5 ms·

> the prosecution of Trump in New York cemented my vote choice [for Trump] That's a shame. Here's another perspective: Trump has made a career out of, so to sp

> the prosecution of Trump in New York cemented my vote choice [for Trump] That's a shame. Here's another perspective: Trump has made a career out of, so to speak, defiantly driving as fast as he wants, whenever and wherever he wants. This time, he's gotten a big ticket for going 90 in a 70 mph zone on an interstate highway — sure, it's not a school zone, but it's hard to see the ticket as political persecution. (And let's not forget that the judge in the NY case bent over backwards to be fair to Trump — not to mention that the jurors, each of whom Trump's defense counsel had a chance to strike, were unanimous about all 34 felony counts.)

rayiner 2y ago
> Trump has made a career out of, so to speak, defiantly driving as fast as he wants, whenever and wherever he wants. That’s utterly unsubstantiated. Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics. It’s also irrelevant. Even if it were true that “he’s gotten away with lots of crimes in the past” that doesn’t justify prosecuting him on a creative legal theory. When a gang member is prosecuted for bullshit, defense attorneys fall over themselves saying that each prosecution must be justified on its own, not the defendant’s uncharged and unproven bad acts. > This time, he's gotten a big ticket for going 90 in a 70 mph zone on an interstate highway — sure, it's not a school zone It’s not like that at all. Trump was prosecuted on a creative legal theory—stitching together three different laws which individually couldn’t support a prosecution for either jurisdictional or time-bar reasons—that even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-trump-prosecutors-contorted-law-case-unjustified-mess https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-t... > it's hard to see the ticket as political persecution. It is not only a political prosecution, but the bar’s deafening silence is profoundly shameful to our whole profession. Attorneys who do extensive pro bono work getting gang members off on technicalities are looking the other way when New York brings a novel prosecution that they would condemn has it been brought against a violent criminal. At some point recently, many attorneys abandoned longstanding principles of the legal profession for liberal moral sensibilities. I remember folks at my wife’s old firm, Arnold & Porter, sniffing about how they would never represent Trump. This is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. This was before January 6, back when Trump’s biggest crime was being, in their view, “a racist sexist homophobe.” In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades. Big firms should be lining up to work pro bono on Trump’s appeal given the novel legal issues it raises. But they won’t because Trump offends their moral sensibilities in a way that defending gang members somehow does not. It’s sick.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics. Objection, nonresponsive. > even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.” I had to look up Elie Honig, whose name didn't ring a bell. Another fact: When NYC DA Alvin Bragg initially elected not to bring the charges against Trump, two of his prosecutors in charge of the investigation resigned. CNN's reporting indicated that the internal debate, among prosecutors in the DA's office, wasn't whether it'd be proper to bring charges — that much seemed to be largely agreed, at least by most of the prosecutors — but whether doing so would be a waste of time and taxpayer money, given the need for a unanimous jury verdict and the expected credibility attacks by Trump's lawyers against key prosecution witness Michael Cohen. [0]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-investigation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-dist...
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > This [Arnold & Porter] is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. ... In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades. I hold no brief for tobacco companies or their counsel, but I assume that, like the rest of us lawyers, you were taught that in court, everyone is entitled to a defense, even those who ought to be social pariahs for their misdeeds. (That said, I confess I haven't figured out how to reconcile that principle with the kinds of scorched-earth defense that big, wealthy companies typically put on against plaintiffs who clearly have a strong case.)

rayiner 2y ago

> Trump has made a career out of, so to speak, defiantly driving as fast as he wants, whenever and wherever he wants. That’s utterly unsubstantiated. Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics. It’s also irrelevant. Even if it were true that “he’s gotten away with lots of crimes in the past” that doesn’t justify prosecuting him on a creative legal theory. When a gang member is prosecuted for bullshit, defense attorneys fall over themselves saying that each prosecution must be justified on its own, not the defendant’s uncharged and unproven bad acts. > This time, he's gotten a big ticket for going 90 in a 70 mph zone on an interstate highway — sure, it's not a school zone It’s not like that at all. Trump was prosecuted on a creative legal theory—stitching together three different laws which individually couldn’t support a prosecution for either jurisdictional or time-bar reasons—that even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-trump-prosecutors-contorted-law-case-unjustified-mess https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-t... > it's hard to see the ticket as political persecution. It is not only a political prosecution, but the bar’s deafening silence is profoundly shameful to our whole profession. Attorneys who do extensive pro bono work getting gang members off on technicalities are looking the other way when New York brings a novel prosecution that they would condemn has it been brought against a violent criminal. At some point recently, many attorneys abandoned longstanding principles of the legal profession for liberal moral sensibilities. I remember folks at my wife’s old firm, Arnold & Porter, sniffing about how they would never represent Trump. This is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. This was before January 6, back when Trump’s biggest crime was being, in their view, “a racist sexist homophobe.” In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades. Big firms should be lining up to work pro bono on Trump’s appeal given the novel legal issues it raises. But they won’t because Trump offends their moral sensibilities in a way that defending gang members somehow does not. It’s sick.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics. Objection, nonresponsive. > even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.” I had to look up Elie Honig, whose name didn't ring a bell. Another fact: When NYC DA Alvin Bragg initially elected not to bring the charges against Trump, two of his prosecutors in charge of the investigation resigned. CNN's reporting indicated that the internal debate, among prosecutors in the DA's office, wasn't whether it'd be proper to bring charges — that much seemed to be largely agreed, at least by most of the prosecutors — but whether doing so would be a waste of time and taxpayer money, given the need for a unanimous jury verdict and the expected credibility attacks by Trump's lawyers against key prosecution witness Michael Cohen. [0]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-investigation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-dist...
dctoedt 2y ago
> This [Arnold & Porter] is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. ... In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades. I hold no brief for tobacco companies or their counsel, but I assume that, like the rest of us lawyers, you were taught that in court, everyone is entitled to a defense, even those who ought to be social pariahs for their misdeeds. (That said, I confess I haven't figured out how to reconcile that principle with the kinds of scorched-earth defense that big, wealthy companies typically put on against plaintiffs who clearly have a strong case.)