Trump Found Guilty

[Tomef]

Doesn't that describe the author of your link as well?

Yes, it’s just less ranty than others. I posted it wondering if anyone can dig up something better, perhaps. This kind of leading with an assumption does seem to characterise pieces attempting to call the trial, which seems pretty straightforward, a politically motivated show. I mean, if he wasn’t such a cretin it might be that he would get away with more, but he’s asking for it when he puts himself out there, like a shoplifter waving around what he stole in front of the shop. But to go from that to this ‘Soviet show trial’ nonsense beggar’s belief. On some level I assume there must be someone out there that at least makes a rational argument for it. It’s hard to accept people can really be that stupid.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I posted it wondering if anyone can dig up something better, perhaps. On some level I assume there must be someone out there that at least makes a rational argument for it.

I doubt that there is any opinion possible in defense of Trump that doesn't involve deception or outright lies. This is an open and shut situation for anybody who is impartial and informed. Trump is a career criminal who finally got caught. How can you defend that honestly? You might argue that it wasn't Trump's fault since he was apparently raised by a verbally abusive father who Trump could never please, and he's spent the rest of his life trying to prove himself and getting revenge, but that wouldn't help him in court.

I mean, if he wasn’t such a cretin it might be that he would get away with more

His mistake appears to be winning the White House. Some of the family seem to understand that when they say that the Trump family sacrificed itself to save America. They seem to understand that in the past, they were all extremely wealthy and able to live under the radar, but that becoming president changed all of that. They seem to sense the price paid and that they are paying it, too, through loss of wealth, power, and prestige for Trump becoming president although they frame it as a noble and patriotic sacrifice. The Trump Organization, their business, is defunct. Their family name and brand is trashed. And their inheritances are depleted. This was their future, but it's all gone now.

It’s hard to accept people can really be that stupid.

I don't understand the MAGA mentality. Millions are shaking their heads in disbelief. Who knew that so many of their neighbors were so dysfunctional as citizens? They just can't stand by their country and its guiding principles. They prefer an angry, vindictive strongman prepared to become a dictator, one with no respect for the constitution, honest elections, the rule of law, egalitarianism, or church-state separation. What makes a person want that? Being disgruntled might. It might lead to a scorched earth wish, but is half of the country in that state?

Some blame it on there being so many people who get no news, but does that explain this? These people seem to know that Trump exists. Could they also know nothing else about him? They must know his personality and demeanor. I don't know why that is acceptable to anybody, but apparently it describes half of Americans.

 

[Tomef]

What makes a person want that?

Fear, maybe? The world is a rapidly changing place. That seems to frighten some people.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Apparently the gag order stays in effect until sentencing, in this case, until July 11. Any additional violations of the gag order can be considered by the judge at sentencing.

 

[esmith]

No. The Justice Department investigated, and decided there was insufficient cause to indict.

Apparently, prosecuting Trump but not Biden for possessing classified documents was also evidence of partisanship:

"Like Trump, Joe Biden kept boxes of classified documents in his home following his stint as Barack Obama’s vice-president. And like Trump, Biden was investigated by a special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland, Robert Hur. But Hur refused to press charges under the Espionage Act against Biden on the grounds that he is “an elderly man with a poor memory.”​

For those aware of the differences between the cases and the actual reason for not prosecuting Biden, the above is about as dishonest as the preceding paragraphs.

And no argument was made to defend the charge that the juries were biased.

This is what conservative apologetics looks like - lies.

Hopefully.

No. He was investigated and there was insufficient evidence of a crime to take it to a grand jury.

Maybe you should investage more before you make such statments.
From: Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory'
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Hur has declined to prosecute President Joe Biden for his handling of classified documents but said in a report released Thursday that Biden’s practices “present serious risks to national security” and added that part of the reason he wouldn't charge Biden was that the president could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory" who would be sympathetic to a jury.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” the report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”



It would be up to an Grand Jury to determine if it was beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Maybe you should investage more before you make such statments.
From: Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory'
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Hur has declined to prosecute President Joe Biden for his handling of classified documents but said in a report released Thursday that Biden’s practices “present serious risks to national security” and added that part of the reason he wouldn't charge Biden was that the president could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory" who would be sympathetic to a jury.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” the report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”



It would be up to an Grand Jury to determine if it was beyond a reasonable doubt.

So why didn't Hur recommend prosecution eh? Apparently he didn't think the case was strong enough.

 

[Stevicus]

I’ve tried to find a reasonable article in defence of Trump, but haven’t been able to locate one that doesn’t simply assume anyone involved is ‘obviously’ politically motivated, and they all compare this fairly mundane legal proceeding to a Soviet-style show trial. This seems to be a pretty bizarre idea; Trump had a defence team, highly paid, and a standard trial no different from any other. Where is the comparison, I wonder? A show trial under Stalin was just that, a show - no actual case, no defence, just railroading someone to a preordained guilty verdict based on confessions of political ‘wrongness’ under extreme duress (torture). Trump actually did what he was accused of, was found guilty after an actual trial by jury.

This is the most reasonable article I could find, but it has to be asked why the writer makes this comparison, and why he thinks he somehow can just ‘obviously’ see into the deeper motives of the people involved? Although Unherd is a serious news site, not like the usual crap from the US conservative media, you have to question the journalistic objectivity of someone who sees comparisons with Soviet Russia here, or who makes random assumptions of people’s motives - based on what?

Trump's conviction is an assault on democracy

unherd.com

I tend to find myself somewhat mystified when I see discussions about trials and legal actions from a technical viewpoint, as it is actually practiced by lawyers and judges (and apparently taught in law schools). The questions being considered in court are beyond the expertise and qualifications of the majority of the voting public. As a result, people will tend to rely upon self-styled "legal experts" who will tell them what they want to hear.

It seems that, in the past few years, we've been in somewhat "unchartered waters," legally and politically speaking. We've had political dissension and turmoil before, but not in this manner. We've had a Civil War before, but now I'm beginning to wonder what it would have been like if they decided to fight it out in the courts, as opposed to the battlefields. With the Dred Scott decision still fresh in people's memories, my impression is that the public's trust in the courts was pretty low.

Similarly, confidence in the judiciary also seems a bit shaky, in one form or another. The conservative Supreme Court's recent decision on abortion rights has had quite a ripple effect throughout the body politic. It seems every court/judge/prosecutor gets cheers and jeers from either side, depending on what side they seem to be taking. The judge in the documents case is being castigated as pro-Trump since she was a Trump appointee. There are criticisms I've seen from other legal analysts who say that the judge is wrong and even that the Supreme Court is wrong.

So, we have a situation where lawyers are saying that other lawyers and judges are wrong. Who in this whole legal drama is actually "right"? It seems Trump may be banking on the idea that the Supreme Court will be on his side, which might explain why he still persists in pushing the envelope despite all the legal trouble he is facing.

 

[We Never Know]

So why didn't Hur recommend prosecution eh? Apparently he didn't think the case was strong enough.

Trump, Biden and Pence were all guilty of having classified documents. The main difference was how they acted when caught(cooperation vs no cooperation).

Why was Pence not seen as a big deal? Because he is a small fish. If he had been Trump's VP pick again, it would have been a bigger deal IMO.

As for not charging Biden....

"Special counsel Robert Hur has declined to prosecute President Joe Biden for his handling of classified documents but said in a report released Thursday that Biden’s practices “present serious risks to national security” and added that part of the reason he wouldn't charge Biden was that the president could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory" who would be sympathetic to a jury"

Biden won’t be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of ‘poor memory’

The decision caps off a yearlong saga and means Donald Trump remains the only president in history to face criminal charges.

www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[sun rise]

Just one little question.
I read that some say this indicates that no President is above the law.
Does the mean that any President can be prosecuted for violating the law?
If so this means that the current President must stand trial for mishandling classified information, correct?

No to the last sentence because whether or not a POTUS can be tried for official acts in office was not an issue in this case. Trump has claimed immunity in another case on that basis and AFAIK that is still an issue TBD

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe you should investage more before you make such statments.
From: Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory'
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Hur has declined to prosecute President Joe Biden for his handling of classified documents but said in a report released Thursday that Biden’s practices “present serious risks to national security” and added that part of the reason he wouldn't charge Biden was that the president could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory" who would be sympathetic to a jury.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” the report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”



It would be up to an Grand Jury to determine if it was beyond a reasonable doubt.

All true, but you are neglecting the fact that unless a prosecutor or special counsel decides to present a case to a Grand Jury, there is zero possibility of an indictment. That initial decision is the prosecutor's alone, and if they decide there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, they won't was the Grand Jury's time.

 

[Wandering Monk]

All the talking heads were saying this was the WEAKEST case against Trump! Does not bode well for the documents crime and the fake electors and election interference crimes!

 

[Revoltingest]

I’ve tried to find a reasonable article in defence of Trump, but haven’t been able to locate one that doesn’t simply assume anyone involved is ‘obviously’ politically motivated, and they all compare this fairly mundane legal proceeding to a Soviet-style show trial. This seems to be a pretty bizarre idea; Trump had a defence team, highly paid, and a standard trial no different from any other. Where is the comparison, I wonder? A show trial under Stalin was just that, a show - no actual case, no defence, just railroading someone to a preordained guilty verdict based on confessions of political ‘wrongness’ under extreme duress (torture). Trump actually did what he was accused of, was found guilty after an actual trial by jury.

This is the most reasonable article I could find, but it has to be asked why the writer makes this comparison, and why he thinks he somehow can just ‘obviously’ see into the deeper motives of the people involved? Although Unherd is a serious news site, not like the usual crap from the US conservative media, you have to question the journalistic objectivity of someone who sees comparisons with Soviet Russia here, or who makes random assumptions of people’s motives - based on what?

Trump's conviction is an assault on democracy

unherd.com

Believing crazy things requires
constructing crazy arguments.

 

[fantome profane]

Just one little question.
I read that some say this indicates that no President is above the law.
Does the mean that any President can be prosecuted for violating the law?
If so this means that the current President must stand trial for mishandling classified information, correct?

I hope so. It should.

Do you think a President should be prosecuted for violating laws or do you think they should be above the law?

 

[We Never Know]

I hope so. It should.

Agreed

Do you think a President should be prosecuted for violating laws

Yes

or do you think they should be above the law?

No

 

[Revoltingest]

The narrow majority in-between will be persuaded by social media and artificial intelligence to vote DONALD TRUMP 2024.The Ms Stormy Daniels affair is exactly that.A stormy affair in a tea cup.
Mr/Mrs Clinton of Democratic fame is hardly going to point accusing fingers.The Republican party was in the past heavily influenced by James Buchanan,The Cato and Heritage Institute.This on a reasonable/ unreasonable (?) premise people who amassed fortunes should not have to pay for Government services.Much easier to keep it for themselves and not fritter(? )it on Medicare, Medicaid etc and public schools for the lesser folk.Now the Republican party is the Trump party.
Trump is the money man with powerful backers.They will not let him lose if at all possible.Especially if he proclaims what a great job Russia did invading Ukraine.Amen to NATO (and Ukraine).
Betcha he wins - even if you do not like it.

I make no predictions.

 

[We Never Know]

The narrow majority in-between will be persuaded by social media and artificial intelligence to vote DONALD TRUMP 2024.The Ms Stormy Daniels affair is exactly that.A stormy affair in a tea cup.
Mr/Mrs Clinton of Democratic fame is hardly going to point accusing fingers.The Republican party was in the past heavily influenced by James Buchanan,The Cato and Heritage Institute.This on a reasonable/ unreasonable (?) premise people who amassed fortunes should not have to pay for Government services.Much easier to keep it for themselves and not fritter(? )it on Medicare, Medicaid etc and public schools for the lesser folk.Now the Republican party is the Trump party.
Trump is the money man with powerful backers.They will not let him lose if at all possible.Especially if he proclaims what a great job Russia did invading Ukraine.Amen to NATO (and Ukraine).
Betcha he wins - even if you do not like it.

"Betcha he wins - even if you do not like it"

I don't know. I didn't think he would win in 2016 and I was proven wrong.

 

[Spice]

All the talking heads were saying this was the WEAKEST case against Trump! Does not bode well for the documents crime and the fake electors and election interference crimes!

But if Trump is elected he can appoint an Attorney General that can nix the federal indictments against him. I want to see the Georgia case hit the schedule! That's the one that upsets me the most.

 

[Spice]

So why didn't Hur recommend prosecution eh? Apparently he didn't think the case was strong enough.

I don't recall hearing how many files or documents were found in Biden's private possession, but weren't they found in his home office? And if only a folder, or even many folders that arrived there by briefcase off and on during his time in office, that's not the same "intent" as boxes and boxes filling a spare bathroom. I see the amount and storage situation as "telling."

 

[Soandso]

"Betcha he wins - even if you do not like it"

I don't know. I didn't think he would win in 2016 and I was proven wrong.

Possible, but the political climate in 2016 is definitely different than it is now. Even compared to 2020 back when Trump lost to Biden, it looks different now than it did then. We'll see!

 

[F1fan]

I’ve tried to find a reasonable article in defence of Trump, but haven’t been able to locate one that doesn’t simply assume anyone involved is ‘obviously’ politically motivated, and they all compare this fairly mundane legal proceeding to a Soviet-style show trial. This seems to be a pretty bizarre idea; Trump had a defence team, highly paid, and a standard trial no different from any other. Where is the comparison, I wonder? A show trial under Stalin was just that, a show - no actual case, no defence, just railroading someone to a preordained guilty verdict based on confessions of political ‘wrongness’ under extreme duress (torture). Trump actually did what he was accused of, was found guilty after an actual trial by jury.

This is the most reasonable article I could find, but it has to be asked why the writer makes this comparison, and why he thinks he somehow can just ‘obviously’ see into the deeper motives of the people involved? Although Unherd is a serious news site, not like the usual crap from the US conservative media, you have to question the journalistic objectivity of someone who sees comparisons with Soviet Russia here, or who makes random assumptions of people’s motives - based on what?

Trump's conviction is an assault on democracy

unherd.com

When the tea party formed back in the Obama years it brought out a lot of hidden racists that no one knew were there. It was explained that many of these folks didn't realize they were racist until a black president was elected, and they triggered. The same seems to affect otherwise sane people. Bill Barr was highly critical of Trump after the events of Jan 6, but has recently ignored that by supporting Trump for election again. He seems to have deep motivations that has bubbled up over his capacity for reason. This is the danger of emotional people whose biases align to right wing politics. They see the due process being a threat to Trump, and by proxy to themselves.

I don't see any Trump supporters being rational actors. The exception would be the wealthy who know they can personally benefit financally by supporting Trump. Of course they are indifferent to fallout of Trump as president, and the corruption that will follow.

It could be that this writer has been overcome by the verdict, which can be interpreted as a conviction against republicans. It's all quite sybolic, and the meanings can be deeply rooted in peoples minds and beliefs. It is difficult to manage the emotional response to events that are not prepared for.