6 ms·

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

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.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    I am not making any argument about his corruption or lack thereof. We're talking about two specific very bad legal cases using novel legal theories that should have never been brought, with people like CNN's legal correspondent agreeing, not Trump fanactics. "Trump corrupt" !=> "this case was sound." I also provided an example of the Mackey case, where the DoJ was weaponized to go after Trump supporters on Twitter.
    - pstuart 1y ago
      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't like the twitter case and think it was a mistake. Not as bad as the case that drove Aaron Swartz to suicide (under the Obama admin). But to lecture on the propriety of the prosecution and declare that it was "weaponized" is a stretch. The feds have made plenty of bad decisions across both sides of the aisle, and their intentions should always be worthy of scrutiny. The DOJ (and every other federal agency) is being gutted of anyone who does not swear fealty to Donald Trump (the person, not the office) -- that's weaponization. I'm happy to call out each and every mistake the Biden admin does, but it's almost quaint in comparison to what his successor is doing. We've moved well past the "both sides" debate -- what is happening now is fascism and un-American to it's core. So yeah, boo hoo about the twitter case.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      But that is the problem. It's pointless to talk about the details of individual cases when the entire system is 100% broken. It's like arguing about what color shoes match your shirt when you're running from a burning house.
rayiner 1y ago
> 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 You're correct about (2), and that's the problem! A criminal case that relies on an uncharged secondary crime, which in turn relies on one of three uncharged tertiary crimes, to bootstrap a primary misdemeanor into a felony must stand on its own. Uncharged, unproven past conduct is irrelevant. > magic of Trump is that his supporters (which apparently you are one of) My wife and I are Fed Soc members, but we like the Georgetown cocktail parties and voted for Biden in 2020! We weren't going to vote in 2024 until the Trump criminal conviction. It was literally radicalizing. My wife used to loathe Trump, but she drove up to Pennsylvania to volunteer for his campaign after that conviction came down.
- pstuart 1y ago
  Fed Soc, eh? I'm shocked you'd consider Biden as everything I see about the org is as a right wing networking club, culminating in ownership of SCOTUS. I know about Leonard Leo and his goals. You must be so excited to know that his hard work has paid off. The 6 members of SCOTUS who are of your ilk are the exact enablers of our subject of discussion. And yet you dodge #1. How artful. Now I know that you've not been engaging in good faith, either intentionally or just how Fed Soc taught you.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > And yet you dodge #1. How artful. Now I know that you've not been engaging in good faith, either intentionally or just how Fed Soc taught you. I didn't "dodge" it. I explained it was irrelevant. The conduct for which Trump was convicted was having a payment to Stormy Daniels recorded in the books of his family owned company as "legal expenses" instead of "hush money." To turn that into a felony, prosecutors invoked several other uncharged crimes--which means they didn't have to prove them--in a triple-bank-shot legal theory so convoluted it's best explained with charts: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theo.... The prosecution never clearly articulated the exact legal theory, but what comes closest to their trial presentation is something like: 1) Violation of New York records law (175.05). But this is a misdemeanor. To step it up to a felony, you need to prove that the records were misrecorded to cover up a second crime. 2) Stepping (1) up to a felony based on New York Election Law 17-152, which makes it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful means," which requires a third crime. According to the press: "Attorneys specializing in state election law believe the statute has never been prosecuted." https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-case-relies-never-used-election-conspiracy-law-2024-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-case-relies.... Moreover, the prosecutors never actually charged this crime, meaning they didn't need to prove all the elements. 3) Supporting (2) based on violation of federal campaign finance law. Notably, the FEC, which is charged with administering federal election law, had declined to bring any charges against Trump in connection with the Stormy Daniels payoff. Prosecutors also never actually charged this crime, meaning they didn't need to prove all the elements. The prosecution also threw out two alternative crimes for (2), and the judge then instructed the jury that they didn't need to be unanimous as to which other crimes the business records were doctored to cover up. The merits of this prosecution are entirely about the legal theory and the legally relevant facts. Whatever else you think Trump did is completely irrelevant. That's one of the few things Fed Soc folks and liberals agree on. If the target of this prosecution had been a child-trafficking kingpin, the lawyers at my former white shoe firm would be lining up to take on the multiple Supreme Court cases that would come out of challenging this prosecution. > Fed Soc, eh? I'm shocked you'd consider Biden as everything I see about the org is as a right wing networking club, culminating in ownership of SCOTUS. Fed Soc has far more Democrats than your typical non-ideological lawyer's organization (e.g. the American Bar Association) has Republicans. It's just lawyers who aren't feelers, and those are on both sides of the aisle.

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.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  I am not making any argument about his corruption or lack thereof. We're talking about two specific very bad legal cases using novel legal theories that should have never been brought, with people like CNN's legal correspondent agreeing, not Trump fanactics. "Trump corrupt" !=> "this case was sound." I also provided an example of the Mackey case, where the DoJ was weaponized to go after Trump supporters on Twitter.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't like the twitter case and think it was a mistake. Not as bad as the case that drove Aaron Swartz to suicide (under the Obama admin). But to lecture on the propriety of the prosecution and declare that it was "weaponized" is a stretch. The feds have made plenty of bad decisions across both sides of the aisle, and their intentions should always be worthy of scrutiny. The DOJ (and every other federal agency) is being gutted of anyone who does not swear fealty to Donald Trump (the person, not the office) -- that's weaponization. I'm happy to call out each and every mistake the Biden admin does, but it's almost quaint in comparison to what his successor is doing. We've moved well past the "both sides" debate -- what is happening now is fascism and un-American to it's core. So yeah, boo hoo about the twitter case.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    But that is the problem. It's pointless to talk about the details of individual cases when the entire system is 100% broken. It's like arguing about what color shoes match your shirt when you're running from a burning house.

rayiner 1y ago

> 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 You're correct about (2), and that's the problem! A criminal case that relies on an uncharged secondary crime, which in turn relies on one of three uncharged tertiary crimes, to bootstrap a primary misdemeanor into a felony must stand on its own. Uncharged, unproven past conduct is irrelevant. > magic of Trump is that his supporters (which apparently you are one of) My wife and I are Fed Soc members, but we like the Georgetown cocktail parties and voted for Biden in 2020! We weren't going to vote in 2024 until the Trump criminal conviction. It was literally radicalizing. My wife used to loathe Trump, but she drove up to Pennsylvania to volunteer for his campaign after that conviction came down.

pstuart 1y ago
Fed Soc, eh? I'm shocked you'd consider Biden as everything I see about the org is as a right wing networking club, culminating in ownership of SCOTUS. I know about Leonard Leo and his goals. You must be so excited to know that his hard work has paid off. The 6 members of SCOTUS who are of your ilk are the exact enablers of our subject of discussion. And yet you dodge #1. How artful. Now I know that you've not been engaging in good faith, either intentionally or just how Fed Soc taught you.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > And yet you dodge #1. How artful. Now I know that you've not been engaging in good faith, either intentionally or just how Fed Soc taught you. I didn't "dodge" it. I explained it was irrelevant. The conduct for which Trump was convicted was having a payment to Stormy Daniels recorded in the books of his family owned company as "legal expenses" instead of "hush money." To turn that into a felony, prosecutors invoked several other uncharged crimes--which means they didn't have to prove them--in a triple-bank-shot legal theory so convoluted it's best explained with charts: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theo.... The prosecution never clearly articulated the exact legal theory, but what comes closest to their trial presentation is something like: 1) Violation of New York records law (175.05). But this is a misdemeanor. To step it up to a felony, you need to prove that the records were misrecorded to cover up a second crime. 2) Stepping (1) up to a felony based on New York Election Law 17-152, which makes it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful means," which requires a third crime. According to the press: "Attorneys specializing in state election law believe the statute has never been prosecuted." https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-case-relies-never-used-election-conspiracy-law-2024-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-case-relies.... Moreover, the prosecutors never actually charged this crime, meaning they didn't need to prove all the elements. 3) Supporting (2) based on violation of federal campaign finance law. Notably, the FEC, which is charged with administering federal election law, had declined to bring any charges against Trump in connection with the Stormy Daniels payoff. Prosecutors also never actually charged this crime, meaning they didn't need to prove all the elements. The prosecution also threw out two alternative crimes for (2), and the judge then instructed the jury that they didn't need to be unanimous as to which other crimes the business records were doctored to cover up. The merits of this prosecution are entirely about the legal theory and the legally relevant facts. Whatever else you think Trump did is completely irrelevant. That's one of the few things Fed Soc folks and liberals agree on. If the target of this prosecution had been a child-trafficking kingpin, the lawyers at my former white shoe firm would be lining up to take on the multiple Supreme Court cases that would come out of challenging this prosecution. > Fed Soc, eh? I'm shocked you'd consider Biden as everything I see about the org is as a right wing networking club, culminating in ownership of SCOTUS. Fed Soc has far more Democrats than your typical non-ideological lawyer's organization (e.g. the American Bar Association) has Republicans. It's just lawyers who aren't feelers, and those are on both sides of the aisle.