6 ms·

It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?

nickthegreek 4y ago
Apparently 34 charges.
- koolba 4y ago
  The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        I’m not saying we can’t speculate about the charges. Was there anything in my question that indicated I thought people here should be prohibited from speculation? I’m asking how someone can be absolutely certain in their speculation about those charges. Is the NYT saying the charges are particularly strong, or are they saying the charges are particularly weak? I haven’t seen that from them, but if they are then I have the same questions. I’m not holding anyone here to a higher level of scrutiny than the NYT. I merely asked where someone’s confidence came from.
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        Cmon, you are 100% saying we shouldn't. don't deny it. The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
        ncallaway 4y ago
        I deny it. I said it was crazy to me, and I said it was wild. There are lots of things that are baffling to me, or inscrutable to me, that I don’t think should be prohibited. But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me. You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation. It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before. So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though. > The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake. “Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”? Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law. So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        It's not the fact its baseless, its the context around it. That's what's crazy. Your irrationality comes from the fact, you are trying to ignore the context around it. Braggs is case is being criticized heavily from the LEFT and the RIGHT. It is unprecedented and to most of the world similar with banana republics and like reeks of a setup. You got the New York Post, the New York Times, The Rolling Stone, ABC, Fortune, Slate, The Hill, NBC, National Review, Daily Beast, Politico and more saying this is a bad idea. Don't you wonder why people more familiar with politics who are democrats AND republicans than you think that is ? So you make America look horrible in the face of - your allies in the elite political circles - your allies internationally - your core base All the while selling Trump on his ultimate brand as the "Rebel", of which he sells T-shirts off. You cannot ignore the context around all of this, which weakens America significantly in already trying time as countries around the world are dropping the reserve currency USD and also belief in American Ideals.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Well, the Grand Jury looked at them and the evidence and seemed to think there is a crime worthy of prosecution here. That's why we have grand juries, to make sure a crime is truly serious before revealing in public the alleged crime. In all due time, the charge will be public and we will see the evidence ourselves. The news event is that the prosecutors have crossed one of the major hurdles of a typical criminal court case and have convinced a grand jury to proceed.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      While a Grand Jury should theoretically be a high bar to cross, it certainly seems like (in practice) they’re not so much of a challenge. I’m also generally much more skeptical of state level pre-indictment processes which generally aren’t quite as buttoned down as federal pre-indictment processes (though, that’s a pretty broad generalization). But, the indictments will come out soon, and the evidence supporting them eventually, so time will certainly tell.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted. It’s funny, Republicans used to often wax in about the sanctity of the rule of law. For some reason, the entrancing powers of Mr. Trump led many to throw that away to stand behind the demagogue. We should demand better. I live in New York. 2/4 most recent governors left office as part of a deal to avoid prosecution. Prominent legislative leaders were convicted and removed from office. Regardless of party, there needs to be a standard. Breaking the law and laundering money to buy the silence of a sexual dalliance is a serious crime. Former NY Governor Spitzer was facing federal charges for money transfer violations of his own money to solicit an escort. Mr Trump seeks to make this a political matter because that distracts from the heart of the matter — his actions. The people who in good faith donated to his campaign wanted to “make America great again”, not pay hush money to porn actresses.
    - giardini 4y ago
      Spooky23 says >"A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted."< As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” Explanation at https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a-ham-sandwich/ https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...
      - Spooky23 4y ago
        That actually came from a case called ABSCAM in the 70s and 80s. ABSCAM was a case where the FBI ran a sting (or entrapment depending on your POV) that ensnared and convicted of bribery about 30 people, including a dozen politicians... a half dozen members of the house and a US Senator.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Has the indictment been released, or is that a leak from someone with knowledge?
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Source: CNN reporter Jim Sciutto.

nickthegreek 4y ago

Apparently 34 charges.

koolba 4y ago
The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      I’m not saying we can’t speculate about the charges. Was there anything in my question that indicated I thought people here should be prohibited from speculation? I’m asking how someone can be absolutely certain in their speculation about those charges. Is the NYT saying the charges are particularly strong, or are they saying the charges are particularly weak? I haven’t seen that from them, but if they are then I have the same questions. I’m not holding anyone here to a higher level of scrutiny than the NYT. I merely asked where someone’s confidence came from.
      - stuckinhell 4y ago
        Cmon, you are 100% saying we shouldn't. don't deny it. The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
        ncallaway 4y ago
        I deny it. I said it was crazy to me, and I said it was wild. There are lots of things that are baffling to me, or inscrutable to me, that I don’t think should be prohibited. But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me. You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation. It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before. So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though. > The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake. “Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”? Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law. So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).
        stuckinhell 4y ago
        It's not the fact its baseless, its the context around it. That's what's crazy. Your irrationality comes from the fact, you are trying to ignore the context around it. Braggs is case is being criticized heavily from the LEFT and the RIGHT. It is unprecedented and to most of the world similar with banana republics and like reeks of a setup. You got the New York Post, the New York Times, The Rolling Stone, ABC, Fortune, Slate, The Hill, NBC, National Review, Daily Beast, Politico and more saying this is a bad idea. Don't you wonder why people more familiar with politics who are democrats AND republicans than you think that is ? So you make America look horrible in the face of - your allies in the elite political circles - your allies internationally - your core base All the while selling Trump on his ultimate brand as the "Rebel", of which he sells T-shirts off. You cannot ignore the context around all of this, which weakens America significantly in already trying time as countries around the world are dropping the reserve currency USD and also belief in American Ideals.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Well, the Grand Jury looked at them and the evidence and seemed to think there is a crime worthy of prosecution here. That's why we have grand juries, to make sure a crime is truly serious before revealing in public the alleged crime. In all due time, the charge will be public and we will see the evidence ourselves. The news event is that the prosecutors have crossed one of the major hurdles of a typical criminal court case and have convinced a grand jury to proceed.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    While a Grand Jury should theoretically be a high bar to cross, it certainly seems like (in practice) they’re not so much of a challenge. I’m also generally much more skeptical of state level pre-indictment processes which generally aren’t quite as buttoned down as federal pre-indictment processes (though, that’s a pretty broad generalization). But, the indictments will come out soon, and the evidence supporting them eventually, so time will certainly tell.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted. It’s funny, Republicans used to often wax in about the sanctity of the rule of law. For some reason, the entrancing powers of Mr. Trump led many to throw that away to stand behind the demagogue. We should demand better. I live in New York. 2/4 most recent governors left office as part of a deal to avoid prosecution. Prominent legislative leaders were convicted and removed from office. Regardless of party, there needs to be a standard. Breaking the law and laundering money to buy the silence of a sexual dalliance is a serious crime. Former NY Governor Spitzer was facing federal charges for money transfer violations of his own money to solicit an escort. Mr Trump seeks to make this a political matter because that distracts from the heart of the matter — his actions. The people who in good faith donated to his campaign wanted to “make America great again”, not pay hush money to porn actresses.
  - giardini 4y ago
    Spooky23 says >"A grand jury sat and apparently found charges to be warranted."< As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” Explanation at https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a-ham-sandwich/ https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      That actually came from a case called ABSCAM in the 70s and 80s. ABSCAM was a case where the FBI ran a sting (or entrapment depending on your POV) that ensnared and convicted of bribery about 30 people, including a dozen politicians... a half dozen members of the house and a US Senator.
ncallaway 4y ago
Has the indictment been released, or is that a leak from someone with knowledge?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Source: CNN reporter Jim Sciutto.