resulting in further partisan division in matters that should be non-partisan…who is making this partisan, again?

Alvin Bragg?

Again, to reiterate: this case was dropped by the Department of Justice, by the Federal Election Commission, and by Alvin Bragg. It was revived by Alvin Bragg after his former deputy wrote a book about the case, bitching that Bragg ran on the promise of "getting tRuMp!" but failed to follow through on his promise.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:13 pm You're honestly hinging your argument on the infallibility and independence of (NYC) grand juries?

Nope, but you know that.

But if you repeat that enough times I suspect it will become the "truth" for Randall.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:04 pm It was revived by Alvin Bragg after his former deputy wrote a book about the case, bitching that Bragg ran on the promise of "getting tRuMp!" but failed to follow through on his promise.

Now we are getting somewhere, I think might actually be a fact. You can do this when you try!

But remind me how many seats on the grand jury Bragg sits in?

Or did the whole grand jury make a promise about "getting tRuMp!" cuz I haven't heard about that.

I, for one, think that the rule of law would be harmed more by NOT prosecuting crimes, than by prosecuting them.

And maybe it will be that the evidence is too thin, or the charges too esoteric, or something else will happen that causes a jury to not unanimously find guilt.

If that happens, then it’s evidence of the system working as designed.

But it’s about damn time that the people with the power to try to hold Trump to account, fucking DO that.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:57 pm I, for one, think that the rule of law would be harmed more by NOT prosecuting crimes, than by prosecuting them.

And maybe it will be that the evidence is too thin, or the charges too esoteric, or something else will happen that causes a jury to not unanimously find guilt.

If that happens, then it’s evidence of the system working as designed.

But it’s about damn time that the people with the power to try to hold Trump to account, fucking DO that.

I, for one, think that the rule of law would be harmed more by NOT prosecuting crimes, than by prosecuting them.
That's a perfectly reasonable sentiment -- moderate, fair, and sensible.

If that happens, then it’s evidence of the system working as designed.
That is not. In fact, it's insane. "If this turns out to be a crock of shit, that just proves that it wasn't a crock of shit!"

I don't think that's the way it works.

it’s about damn time that the people with the power to try to hold Trump to account, fucking DO that.
I don't disagree. I loathe him, and my loathing will grow as he continues to push actual decent candidates out of the race and/or suck up all the oxygen in the room. But this isn't it. This plays into his hands. Obstruction of justice over Mar-a-Lago or election tampering in Fulton County wouldn't do the same because they aren't/can't be made to look (depending on one's perspective) frivolous and partisan.

japhy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:30 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:13 pm You're honestly hinging your argument on the infallibility and independence of (NYC) grand juries?

Nope, but you know that.

japhy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:35 pm
But remind me how many seats on the grand jury Bragg sits in?

Or did the whole grand jury make a promise about "getting tRuMp!" cuz I haven't heard about that.

These two sentiments are a touch at odds with one another.

The whole "ham sandwich" thing is trite, but it's also a reference to how much power prosecutors wield over grand juries. It's an established fact. Plus, we're dealing with Manhattanites. For the record, in the election Trump actually WON, HRC beat him by 40 points in Manhattan. These are NOT exactly fans.

I too wish that the prosecution of one of Trump's other crimes had won the felony lottery, and lord knows he has plenty to choose from, but here we are.

The allegation that Bragg must be doing this for nefarious or political reasons because the Feds could have, but apparently chose not to pursue the case because it was so weak, is a little more nuanced.
See below.

I have listened to a plethora of former prosecutors who have worked with Bragg over the years and they seem to hold him in high regard, and don't think he would have bothered to reopen the case if he didn't have something.

But, even if he does, will that "something", be "enough"?

Why was Trump indicted by the Manhattan D.A. over hush money, but not by the Justice Department?
Some of the reasons appear to concern how federal prosecutors viewed Donald J. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen.

One aspect of the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Trump that has drawn considerable attention is why a local prosecutor brought charges linked to possible violations of federal campaign laws — and why the Justice Department has not...

The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.

In 2018, the Southern District prosecutors brought charges against Mr. Cohen for paying $130,000 in hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. During that investigation, the federal prosecutors concluded that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to pay off Ms. Daniels to keep her quiet about a sexual liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump. He has denied her assertion...

The federal prosecutors, and later Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, determined that prosecuting him (Trump) would have violated a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that was interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president.

That protection disappeared the moment Mr. Trump left office.

Mr. Trump’s defenders have seized on the fact that no federal charges have been brought against the former president in connection with the hush money payment to portray the actions of Mr. Bragg as motivated by partisanship.

The decision not to indict appeared to be rooted in lingering concerns about Mr. Cohen’s credibility and cooperation as a government witness.

The Southern District prosecutors had informed Mr. Cohen that he had to provide a comprehensive accounting of his conduct as a condition of a cooperation deal, but he declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his past, the prosecutors said in a 2018 court filing.

That ran afoul of a longstanding policy followed by the Southern District regarding cooperation agreements, according to current and former Justice Department officials: A potential cooperating witness must divulge the entire range of their criminal conduct over their lifetime to get a deal.

It is a rule “that not every U.S. attorney’s office uses” but has become an essential requirement to bringing cases in the Southern District, one of the country’s busiest and most scrutinized legal venues, said Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama law professor, in a post on Substack.

Such an accounting must “encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others,” the Southern District prosecutors wrote in the 2018 court filing that seemed to lament Mr. Cohen’s recalcitrance. The prosecutors said they had found Mr. Cohen to be “forthright and credible.”

“Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have been fruitful,” the prosecutors wrote. But because he did not, the prosecutors said, the “inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness.”

[...]

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:33 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:57 pm I, for one, think that the rule of law would be harmed more by NOT prosecuting crimes, than by prosecuting them.

And maybe it will be that the evidence is too thin, or the charges too esoteric, or something else will happen that causes a jury to not unanimously find guilt.

If that happens, then it’s evidence of the system working as designed.

But it’s about damn time that the people with the power to try to hold Trump to account, fucking DO that.

I, for one, think that the rule of law would be harmed more by NOT prosecuting crimes, than by prosecuting them.
That's a perfectly reasonable sentiment -- moderate, fair, and sensible.

If that happens, then it’s evidence of the system working as designed.
That is not. In fact, it's insane. "If this turns out to be a crock of shit, that just proves that it wasn't a crock of shit!"

I don't think that's the way it works.

it’s about damn time that the people with the power to try to hold Trump to account, fucking DO that.
I don't disagree. I loathe him, and my loathing will grow as he continues to push actual decent candidates out of the race and/or suck up all the oxygen in the room. But this isn't it. This plays into his hands. Obstruction of justice over Mar-a-Lago or election tampering in Fulton County wouldn't do the same because they aren't/can't be made to look (depending on one's perspective) frivolous and partisan.

I do not follow your crock of shit comment.

If Bragg is unable to make his case, and Trump is found not guilty, then he will not be convicted or punished for the crimes with which he is charged).

That would be the system working as designed (even if Trump in fact did commit the crimes with which he is charged).

As to your last point: this is a party leadership problem, not a Trump problem. At any one of ten thousand points in the last six years, party leadership (both the RNC itself, and elected officials, as well of course as right-leaning media) could have stopped this. Instead, all of them - ALL OF THEM - chose to ride the sugar high.

Now they’re hostage to the monster they created.

Also - I STRONGLY disagree that the Georgia/DOJ stuff “can’t be made to look frivolous and partisan.” That’s going to be claimed no matter what. So it’s time for people to STOP BEING COWARDS about doing their jobs.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:52 pm I do not follow your crock of shit comment.

If Bragg is unable to make his case, and Trump is found not guilty, then he will not be convicted or punished for the crimes with which he is charged).

That would be the system working as designed (even if Trump in fact did commit the crimes with which he is charged).

As to your last point: this is a party leadership problem, not a Trump problem. At any one of ten thousand points in the last six years, party leadership (both the RNC itself, and elected officials, as well of course as right-leaning media) could have stopped this. Instead, all of them - ALL OF THEM - chose to ride the sugar high.

Now they’re hostage to the monster they created.

That wouldn't be true, even if the defendant weren't the frontrunner for the opposition party's presidential nomination. It's even less so, given that he is.

And speaking of Trump being the frontrunner (by a loooong way) for the nomination, that speaks to your other point, which is far more complicated than you suggest. Yes, the GOP's leaders are weak-kneed and craven, but then, that's an issue in more ways than one. Not only does it explain why Trump has been indulged but also why Trump exists in the first place. The failure of the GOP leadership from 1998-2016 is, I think more relevant to the current condition than its failures from 2016-today.

That said, there is more than enough blame to go around.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:59 pm Also - I STRONGLY disagree that the Georgia/DOJ stuff “can’t be made to look frivolous and partisan.” That’s going to be claimed no matter what. So it’s time for people to STOP BEING COWARDS about doing their jobs.

Of course that's going to be claimed, but those charges will be treated more seriously by serious people -- including many who are mocking Bragg today.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 7:06 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:59 pm Also - I STRONGLY disagree that the Georgia/DOJ stuff “can’t be made to look frivolous and partisan.” That’s going to be claimed no matter what. So it’s time for people to STOP BEING COWARDS about doing their jobs.

Of course that's going to be claimed, but those charges will be treated more seriously by serious people -- including many who are mocking Bragg today.

If you are rooting for the serious people to take the more serious charges seriously, then it’s not the worst thing for the NY process to bleed some of the crazy out of the system.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 7:04 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:52 pm I do not follow your crock of shit comment.

If Bragg is unable to make his case, and Trump is found not guilty, then he will not be convicted or punished for the crimes with which he is charged).

That would be the system working as designed (even if Trump in fact did commit the crimes with which he is charged).

As to your last point: this is a party leadership problem, not a Trump problem. At any one of ten thousand points in the last six years, party leadership (both the RNC itself, and elected officials, as well of course as right-leaning media) could have stopped this. Instead, all of them - ALL OF THEM - chose to ride the sugar high.

Now they’re hostage to the monster they created.

That wouldn't be true, even if the defendant weren't the frontrunner for the opposition party's presidential nomination. It's even less so, given that he is.

And speaking of Trump being the frontrunner (by a loooong way) for the nomination, that speaks to your other point, which is far more complicated than you suggest. Yes, the GOP's leaders are weak-kneed and craven, but then, that's an issue in more ways than one. Not only does it explain why Trump has been indulged but also why Trump exists in the first place. The failure of the GOP leadership from 1998-2016 is, I think more relevant to the current condition than its failures from 2016-today.

That said, there is more than enough blame to go around.

I am still not following.

A grand jury voted to indict Trump.

Bragg chose to indict and bring charges.

If Bragg’s office can’t make its case, then Trump will not be convicted of or punished for crimes pertaining to those charges.

What am I missing here? That’s *exactly* how it’s supposed to work!

Speaking of charges, they let Andrew Tate out of jail!

It's about time, speaking the truth should not be a crime