Former president trump indicted.

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
One might suggest the actual risk is a nation where political opposition is imprisoned on spurious charges... Like, I have no hesitation agreeing to the idea that the nation would be better off with Trump in prison, but a nation that imprisons people out of convenience is a real bad place to be.
What part is spurious? He did commit fraud. This isn't a Lula da Silva or Alexei Navalny situation we're talking about. He did it.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,084
1,849
118
Country
USA
One might suggest the actual risk is a nation where political opposition is imprisoned on spurious charges... Like, I have no hesitation agreeing to the idea that the nation would be better off with Trump in prison, but a nation that imprisons people out of convenience is a real bad place to be.
Remember when Gary Hart's campaign derailed due to an exposed adultery by him? The zeitgeist worried that the political environment had become so toxic that normal people with good ideas, who are imperfect people as all of us are, would fear to run for office? Good times, good times.
1680268086416.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absent and BrawlMan

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,330
1,645
118
Remember when Gary Hart's campaign derailed due to an exposed adultery by him? The zeitgeist worried that the political environment had become so toxic that normal people with good ideas, who are imperfect people as all of us are, would fear to run for office? Good times, good times.
View attachment 8399
He's not being indicated for sleeping with her, he's being indicted for trying to cover it up.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,084
1,849
118
Country
USA
He's not being indicated for sleeping with her, he's being indicted for trying to cover it up.
I think the jury has to conclude, unanimously, that he tried to cover it up for election purposes when a reasonable person would have to agree that it is possible that he covered it up so as not to piss off his wife (John Edwards case is a president). Not that I'm writing that I expect a New York jury to be reasonable. Even after that, the judge has the power to over-turn their verdict calling it unreasonable. Still, jury nullification can work in two ways (not convict the blatantly guilty but also, convict the plausibly innocent: see the nanny/shaken baby criminal case) and he could go to jail.

Saying goes that if a cop follows you driving in traffic for 2 hours, you're getting a ticket. To come up with a 30 count indictment arising out of a fact pattern already rejected at the federal level, upon which statute ran in 2018 for direct crimes arising from this fact pattern, displays an outrageous abuse of power and indiscretion on the part of this prosecutor. This is political. Does anyone really doubt that?

Hence my point: I am afraid to ever run for office. I'm sure they could, metaphorically speaking, follow me, you, or anyone for 2 hours and find something. They will be spurned on to do that if you DARE divert from the narrative. That is Trump's real crime.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
One might suggest the actual risk is a nation where political opposition is imprisoned on spurious charges. Like, I have no hesitation agreeing to the idea that the nation would be better off with Trump in prison, but a nation that imprisons people out of convenience is a real bad place to be.
The bigger problem is that Trump wasn't jailed over numerous frauds long before he ever became president.

If a country is run by its socioeconomic elites and won't hold its socioeconomic elites accountable for misconduct, then it can expect to be run by people prone to misconduct.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,585
3,539
118
Hence my point: I am afraid to ever run for office. I'm sure they could, metaphorically speaking, follow me, you, or anyone for 2 hours and find something. They will be spurned on to do that if you DARE divert from the narrative. That is Trump's real crime.
Well, that and all the other very real and serious crime's Trump has committed.

However, yes, there is an element of truth in that. Trump got away with all sorts of crimes because he didn't rock the boat and he targeted the right people. When he got too big for his boots and started making a mess for other people that matter (not by trying to reduce their crimes or anything, mind, just making things worse for everyone including the people you are supposed to leave alone), he crossed a line.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,330
1,645
118
I think the jury has to conclude, unanimously, that he tried to cover it up for election purposes when a reasonable person would have to agree that it is possible that he covered it up so as not to piss off his wife (John Edwards case is a president). Not that I'm writing that I expect a New York jury to be reasonable. Even after that, the judge has the power to over-turn their verdict calling it unreasonable. Still, jury nullification can work in two ways (not convict the blatantly guilty but also, convict the plausibly innocent: see the nanny/shaken baby criminal case) and he could go to jail.

Saying goes that if a cop follows you driving in traffic for 2 hours, you're getting a ticket. To come up with a 30 count indictment arising out of a fact pattern already rejected at the federal level, upon which statute ran in 2018 for direct crimes arising from this fact pattern, displays an outrageous abuse of power and indiscretion on the part of this prosecutor. This is political. Does anyone really doubt that?

Hence my point: I am afraid to ever run for office. I'm sure they could, metaphorically speaking, follow me, you, or anyone for 2 hours and find something. They will be spurned on to do that if you DARE divert from the narrative. That is Trump's real crime.
The problem is that Trump was president after the fact, so that's why it didn't happen back then and that's why he wasn't charged at the federal level. Now if you think a president should be above the law, that's your opinion, but I think quite the opposite. As far as him covering it up for marriage purpose, his wife knew full well that he cheated on her, he also cheated on all his previous wife, case in point, even now that everyone know he sleep with porn star, she hasn't left him.

Again, he's not being charged for ignoring a red light, he payed someone to kill a story, a story that the public should be allowed to decide whether or not they consider that important when electing someone, the person who covered it up for Trump literally went to jail over this. Shouldn't Trump also go to jail for it? And he also ignored campaign finance law, again maybe you think it's fine if politician spend infinite amount of money in election, but I think there should be less not more money used to elect politician.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
I'm not a great political mind but I'm not understanding all of the "THIS WILL GET TRUMP ELECTED NOW!" rhetoric.

Is there a single soul out there who was not on Team Trump but now this is what flipped them? I kind of feel like you're either Team Trump or you're not at this point...
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
(not convict the blatantly guilty but also, convict the plausibly innocent: see the nanny/shaken baby criminal case) and he could go to jail.
It might depend on the case you're referring to, but the one I think you might mean the nanny was convicted of murder by the jury, and the judge upheld the conviction but changed the charge to manslaughter. (And then released her on time already served in remand.)

I am no expert of US law, but whilst a judge can overturn a verdict of guilty, I do not believe they can overturn an acquittal.

That is Trump's real crime.
Well, here's the thing: Trump is irrevocably corrupt and was so long before even 2016, never mind all the stuff he's added since.

I would argue the reverse is true: the only reason anyone's seriously defending him against being jailed is because he's a politician.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,084
1,849
118
Country
USA
Well, that and all the other very real and serious crime's Trump has committed.

However, yes, there is an element of truth in that. Trump got away with all sorts of crimes because he didn't rock the boat and he targeted the right people. When he got too big for his boots and started making a mess for other people that matter (not by trying to reduce their crimes or anything, mind, just making things worse for everyone including the people you are supposed to leave alone), he crossed a line.
Your timeline works, I think, if you see how the media and Hillary Clinton championed Trump and got him to win the primary, and then he started pushing the "Hillary for Prison" stuff, crossing the wrong (her) people. But once in office, hell, before then, the metaphorical police were already following him in traffic. He had spoken critically of our involvement in NATO. China was transgressing us. There appeared to be nothing in it for the American people to be engaged in forever wars (he wanted to know why we weren't getting cheap or even free oil for our services in the mid-east. Which is a vulgar and wrong way to look at the duties of the POTUS when using our military.) Don't recall if he started calling it fake news during the campaign or not, but that was surely a no-no.

The problem is that Trump was president after the fact, so that's why it didn't happen back then and that's why he wasn't charged at the federal level. Now if you think a president should be above the law, that's your opinion, but I think quite the opposite. As far as him covering it up for marriage purpose, his wife knew full well that he cheated on her, he also cheated on all his previous wife, case in point, even now that everyone know he sleep with porn star, she hasn't left him.

Again, he's not being charged for ignoring a red light, he payed someone to kill a story, a story that the public should be allowed to decide whether or not they consider that important when electing someone, the person who covered it up for Trump literally went to jail over this. Shouldn't Trump also go to jail for it? And he also ignored campaign finance law, again maybe you think it's fine if politician spend infinite amount of money in election, but I think there should be less not more money used to elect politician.
He's not POTUS now, and not being charged at the Federal level.
Were you him, would you really not think you do not want your wife reading about you schtupping a hooker in all the news media? I dunno. Maybe you individually are very libertine?

Alan Dershowitz says a prosecutor should never get creative. They have the awesome might of the state behind them. They have the discretion to use it wisely. There are plenty of real, serious crimes out there one doesn't need to be creative about to get a conviction.

With things like Faucci telling Rand Paul he doesn't know what he's talking about when accused of funding gain of function research, which they were, without facing felony perjury charges while this nonsense happens?

We are living in a country with two sets of laws: rules for thee but not for me. And that is very destructive.

It might depend on the case you're referring to, but the one I think you might mean the nanny was convicted of murder by the jury, and the judge upheld the conviction but changed the charge to manslaughter. (And then released her on time already served in remand.)
Correct case. I don't think the jury really believed the 2nd degree murder charge, but the manslaughter charge had been dropped so, it was find her guilty of the 2nd, which they didn't believe or let her go, which they didn't want to do. So, reverse jury nullification. They found her guilty of something the judge found not proven, but he was able to reinstate the manslaughter charge. (My recollection was the defense gambled: it believed leaving it gave the jury an out to convict her of manslaughter: drop it and they have to convict on 2nd... Defense just didn't realize that they'd actually do just that!)

I am no expert of US law, but whilst a judge can overturn a verdict of guilty, I do not believe they can overturn an acquittal.
Sadly correct. The Yankel Rosenbaum case really pissed me off back in the day. But that's how it should go.

Well, here's the thing: Trump is irrevocably corrupt and was so long before even 2016, never mind all the stuff he's added since.
I would argue the reverse is true: the only reason anyone's seriously defending him against being jailed is because he's a politician.
It can be fun to play devil's advocate. I wish Trump would not run as, even if he wins, he becomes the topic. We rehash the past rather than move forward. And he is a spectacularly flawed human being. His way with women alone makes him detestable to people to whom he needs to attract.

But as I've written above, I think this prosecutor is getting wildly creative. Using a fact pattern the direct crimes for which, were he even plausibly guilty of them, blew statute in 2018? This is nuts. I've never seen the kind of derangement for any US politician before. Ever. Not Reagan, not Lori Lightfoot, nobody.

This is lawfare, in politics, where they cannot beat a politician on the merits of his positions, so they use the system they control to undermine him. Kinda like the FBI lying to a FISA court so they can wiretap a major political candidate.

Scary times.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
With things like Faucci telling Rand Paul he doesn't know what he's talking about when accused of funding gain of function research, which they were, without facing felony perjury charges while this nonsense happens?
You are aware that Fauci was right, though? There's a simple reason no-one would pursue Fauci for perjury: he didn't do it.

What Rand Paul does is play semantics. "Gain of function" in virology refers to a relatively specific form of experiment. Rand Paul simply attempts to redefine that accepted technical term with an ad hoc vernacular construction, and use that bogus construction to call Fauci a liar.

Let's bear in mind that Rand Paul has a medical degree: he doesn't have the excuse of being a layman unable to understand this sort of thing. He knows exactly what he is doing: it's all theatre, from the moment he explains perjury to Fauci. He knows Fauci hasn't committed perjury. It is a performative grilling of a civil servant with utter bullshit just to score points for his side. It's amongst the worst sort of politics: deliberate misinformation for political gain.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Your timeline works, I think, if you see how the media and Hillary Clinton championed Trump and got him to win the primary, and then he started pushing the "Hillary for Prison" stuff, crossing the wrong (her) people. But once in office, hell, before then, the metaphorical police were already following him in traffic. He had spoken critically of our involvement in NATO. China was transgressing us. There appeared to be nothing in it for the American people to be engaged in forever wars (he wanted to know why we weren't getting cheap or even free oil for our services in the mid-east. Which is a vulgar and wrong way to look at the duties of the POTUS when using our military.) Don't recall if he started calling it fake news during the campaign or not, but that was surely a no-no.


He's not POTUS now, and not being charged at the Federal level.
Were you him, would you really not think you do not want your wife reading about you schtupping a hooker in all the news media? I dunno. Maybe you individually are very libertine?

Alan Dershowitz says a prosecutor should never get creative. They have the awesome might of the state behind them. They have the discretion to use it wisely. There are plenty of real, serious crimes out there one doesn't need to be creative about to get a conviction.

With things like Faucci telling Rand Paul he doesn't know what he's talking about when accused of funding gain of function research, which they were, without facing felony perjury charges while this nonsense happens?

We are living in a country with two sets of laws: rules for thee but not for me. And that is very destructive.



Correct case. I don't think the jury really believed the 2nd degree murder charge, but the manslaughter charge had been dropped so, it was find her guilty of the 2nd, which they didn't believe or let her go, which they didn't want to do. So, reverse jury nullification. They found her guilty of something the judge found not proven, but he was able to reinstate the manslaughter charge. (My recollection was the defense gambled: it believed leaving it gave the jury an out to convict her of manslaughter: drop it and they have to convict on 2nd... Defense just didn't realize that they'd actually do just that!)



Sadly correct. The Yankel Rosenbaum case really pissed me off back in the day. But that's how it should go.


It can be fun to play devil's advocate. I wish Trump would not run as, even if he wins, he becomes the topic. We rehash the past rather than move forward. And he is a spectacularly flawed human being. His way with women alone makes him detestable to people to whom he needs to attract.

But as I've written above, I think this prosecutor is getting wildly creative. Using a fact pattern the direct crimes for which, were he even plausibly guilty of them, blew statute in 2018? This is nuts. I've never seen the kind of derangement for any US politician before. Ever. Not Reagan, not Lori Lightfoot, nobody.

This is lawfare, in politics, where they cannot beat a politician on the merits of his positions, so they use the system they control to undermine him. Kinda like the FBI lying to a FISA court so they can wiretap a major political candidate.

Scary times.
This is, pure and simple, guff.

You can complain all you like that he's being targeted for going against the "narrative". But that doesn't chime with the experience he's actually had. Let's look at the facts;

Firstly, he did commit those crimes. He did commit fraud, multiple times. He did commit perjury. He did pay hush money and pervert the course of justice.

Now, one can believe that A) He did these things, and simultaneously believe B) That he's not being indicted because he did them, but because its convenient. So how do we tell? We can only tell if his treatment is significantly divergent from the expected, judicious treatment.

...now, Trump is more of a serial criminal than almost any other politician of his stature. The magnitude and frequency of his crimes are on another level altogether. So... how do we judge?

Has he been treated in a way that's more severe than would be expected for any other perpetrator of the same crimes? Well, no, actually it's the exact opposite. Anyone else guilty of what he's done would already be in prison with the keys thrown away. So despite "going against the narrative", he's also been treated much more kindly by law enforcement than anyone else would be. Because of wealth and position.

In short, what a load of bollocks. You want law enforcement and the justice system to ignore lawbreaking when the perpetrator is a politician who says some stuff you like. Be honest.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
Sadly correct. The Yankel Rosenbaum case really pissed me off back in the day. But that's how it should go.
When a judge can overturn a jury's acquittal, you may as well give up on juries. Juries come with all sorts of issues, but one of the key concepts is that it gives to the people the right to decide justice. For a democracy, this is powerful: any prosecution or law the public thinks unjust, they refuse to convict.

It can be fun to play devil's advocate. I wish Trump would not run as, even if he wins, he becomes the topic. We rehash the past rather than move forward. And he is a spectacularly flawed human being. His way with women alone makes him detestable to people to whom he needs to attract.
Yes, but wishes were fishes, no-one would be hungry. He is going to run, and he is going to be the topic, and you will be rehashing the past. The only things that will stop him running are a conviction or The Republican Party, and the latter have spilled every opportunity to do so thus far.

I don't like to say that "If X gets elected, America will collapse" because it's never been true yet and probably never will. (At the point America will collapse, it won't matter who's elected president because the whole system will be shot.) But there's a high risk a second Trump term could be politically and socially traumatic.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Remember when Gary Hart's campaign derailed due to an exposed adultery by him? The zeitgeist worried that the political environment had become so toxic that normal people with good ideas, who are imperfect people as all of us are, would fear to run for office? Good times, good times.
View attachment 8399
Hey. Hey hey hey hey. Say, do you remember when the world was absolutely flabbergasted by someone as "dumb" and "dim-witted" and "ignorant" as G.W. Bush was elected ? How shocking it was ? How nobody believed the function would be brought down so low ? The jokes, the bushims, the impression that it was some sort of unique unthinkable glitch of sorts ? Remember ? Remember ?

Does ANYONE remember ?
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,084
1,849
118
Country
USA
You are aware that Fauci was right, though? There's a simple reason no-one would pursue Fauci for perjury: he didn't do it.

What Rand Paul does is play semantics. "Gain of function" in virology refers to a relatively specific form of experiment. Rand Paul simply attempts to redefine that accepted technical term with an ad hoc vernacular construction, and use that bogus construction to call Fauci a liar.

Let's bear in mind that Rand Paul has a medical degree: he doesn't have the excuse of being a layman unable to understand this sort of thing. He knows exactly what he is doing: it's all theatre, from the moment he explains perjury to Fauci. He knows Fauci hasn't committed perjury. It is a performative grilling of a civil servant with utter bullshit just to score points for his side. It's amongst the worst sort of politics: deliberate misinformation for political gain.
At Boston University they're claiming they're not doing gain of function. They took a bug that could not kill mice, engaged in what they called "directed evolution" and now has about an 85% kill ratio on mice. Sounds like a distinction without a difference in the terminology.

EDIT: " One way of denying that the NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan is to scrub the NIH website of its ‘gain-of-function’ definition. " https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/...s-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/ Could be a thing. Not like their above doing stuff like this.

But point taken, better examples exit (Kennedy at Chappaquiddick?) The point is, do you think we are all aware of serious crimes committed by members of our ruling elite that are not prosecuted, or result in wrist taps, and that they are treating Trump differently? And if differently, why? I'd write as he's gone against the narrative.
Now, one can believe that A) He did these things, and simultaneously believe B) That he's not being indicted because he did them, but because its convenient. So how do we tell? We can only tell if his treatment is significantly divergent from the expected, judicious treatment.
I'll have to do some research on it, but pretty sure Trump left office with less money than when he arrived, while, for instance, the Clintons blew the doors off with this sort of abuse of power. Even National Review called her corrupt, but corrupt within normal boundaries or such. Obama came to politics virtually unemployable and now has a mult million dollar mansion in Martha's Vineyard.

Maybe for another thread but in the US, there appears to be a problem: they're all guilty of this sort of thing to varying extents, which allows for a sort of Mexican stand off. They can control each other.

I think that's why the chattering class was apoplectic when Trump looked into the Biden family activities in Ukraine. They're all doing that sort of thing, so how very dare he make an issue of it!
 
Last edited:

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,419
3,400
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I'm not a great political mind but I'm not understanding all of the "THIS WILL GET TRUMP ELECTED NOW!" rhetoric.

Is there a single soul out there who was not on Team Trump but now this is what flipped them? I kind of feel like you're either Team Trump or you're not at this point...
There is the possibility that it will motivate trumps base. Like if the right can make the charges look like bunk or even just silly politically motivated. I can totally see his idiots loving a "tough" looking mug shot. And you know that republicans will be running on this being a witch hunt etc etc.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,006
118
Hey. Hey hey hey hey. Say, do you remember when the world was absolutely flabbergasted by someone as "dumb" and "dim-witted" and "ignorant" as G.W. Bush was elected ? How shocking it was ? How nobody believed the function would be brought down so low ? The jokes, the bushims, the impression that it was some sort of unique unthinkable glitch of sorts ? Remember ? Remember ?

Does ANYONE remember ?
Pepperidge Farm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
But point taken, better examples exit (Kennedy at Chappaquiddick?) The point is, do you think we are all aware of serious crimes committed by members of our ruling elite that are not prosecuted, or result in wrist taps, and that they are treating Trump differently? And if differently, why? I'd write as he's gone against the narrative.
I suspect relatively few of our political elites commit particularly serious crimes. More problematic is likely to be general graft, most of which will likely fall short of criminality (although society could consider being much stricter on). I suspect the majority don't even do that, but they can easily leverage connections for advantage.

More, I just think the political class are with a few exceptions the socioeconomic elites, and the socioeconomic elites are powerful so hard to hold to account: very expensive lawyers and accountants, well connected, and status that leads them to be assumed respectable or admired.

However, Trump, well. I think the major reason Trump might be being aggressively prosecuted for fraud is that he's done an awful lot of fraud. Decades of the stuff, even if mostly civil suit territory. The politics does matter though: firstly, by generating a lot of additional exposure and public interest in his dealings. The problem then is not that Trump is right wing, it's that he offends people's sensibilities at a much deeper level in a way they cannot accept in a president. Firstly, tied to the above about fraud, the almost palpable sense of corruption. Secondly being an openly malicious, lying, bullying, vindictive shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,966
1,430
118
Country
The Netherlands
They will be spurned on to do that if you DARE divert from the narrative. That is Trump's real crime.
Oh please. If that was the case Sanders and Cortez would have been jailed by a kangaroo court ages ago. Fact of the matter is that Trump isn't a threat at all to the elites. He's a threat to America's interests to be sure, but the interests of the elites and the states are hardly intertwined.

Whatever the elites may think about Trump blowing up American power and prestige for shits and giggles they never have to fear him. After all Trump desires a government exclusively by the elites, and for the elites. A Trump administration means big tax cuts for the mega rich, corruption being normalized and wealth translating into power over the institutions. All things American elites rather like.