4 ms·

The case was based on Trump's former attorney mentioning criminal acts his client had done -- it was an attempt to hold Trump accountable for those crimes. The

The case was based on Trump's former attorney mentioning criminal acts his client had done -- it was an attempt to hold Trump accountable for those crimes. The reason a democrat would be involved in such prosecution is because every GOP member has effectively sworn fealty to Trump and they will fiercely protect him from any accountability. Biden was many things, but not corrupt in the sense that Trump is. Yes, his son did business trading on his relationship but that was legal (albeit distasteful). Most dem voters dislike corruption, even if it's one of their team; I don't see that on the other side of the aisle. Disclaimer: I am not a dem.

rayiner 1y ago
The link above is about the New York civil case. If you're talking about the criminal case, it's even worse, as CNN's chief legal correspondent explained: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-... ("Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."). Or, as an MSNBC legal columnist explained: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-verdict-alvin-bragg-rcna153628 https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hus... ("Most DAs wouldn’t have pursued this case against Trump. Alvin Bragg got lucky. Let’s be honest with each other. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump was convoluted."). You could write an entire Harvard law review issue about the novel legal issues raised by the Trump criminal case: Can a state crime be predicted on an uncharged federal campaign finance violation? can someone violate campaign finance law--which is focused on preventing candidates from misusing donated funds--by using their own money to pay off a porn star? Can you bootstrap a misdemeanor into a felony through a triple-bank-shot involving an uncharged secondary crime and a choice of three possible tertiary crimes? When you prosecute someone for a business records misdemeanor, but almost all the allegedly bad conduct relates to unspecified secondary and tertiary crimes, how do you instruct the jury? When you give the jury three different options of uncharged tertiary crimes to support the uncharged secondary crime, which in turn supports the charged primary crime, on what points must the jury reach a unanimous decision? Google's and Apple's "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" was a more straightforward legal theory than the Trump criminal case.
- pstuart 1y ago
  In the interest of avoiding partisan squabbling on HN, I'm going to state the following and let you walk away feeling like you "won" this debate: 1. Trump is the epitome of a corrupt pol and has pretty much gotten away with everything his entire life. 2. Prosecuting him was not in the form of of attacking a rival, it was addressing issue #1 3. If the roles were reversed and this was Biden we were talking about, most dem voters would still be for prosecution of blatant corruption. The magic of Trump is that his supporters (which apparently you are one of) are fine with him doing anything he wants, up to and including shooting someone on Fifth Ave So congratulations! You are right and I am wrong and I'm so sorry to bother you with my clearly not-Trump-loving observations.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    What specifically do you disagree with in his posts? You can not like Trump and agree that it was a horrible legal case, as the sources he linked obviously do. Another example is the Mackey case, where the appeals court unanimously overturned the entire conviction, attacking both the legal reasoning and the evidence underlying the entire case. It’s pretty clear the whole thing was cooked up to “get” an influential pro-Trump Twitter user. See: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff44-40cf-b435-74ff3d9ffa6e/1/doc/23-7577_opn.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff44-40cf-b435-74ff3d9ffa6e/1/hilite/ https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff...
    - pstuart 1y ago
      What specifically do you disagree with about my point that he's corrupt to the core and has never been held accountable? The legal system bends to those in power and "justice" occasionally makes an appearance. Meanwhile the DOJ has been weaponized to serve as the president's personal attack dogs and the entirety of the federal workforce is being staffed with only those who swear fealty to Trump, rather than the constitution and what it stands for. IANAL, and I'm not equipped to review whatever legal fancy footwork is involved, but I am 100% confident that the Biden admin was as stand up as could be hoped for (i.e., flawed but not devoid of principles), and that Trump has only these principles: * self-enrichment * self-aggrandizement * deflection of any criticism or culpability He makes GWB look great by comparison. What rubs salt into the wound is that tens of millions of my fellow citizens literally worship him as a gift from God and will defend him to the end. Watching democracy die before my eyes is beyond heartbreaking.

rayiner 1y ago

The link above is about the New York civil case. If you're talking about the criminal case, it's even worse, as CNN's chief legal correspondent explained: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-... ("Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."). Or, as an MSNBC legal columnist explained: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-verdict-alvin-bragg-rcna153628 https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hus... ("Most DAs wouldn’t have pursued this case against Trump. Alvin Bragg got lucky. Let’s be honest with each other. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump was convoluted."). You could write an entire Harvard law review issue about the novel legal issues raised by the Trump criminal case: Can a state crime be predicted on an uncharged federal campaign finance violation? can someone violate campaign finance law--which is focused on preventing candidates from misusing donated funds--by using their own money to pay off a porn star? Can you bootstrap a misdemeanor into a felony through a triple-bank-shot involving an uncharged secondary crime and a choice of three possible tertiary crimes? When you prosecute someone for a business records misdemeanor, but almost all the allegedly bad conduct relates to unspecified secondary and tertiary crimes, how do you instruct the jury? When you give the jury three different options of uncharged tertiary crimes to support the uncharged secondary crime, which in turn supports the charged primary crime, on what points must the jury reach a unanimous decision? Google's and Apple's "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" was a more straightforward legal theory than the Trump criminal case.

pstuart 1y ago
In the interest of avoiding partisan squabbling on HN, I'm going to state the following and let you walk away feeling like you "won" this debate: 1. Trump is the epitome of a corrupt pol and has pretty much gotten away with everything his entire life. 2. Prosecuting him was not in the form of of attacking a rival, it was addressing issue #1 3. If the roles were reversed and this was Biden we were talking about, most dem voters would still be for prosecution of blatant corruption. The magic of Trump is that his supporters (which apparently you are one of) are fine with him doing anything he wants, up to and including shooting someone on Fifth Ave So congratulations! You are right and I am wrong and I'm so sorry to bother you with my clearly not-Trump-loving observations.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  What specifically do you disagree with in his posts? You can not like Trump and agree that it was a horrible legal case, as the sources he linked obviously do. Another example is the Mackey case, where the appeals court unanimously overturned the entire conviction, attacking both the legal reasoning and the evidence underlying the entire case. It’s pretty clear the whole thing was cooked up to “get” an influential pro-Trump Twitter user. See: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff44-40cf-b435-74ff3d9ffa6e/1/doc/23-7577_opn.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff44-40cf-b435-74ff3d9ffa6e/1/hilite/ https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5d7bf858-ff...
  - pstuart 1y ago
    What specifically do you disagree with about my point that he's corrupt to the core and has never been held accountable? The legal system bends to those in power and "justice" occasionally makes an appearance. Meanwhile the DOJ has been weaponized to serve as the president's personal attack dogs and the entirety of the federal workforce is being staffed with only those who swear fealty to Trump, rather than the constitution and what it stands for. IANAL, and I'm not equipped to review whatever legal fancy footwork is involved, but I am 100% confident that the Biden admin was as stand up as could be hoped for (i.e., flawed but not devoid of principles), and that Trump has only these principles: * self-enrichment * self-aggrandizement * deflection of any criticism or culpability He makes GWB look great by comparison. What rubs salt into the wound is that tens of millions of my fellow citizens literally worship him as a gift from God and will defend him to the end. Watching democracy die before my eyes is beyond heartbreaking.