Just my .02, but... I think the NYC case is “weak,” as is the latest “January 6” case. But the “boxes” case? While I am not a lawyer, I *did* have a Top Secret clearance, and he *is* guilty. Getting a conviction is another matter. Also, I find it damning - and ironic - that Trump tried to delete surveillance footage that shows his minions moving his precious “boxes.” It’s ironic because HRC *did* have a hard drive erased and had cell phones destroyed by hammers.
Yes, and if Trump is guilty of having classified docs secured at Mar-A-Lago, certainly Biden is even *more* guilty of having classified docs, that weren't even his to have, sitting in a garage next to the Corvette.
The selective enforcement is kindling on the fire. Seems that mishandling of classified docs is a "participation trophy" pastime in DC - everyone's in on it.
Yes. And I realize my statement is a logical tu quoque. The difference in the two (that I did not adequately make clear) is that, at least Trump technically had a right to be in possession (at some point) of those docs AND the authority to declassify them. Unlike Biden who did not have any authority to have those documents in his possession at all nor authority to declassify them.
I'm not trying to defend Trump (I'm neither a Trump fan nor a never-Trumper). If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. I just don't see his indictments as anything other than attempts to distract from all of the legitimate evidence (let's face it - the vast majority of claims brought against Trump have been, well, trumped up) of Biden family corruption that continues to come to light.
Either way, the selective enforcement and weaponization of the alphabet agencies is serious banana republic behavior.
As I noted elsewhere, the classified docs bit leans toward nothing-burger status. His actions in response might be more severe, but then you run into the issue of prosecuting a response to a nothing-burger. The election interference is an interesting bit, an intersection of free speech with some more substantially bad actions.
I'm waiting to see how this all unfolds.
And, while it is indeed tu quoque, from a political perspective it is absolutely germane to comment on the disparate treatment that the Bidens are getting.
I agree we all need to "watch the process unfold" and see how this all ends up. However, I have no scruples against putting in my 2 cents worth and rooting for the prosecution. That [redacted] needs to be behind bars, if for no other reason than it improves the odds that we're finally done with him.
But, don't you see the problem with the "if for no other reason" part? Contorting the law in order to remove him from the playing field is the stuff of dictatorships and banana republics. It erodes the public trust and it pretty much guarantees that political prosecutions will become the new normal.
Years ago, when the first investigations into Trump started, a friend and I argued about it. I pointed out, then, that any conviction had to be on clear and substantial grounds, not on some penny-ante crap or via legal jiujitsu. Without comment on the merits of today's cases, I still hold that position.
Do you expect highly factionalized voters (much so due to instigation by politicians and their shills in media) are likely to change course of their own volition?
I am close to someone, a good person, who was convicted of a crime by a creative prosecutor on a creative legal theory, so I have seen first hand the incredible damage that can be done by this type of mindset. That is why, however I may "feel" about Trump or Biden morally (they both appear to be dirtbags), I am horrified by the stretch-the-law-to-the-max method to get Trump by any means as well as by the shrink-the-law-to-the-max method to let the Bidens skate. While perhaps the documents case appears strong, the Bragg indictment is a perfect example of prosecutorial abuse. But what does it matter? Folks should realize that prosecutors have massive power to wreck lives (far more than police officers), and they have almost no accountability. They almost never face consequences for any malfeasance, even if clear.
If I could do one thing, I would educate every young person on just how dangerous this path is. I think most people cheering this on do so because they feel safe. They are "good people", so it will never happen to them, and statistically that is probably the case. But Trump is actually correct when he says if they can do it to him, they can do it to anybody - at least he has the resources to resist. Most don't. The 'give the devil the benefit of the law' has become one of my favorite quotes.
There is an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association https://fija.org whose purpose is to inform jurors about nullification - that in the jury room they can vote their conscience even if the letter of the law says something and even if the judge instructs them to follow the law.
The system hates them, and they've been repeatedly stopped from handing out fliers at courthouses, under the pretext of "jury tampering," even though their efforts were in no way related to any particular case or jury.
The principle of “by any means necessary” mentality of that prosecutor perfectly illustrates Peter’s point! Who knows what is behind his twisting of the law, ambition, greed, malice, who knows. This principle is fertile ground to those who feel hatred and rage towards DT. In their minds it provides justification to pack the case against him to guarantee a conviction. Please accept my deep sympathies regarding the person you have told us about.
Just my .02, but... I think the NYC case is “weak,” as is the latest “January 6” case. But the “boxes” case? While I am not a lawyer, I *did* have a Top Secret clearance, and he *is* guilty. Getting a conviction is another matter. Also, I find it damning - and ironic - that Trump tried to delete surveillance footage that shows his minions moving his precious “boxes.” It’s ironic because HRC *did* have a hard drive erased and had cell phones destroyed by hammers.
What's the old gag? "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."
And, yes, Trump, per my read, is guilty on the classified docs matter. As, apparently, many politicians.
Yes, and if Trump is guilty of having classified docs secured at Mar-A-Lago, certainly Biden is even *more* guilty of having classified docs, that weren't even his to have, sitting in a garage next to the Corvette.
The selective enforcement is kindling on the fire. Seems that mishandling of classified docs is a "participation trophy" pastime in DC - everyone's in on it.
Yes. And I realize my statement is a logical tu quoque. The difference in the two (that I did not adequately make clear) is that, at least Trump technically had a right to be in possession (at some point) of those docs AND the authority to declassify them. Unlike Biden who did not have any authority to have those documents in his possession at all nor authority to declassify them.
I'm not trying to defend Trump (I'm neither a Trump fan nor a never-Trumper). If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. I just don't see his indictments as anything other than attempts to distract from all of the legitimate evidence (let's face it - the vast majority of claims brought against Trump have been, well, trumped up) of Biden family corruption that continues to come to light.
Either way, the selective enforcement and weaponization of the alphabet agencies is serious banana republic behavior.
As I noted elsewhere, the classified docs bit leans toward nothing-burger status. His actions in response might be more severe, but then you run into the issue of prosecuting a response to a nothing-burger. The election interference is an interesting bit, an intersection of free speech with some more substantially bad actions.
I'm waiting to see how this all unfolds.
And, while it is indeed tu quoque, from a political perspective it is absolutely germane to comment on the disparate treatment that the Bidens are getting.
I agree we all need to "watch the process unfold" and see how this all ends up. However, I have no scruples against putting in my 2 cents worth and rooting for the prosecution. That [redacted] needs to be behind bars, if for no other reason than it improves the odds that we're finally done with him.
But, don't you see the problem with the "if for no other reason" part? Contorting the law in order to remove him from the playing field is the stuff of dictatorships and banana republics. It erodes the public trust and it pretty much guarantees that political prosecutions will become the new normal.
Years ago, when the first investigations into Trump started, a friend and I argued about it. I pointed out, then, that any conviction had to be on clear and substantial grounds, not on some penny-ante crap or via legal jiujitsu. Without comment on the merits of today's cases, I still hold that position.
Unfortunately, much of the public trust is already gone, and we are well into banana republic territory.
It only starts to get reversed when people start taking the high road again.
That's asking an awful lot when it comes to politicians.
Voters first.
Do you expect highly factionalized voters (much so due to instigation by politicians and their shills in media) are likely to change course of their own volition?
I am close to someone, a good person, who was convicted of a crime by a creative prosecutor on a creative legal theory, so I have seen first hand the incredible damage that can be done by this type of mindset. That is why, however I may "feel" about Trump or Biden morally (they both appear to be dirtbags), I am horrified by the stretch-the-law-to-the-max method to get Trump by any means as well as by the shrink-the-law-to-the-max method to let the Bidens skate. While perhaps the documents case appears strong, the Bragg indictment is a perfect example of prosecutorial abuse. But what does it matter? Folks should realize that prosecutors have massive power to wreck lives (far more than police officers), and they have almost no accountability. They almost never face consequences for any malfeasance, even if clear.
If I could do one thing, I would educate every young person on just how dangerous this path is. I think most people cheering this on do so because they feel safe. They are "good people", so it will never happen to them, and statistically that is probably the case. But Trump is actually correct when he says if they can do it to him, they can do it to anybody - at least he has the resources to resist. Most don't. The 'give the devil the benefit of the law' has become one of my favorite quotes.
There is an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association https://fija.org whose purpose is to inform jurors about nullification - that in the jury room they can vote their conscience even if the letter of the law says something and even if the judge instructs them to follow the law.
The system hates them, and they've been repeatedly stopped from handing out fliers at courthouses, under the pretext of "jury tampering," even though their efforts were in no way related to any particular case or jury.
The principle of “by any means necessary” mentality of that prosecutor perfectly illustrates Peter’s point! Who knows what is behind his twisting of the law, ambition, greed, malice, who knows. This principle is fertile ground to those who feel hatred and rage towards DT. In their minds it provides justification to pack the case against him to guarantee a conviction. Please accept my deep sympathies regarding the person you have told us about.
Thank you! The case is currently being appealed, so fingers crossed that his story may have a happier ending.
Best of luck!!!🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻