7 ms·

A very large number of Americans (100 million+?) dont see Trump as a convicted criminal. They see a govt that weaponized the justice system to target their po

A very large number of Americans (100 million+?) dont see Trump as a convicted criminal. They see a govt that weaponized the justice system to target their political opponent. It's a reason to vote for Trump, not against him.

bamboozled 2y ago
Yeah, I do see that side of it too, I think it was incredibly stupid to try him for anything if he wouldn't be jailed.
- speeder 2y ago
  It was monumentally stupid to convict Trump for a "crime" that was basically someone else filling his taxes wrong. Something most USA people would feel is unfair and could happen to them. Also I am not from USA and very happy I don't have to deal with TurboTax lobbying and shenanigans thar make the USA tax code to be just crazy. Also the "bank fraud" trial is also monumentally stupid when they wanted to convict him and close his companies (thus making people lose their jobs) for doing something that resulted in profits for the supposed victim. Victim in fact that explained multiple times they were pleased with the business and would do it again. The message in the second case was: we will take your jobs because your boss made a good deal, don't vote for him! And of course this is just idiotic.
  - throwaway25664 2y ago
    You have some misunderstandings on these cases —- How to understand next week’s Trump criminal felony trial https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon... How Trump is liable for fraud even though no one was hurt https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-trump-is-liable-for-fraud-even https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-trump-is-liable-for-f...
    - Redoubts 2y ago
      For anyone seeing this, these links are a waste of time. They don’t demonstrate a misunderstanding or provide a better one. > Many people I speak with are worried that this is the weakest of Trump’s four pending criminal trials because it has to do with an illicit affair. > Wrong. No this was the weakest case. The fact that this is the one to get across the finish line, rather than say the Georgia interference case, demonstrates raw political incompetence by the democrats.
      - throwaway25664 2y ago
        Not a waste of time — 1. ‘for a "crime" that was basically someone else filling his taxes wrong.’ — utterly false 2. Getting lucky is no excuse for fraud. See aforementioned posts for actual, well-reasoned arguments from world-renowned UC Berkeley professor and former Cabinet Secretary Robert Reich, which Redoubts hasn’t refuted. The case that resulted in Trump being convicted of 34 federal felony counts wasn’t the weakest case; that’s demonstrated by the jury, selected by both sides, having deliberated over the available evidence and both sides’ arguments, and having reached a unanimous verdict. The Georgia case had been going much more slowly because it’s a much more complex case, for obvious reasons. Its current stalled status has to do with the conflict of interest that Willis created. If the case somehow resumes, the jury, selected by both sides, will decide the case. The speed and outcomes of these cases are not “political competence or incompetence” matters on the part of Democrats.
Bhilai 2y ago
He was convicted by a Jury not any left leaning judge or whatever.
- xienze 2y ago
  Yes, for the crime of the century of... classifying hush payments to a porn star (which is legal) as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense. And then they made each time he signed a check a separate count, so they could make a big deal of “34 fElOnIeS!!!” Not weaponized, indeed. It’s the most mundane thing that has been “Trumped up” to the extent that anti-Trumpers act like he murdered someone. Everyone else thinks “oh wow, improperly classifying an expense, who cares.”
  - throwaway25664 2y ago
    It was an election interference case; not mundane. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon...
    - xienze 2y ago
      Yes, based on the tortuous logic that he would’ve lost the election if voters knew that a famous playboy had had an affair with a porn star. Of all the gaffes and scandals he had during his campaign, that would’ve been the one to sink his election chances. Sure thing. And still at the end of it, it boiled down to “you should’ve classified the hush money as a campaign expense instead of a legal expense.” Do you seriously not understand why no one really cares?
      - throwaway25664 2y ago
        The campaign obviously had that concern and acted on it; it’s irrelevant if you think it’s “tortuous logic”. When did the affair occur? When did the payment occur, and what was the surrounding context? — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_... Then, read this again — https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon... “This case alleges that in 2016 Trump arranged to pay off an adult entertainer in order to hide his affair with her from the public. The important thing to keep in mind is that the money was given to protect Trump’s campaign for the presidency — not to protect his marriage or protect him from personal embarrassment.”
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
He is technically convicted by a jury. It will be interesting to see how they get around that, it doesn't go away just because he was elected president, and he can't pardon himself from a state charge.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  In the most left-wing jurisdiction in America by a DA that campaigned on "getting Trump", who was famous for reducing felonies to misdemeanors, but in the case of Trump raised a misdemeanor to a felony. And this was for a charge for which there was no precedent, and nor was there any victim. And the judges daughter had connections to the Democrat party too. People arent stupid.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Just to make sure you have all the legal facts: https://youtu.be/KnapsSRptqg?si=7C_tqLO9UGlGxYQA https://youtu.be/KnapsSRptqg?si=7C_tqLO9UGlGxYQA
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Well, if they want to use conspiracy theories in their appeals, they are welcome to, and the Supreme court is basically in Trump's pockets, so they could always just make a "because we say so" ruling that annuls the state jury verdict.
    - lazyeye 2y ago
      What conspiracy theories?
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        The ones you stated in your comment.
        lazyeye 2y ago

bamboozled 2y ago

Yeah, I do see that side of it too, I think it was incredibly stupid to try him for anything if he wouldn't be jailed.

speeder 2y ago
It was monumentally stupid to convict Trump for a "crime" that was basically someone else filling his taxes wrong. Something most USA people would feel is unfair and could happen to them. Also I am not from USA and very happy I don't have to deal with TurboTax lobbying and shenanigans thar make the USA tax code to be just crazy. Also the "bank fraud" trial is also monumentally stupid when they wanted to convict him and close his companies (thus making people lose their jobs) for doing something that resulted in profits for the supposed victim. Victim in fact that explained multiple times they were pleased with the business and would do it again. The message in the second case was: we will take your jobs because your boss made a good deal, don't vote for him! And of course this is just idiotic.
- throwaway25664 2y ago
  You have some misunderstandings on these cases —- How to understand next week’s Trump criminal felony trial https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon... How Trump is liable for fraud even though no one was hurt https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-trump-is-liable-for-fraud-even https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-trump-is-liable-for-f...
  - Redoubts 2y ago
    For anyone seeing this, these links are a waste of time. They don’t demonstrate a misunderstanding or provide a better one. > Many people I speak with are worried that this is the weakest of Trump’s four pending criminal trials because it has to do with an illicit affair. > Wrong. No this was the weakest case. The fact that this is the one to get across the finish line, rather than say the Georgia interference case, demonstrates raw political incompetence by the democrats.
    - throwaway25664 2y ago
      Not a waste of time — 1. ‘for a "crime" that was basically someone else filling his taxes wrong.’ — utterly false 2. Getting lucky is no excuse for fraud. See aforementioned posts for actual, well-reasoned arguments from world-renowned UC Berkeley professor and former Cabinet Secretary Robert Reich, which Redoubts hasn’t refuted. The case that resulted in Trump being convicted of 34 federal felony counts wasn’t the weakest case; that’s demonstrated by the jury, selected by both sides, having deliberated over the available evidence and both sides’ arguments, and having reached a unanimous verdict. The Georgia case had been going much more slowly because it’s a much more complex case, for obvious reasons. Its current stalled status has to do with the conflict of interest that Willis created. If the case somehow resumes, the jury, selected by both sides, will decide the case. The speed and outcomes of these cases are not “political competence or incompetence” matters on the part of Democrats.

Bhilai 2y ago

He was convicted by a Jury not any left leaning judge or whatever.

xienze 2y ago
Yes, for the crime of the century of... classifying hush payments to a porn star (which is legal) as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense. And then they made each time he signed a check a separate count, so they could make a big deal of “34 fElOnIeS!!!” Not weaponized, indeed. It’s the most mundane thing that has been “Trumped up” to the extent that anti-Trumpers act like he murdered someone. Everyone else thinks “oh wow, improperly classifying an expense, who cares.”
- throwaway25664 2y ago
  It was an election interference case; not mundane. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon...
  - xienze 2y ago
    Yes, based on the tortuous logic that he would’ve lost the election if voters knew that a famous playboy had had an affair with a porn star. Of all the gaffes and scandals he had during his campaign, that would’ve been the one to sink his election chances. Sure thing. And still at the end of it, it boiled down to “you should’ve classified the hush money as a campaign expense instead of a legal expense.” Do you seriously not understand why no one really cares?
    - throwaway25664 2y ago
      The campaign obviously had that concern and acted on it; it’s irrelevant if you think it’s “tortuous logic”. When did the affair occur? When did the payment occur, and what was the surrounding context? — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_... Then, read this again — https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon... “This case alleges that in 2016 Trump arranged to pay off an adult entertainer in order to hide his affair with her from the public. The important thing to keep in mind is that the money was given to protect Trump’s campaign for the presidency — not to protect his marriage or protect him from personal embarrassment.”

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

He is technically convicted by a jury. It will be interesting to see how they get around that, it doesn't go away just because he was elected president, and he can't pardon himself from a state charge.

lazyeye 2y ago
In the most left-wing jurisdiction in America by a DA that campaigned on "getting Trump", who was famous for reducing felonies to misdemeanors, but in the case of Trump raised a misdemeanor to a felony. And this was for a charge for which there was no precedent, and nor was there any victim. And the judges daughter had connections to the Democrat party too. People arent stupid.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Just to make sure you have all the legal facts: https://youtu.be/KnapsSRptqg?si=7C_tqLO9UGlGxYQA https://youtu.be/KnapsSRptqg?si=7C_tqLO9UGlGxYQA
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Well, if they want to use conspiracy theories in their appeals, they are welcome to, and the Supreme court is basically in Trump's pockets, so they could always just make a "because we say so" ruling that annuls the state jury verdict.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    What conspiracy theories?
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      The ones you stated in your comment.
      - lazyeye 2y ago