Trump trial proves to be political after all

[Twilight Hue]

No, only the incredibly ignorant say that. And sore losers. In fact when asked what makes this a "kangaroo court" no one on the right can ever defend that.

No. It's really a court of the pathologicaly deranged completely obsessed with removing political opponents.

Most already see that and it will reflect with the upcoming election.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Robert De Niro headlines bizarre Biden campaign presser outside Trump trial: ‘You’re a f–king idiot’

Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro became the face of the Biden campaign Tuesday, fronting a tumultuous press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse where former President Donald Trump’s…

nypost.com

Nothing says, "This is political" like the president of the United States sending a democrat activist to Trump's court trial (along with a few exploited Capitol cops) just as the jury is hearing closing arguments.

Get the <bleep> out of this forum and into the correct sub-forum.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No. It's really a court of the pathologicaly deranged completely obsessed with removing political opponents.

Most already see that and it will reflect with the upcoming election.

"From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes."

Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In other words, one shouldn't be so quick to blame politics for a person being in court when they were already in court consistently well before they were involved in politics.

 

[Stevicus]

The US is currently classified as a failing democracy by many political commentators.
To make it to failed democracy, mistrust in the judicial system has to jump over 50%, for failed state status, the state must be unable to enforce its laws.
You are among those who think the US is already a failed democracy, if you can convince more people, your belief becomes a reality. And it is rare that a failed democracy recovers, the usual way is right into failed state.

I think there's always been some degree of mistrust of the judicial system, going as far back as Shay's Rebellion. It goes along with the overall mistrust of government which characterized the founding of this country and the establishment of the Constitution and three branches of government. Strictly speaking (as much as people try to pretend otherwise), they're every bit as much a part of the government as the other branches and agencies of government. Judges are politicians and are properly viewed as such.

I would say that our democracy is far more robust when more people are cynical and mistrustful of government, such as was seen during the 1960s and 70s. Back then, there was a general mistrust of all branches of government, especially the CIA, FBI, and US military.

Nowadays, even among liberals, I've discerned a blind deference to those agencies which is the complete opposite than how they would have reacted 50 years ago. In the past few decades, I've seen more than a few people fall all over themselves to defend the US government and its various institutions. I would say that attitude is even more dangerous to democracy than actual mistrust, as it is clearly an attempt to discredit and/or delegitimizing any righteous criticisms of government.

 

[Magic Man]

Private citizens showing support is democracy.

Good. Then this was democracy.

A democrat president sending activists to his rival's trial shortly before an election is election interference, and very much political.

First, "activists"? If your point can't stand on its own, don't try to make it work with loaded language.

Second, "election interference"? Please tell me you're kidding.

Third, you're shocked that the criminal trial of a former president who is in the middle of another presidential campaign is political? You say it as if there's something wrong with that. Why wouldn't it be political? Better yet, why shouldn't it?

Biden clearly knows the MSM will back him up. Too bad he's also counting on the citizens of this country to not notice what's really going on. No wonder Trump managed to draw a huge crowd of supporters (black and hispanic) at a New York rally. Even New Yorkers can see through the political crap from Biden and his judge friends.

Examples of the "MSM" backing Biden up?

Why would he want people to not notice? Why would he send one of the most famous actors in the world to a trial that the entire country (and much of the world) is scrutinizing closely, if he didn't want people to notice? I'm pretty sure the whole point is for people to notice.

So, wait, Ney Yorkers can see through the political crap from Biden, but not the political crap from Trump? Are you saying they can't see through Trump's political crap, or that Trump doesn't do political crap? If it's the latter, I have oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you.

 

[Magic Man]

It's the only issue they have left to run on.
The economy? Inflation? No! January 6th!!!
How about jobs, national security, crime, the border being overrun? Nope! January 6th!!!

Why wouldn't they run on the economy that's been great for a while now? What do you specifically want Biden to do about inflation? Why wouldn't they run on jobs, when the unemployment rate is low? Why wouldn't they run on national security? Why wouldn't they run on crime, which is still declining like it has for decades? Why would they run on the border being overrun? Wild overreactions only mean to instill fear and get people to vote for an authoritarian are republicans' job.

And why wouldn't they focus a lot on the former president trying to illegally overturn the election and install himself as a dictator? I'd say that's a pretty important thing to focus on.

When Biden's camp pain ads (not a typo)

You conservatives sure are clever...

come out, count on each and every one being about January 6th, even though most people are more concerned about life at the present moment, and what the next 4 years are going to be like, and if we'll even have a sovereign country left afterwards.

Focusing on January 6th is precisely about whether we'll have a sovereign country after 4 more years of Trump. That's the entire point of it. Look what he already tried to do. What will he do next time?

 

[Heyo]

I think there's always been some degree of mistrust of the judicial system, going as far back as Shay's Rebellion. It goes along with the overall mistrust of government which characterized the founding of this country and the establishment of the Constitution and three branches of government. Strictly speaking (as much as people try to pretend otherwise), they're every bit as much a part of the government as the other branches and agencies of government. Judges are politicians and are properly viewed as such.

I would say that our democracy is far more robust when more people are cynical and mistrustful of government, such as was seen during the 1960s and 70s. Back then, there was a general mistrust of all branches of government, especially the CIA, FBI, and US military.

Nowadays, even among liberals, I've discerned a blind deference to those agencies which is the complete opposite than how they would have reacted 50 years ago. In the past few decades, I've seen more than a few people fall all over themselves to defend the US government and its various institutions. I would say that attitude is even more dangerous to democracy than actual mistrust, as it is clearly an attempt to discredit and/or delegitimizing any righteous criticisms of government.

I hear you. But this has a different quality. In the '60s and '70s, people were critical, and for good reasons. The MAGA crowd is simply partisan. They don't care if the system is corrupt, they will use and praise it, when it's for them and demonize it when it's against them.
Speaking of corrupt, the left has also good reason, actual good reason, to be critical of the judicial system. The current SCOTUS is a disgrace.
But an overall acceptance of the rule of law is what holds a society together. And while the '60s were critical of some institutions, there was still the overall acceptance. I see that slipping today.

 

[Stevicus]

I hear you. But this has a different quality. In the '60s and '70s, people were critical, and for good reasons. The MAGA crowd is simply partisan. They don't care if the system is corrupt, they will use and praise it, when it's for them and demonize it when it's against them.
Speaking of corrupt, the left has also good reason, actual good reason, to be critical of the judicial system. The current SCOTUS is a disgrace.
But an overall acceptance of the rule of law is what holds a society together. And while the '60s were critical of some institutions, there was still the overall acceptance. I see that slipping today.

Another key difference back in those days was that the public dialog was raw, but honest ("telling it like it is" as they used to say). People were inclined to question authority, not uncritically accept it at face value. There wasn't always widespread acceptance of the rule of law, as there was a good deal of civil disobedience (and some not so civil). And in some cases, there was outright defiance and disrespect for the law, as this period was also the heyday of the Mob and organized crime. The government itself also appeared to operate as if they were above the law, so there was a great deal of passive resistance, particularly among the younger crowd, among whom the police and political establishment were commonly referred to as "the pigs."

Even prior to that, there has always been a certain sub-culture and undercurrent of opinion which has always been a bit anti-government. Not necessarily revolutionary, but more just people who would rather be left alone. Somewhat like the moonshiners and their attitude towards revenuers. Or even among kids who like to do things which they might see as victimless crimes, but crimes nonetheless, which automatically puts them at odds with law enforcement and the rule of law.

Tracing back the political etymology of the MAGAs, one can discern many of the same ideas back in the old days as well. Of course, they're partisan, but it's oftentimes rooted in certain myths about Americana and nostalgia about the good old days. Their America First position seems atavistic, but simple.

In contrast, the Democrats (not to be confused with "the left," though there is some overlap) have become a bit muddled and mushy. Public perceptions of the "rule of law" are also being called into question. It reminds me of Billy Jack's line: "When policemen break the law, then there is no law. Just a fight for survival."

Of course, realistically, those who have the most firepower and the most troops on their side would win in that fight, so that's what people are inclined to obey, even if they neither know nor care what the law actually is. It seems it's usually the military that provides the tipping point between democracy and dictatorship.

 

[Tomef]

Robert De Niro headlines bizarre Biden campaign presser outside Trump trial: ‘You’re a f–king idiot’

Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro became the face of the Biden campaign Tuesday, fronting a tumultuous press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse where former President Donald Trump’s…

nypost.com

Nothing says, "This is political" like the president of the United States sending a democrat activist to Trump's court trial (along with a few exploited Capitol cops) just as the jury is hearing closing arguments.

You’re saying that De Niro expressing his views outside the court ‘proves’ this trial is politically motivated?

Could you explain, step by step, how you arrived at that conclusion?

You could start with the initial arraignment and charges, why they are not actually charges relating to infractions of the law but something to do with politics, and go from there.

 

[F1fan]

No. It's really a court of the pathologicaly deranged completely obsessed with removing political opponents.

This is factually incorrect. You are just repeating what I imagine right wing disinformation media presents.

Most already see that and it will reflect with the upcoming election.

Trump shouldn't have committed crimes. What will you far right wingers do if the jury comes back with a conviction? Call them liars? Call them corrupt? I still don't understand the power Trump has over conservatives. It is like a cult. There is no rational basis for the support he gets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It's really a court of the pathologicaly deranged completely obsessed with removing political opponents.

Most already see that and it will reflect with the upcoming election.

Just another unsupported claim. I asked you to support your claim about this being a kangaroo court and you could not come even close.

Can you answer the question without unnecessary bull****?

 

[Laniakea]

You’re saying that De Niro expressing his views outside the court ‘proves’ this trial is politically motivated?

Could you explain, step by step, how you arrived at that conclusion?

You could start with the initial arraignment and charges, why they are not actually charges relating to infractions of the law but something to do with politics, and go from there.

Or we could start with it the way the news organizations started it.
"Biden Campaign Presser" should indicate to you the politician who made it political.

 

[Laniakea]

This is factually incorrect. You are just repeating what I imagine right wing disinformation media presents.

Trump shouldn't have committed crimes. What will you far right wingers do if the jury comes back with a conviction? Call them liars? Call them corrupt? I still don't understand the power Trump has over conservatives. It is like a cult. There is no rational basis for the support he gets.

Why not? Isn't that what far leftists always do when the jury doesn't vote the way the leftists want?
If they say "Not guilty", the leftists will be saying, "That doesn't mean he's innocent!", and "Another rich guy gets away with a crime!"

 

[We Never Know]

This is factually incorrect. You are just repeating what I imagine right wing disinformation media presents.

In reality the left has done just about everything they can to get rid of Trump. Short of trying to kill him, though Trump claims they were going to.

If Trump had never ran for president those women wouldn't have came forward IMO.(that's when they started coming foward)

Now if it was about justice or money, they would have came foward before IMO.

Hell maybe publicity, getting back into the spotlight had a little something to do with it.
It sure got them.publicity and put them into the spotlight again.

 

[Laniakea]

I reality the left has done about everything they can to get rid of Trump. Short of trying to kill him, though Trump claims they were going to.

If Trump had never ran for president no woman would have came forward IMO.(that's when they started coming out)

Now if it was about justice or money, they would have came out before IMO

Funny how women who were "abused" always seem to come out of the woodwork against a politician just before an election, even if they themselves took over a hundred thousand dollars and agreed not to.

 

[We Never Know]

Funny how women who were "abused" always seem to come out of the woodwork against a politician just before an election, even if they themselves took over a hundred thousand dollars and agreed not to.

Some do take long times, some never come forward.

Its not just a coincidence these women all came forward when Trump was running for president IMO.

 

[Laniakea]

Some do take long times, some never come forward.

Its not just a coincidence these women all came forward when Trump was running for president IMO.

Same goes for the ones that accuse conservative SCOTUS justices.
That thing about the upside down flag at Alito's home? Another perfect example. Wasn't an issue back when it happened 4 years ago, but suddenly becomes a priority when the SCOTUS is expected to take up cases concerning Trump.

 

[We Never Know]

Same goes for the ones that accuse conservative SCOTUS justices.
That thing about the upside down flag at Alito's home? Another perfect example. Wasn't an issue back when it happened 4 years ago, but suddenly becomes a priority when the SCOTUS is expected to take up cases concerning Trump.

I don't even look at SCOTUS.
They are appointed by the setting president when a seat comes open, regardless if he is dem or repub. Call it the luck of the draw.

However... example.... if a repub judge had plans to retire in 2021 but retires early so Trump could appoint a new one(in case he lost) instead of Biden, I would call that BS. And vise-versa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or we could start with it the way the news organizations started it.
"Biden Campaign Presser" should indicate to you the politician who made it political.

The person that made it political was Trump. Or did you miss that? He made it political from day one.

 

[Tomef]

Or we could start with it the way the news organizations started it.

The news organisations paid off Stormy Daniels?

Biden Campaign Presser" should indicate to you the politician who made it political.

What is it that you think this actually means? The ‘presser’ retrospectively put Trump on trial?