4 ms·

> 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 att

> 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.
jacquesm 1y ago
> It was literally radicalizing. No shit. You're a case study in radicalization by this point and one that I follow with some morbid fascination. If you, an intelligent lawyer and son of an immigrant can be radicalized to the point that you are cheering on the people who would be more than happy to deport you and most of your family on the basis of your skin color alone without any kind of due process can be radicalized then anybody can be radicalized, including me and that is a very sobering thought. I sincerely hope that when this is all over you are still living where you do and that you and yours get through this in one piece but I would hate to be in your shoes when - if - the moment comes that you realize you are on a very dangerous path. Note that your strengths - intelligence, knowledge of the law - are being used against you. I've seen a similar thing happen with two close friends who after 9/11 fell in with the wrong crowd and turned into 'truthers'. They were both very smart but also apparently quite gullible and they and their fellows were pushing each other ever further down into the hole. I wrote about them: https://jacquesmattheij.com/2020-12-19-complot-theory-believers/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/2020-12-19-complot-theory-believ... Since then, after burning up all of their friendships they moved to the heartland of Australia where they are now prepping for the end times. Sometimes it doesn't take much for a person to be radicalized and the way out is a lot more difficult than the way in.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > immigrant can be radicalized to the point that you are cheering on the people who would be more than happy to deport you and most of your family on the basis of your skin color alone Based! I can just picture Kash finishing the job by deporting the last remaining immigrant: himself. Regardless, it’s telling that we were talking about legal theories but you couldn’t keep out that intrusive thought about my skin color and immigration background.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    That's because you seem to be carrying water for the regime in your increasingly narrow interpretations of legal issues to defend that which is clearly indefensible. Intent matters. I understand that is not how the American legal system works. But it is how you avoid sliding into setups that no country should want. It boggles the mind that after six months of this you still have not had any insights that have given you pause to reconsider your stance. In fact, it seems to only get worse. There was a time that I looked up to you, but that time is definitely past. As for KP: he is just an even more extreme example of the same thing.

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.

jacquesm 1y ago

> It was literally radicalizing. No shit. You're a case study in radicalization by this point and one that I follow with some morbid fascination. If you, an intelligent lawyer and son of an immigrant can be radicalized to the point that you are cheering on the people who would be more than happy to deport you and most of your family on the basis of your skin color alone without any kind of due process can be radicalized then anybody can be radicalized, including me and that is a very sobering thought. I sincerely hope that when this is all over you are still living where you do and that you and yours get through this in one piece but I would hate to be in your shoes when - if - the moment comes that you realize you are on a very dangerous path. Note that your strengths - intelligence, knowledge of the law - are being used against you. I've seen a similar thing happen with two close friends who after 9/11 fell in with the wrong crowd and turned into 'truthers'. They were both very smart but also apparently quite gullible and they and their fellows were pushing each other ever further down into the hole. I wrote about them: https://jacquesmattheij.com/2020-12-19-complot-theory-believers/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/2020-12-19-complot-theory-believ... Since then, after burning up all of their friendships they moved to the heartland of Australia where they are now prepping for the end times. Sometimes it doesn't take much for a person to be radicalized and the way out is a lot more difficult than the way in.

rayiner 1y ago
> immigrant can be radicalized to the point that you are cheering on the people who would be more than happy to deport you and most of your family on the basis of your skin color alone Based! I can just picture Kash finishing the job by deporting the last remaining immigrant: himself. Regardless, it’s telling that we were talking about legal theories but you couldn’t keep out that intrusive thought about my skin color and immigration background.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  That's because you seem to be carrying water for the regime in your increasingly narrow interpretations of legal issues to defend that which is clearly indefensible. Intent matters. I understand that is not how the American legal system works. But it is how you avoid sliding into setups that no country should want. It boggles the mind that after six months of this you still have not had any insights that have given you pause to reconsider your stance. In fact, it seems to only get worse. There was a time that I looked up to you, but that time is definitely past. As for KP: he is just an even more extreme example of the same thing.