Either apply the law equally to all offenders or get rid of the law. Why should Trump be given special treatment just because he's a former President? It may be politically expedient, but the fair application of the law shouldn't be politically motivated. — Michael

Or pay attention to whether you're going to secure a conviction and ask yourself what the consequences of your decisions will be. I've not created a per se rule protecting former presidents. I've just asked that politicians pay attention to the political landscape.

At least acknowledge the irony of the left demanding law and order and siding full step with law enforcement. Cities burned in lawlessness as politicians offered tempered politically motivated responses the past few years. And today it's being argued that the right is the party of innocent until proven guilty?

Or pay attention to whether you're going to secure a conviction and ask yourself what the consequences of your decisions will be. I've not created a per se rule protecting former presidents. I've just asked that politicians pay attention to the political landscape. — Hanover

I assume they believe that there is a good chance of conviction, and that the consequences are that a criminal is punished for his crimes.

It is corruption, plain and simple, for a distinct attorney to refuse to convict because it may damage their preferred political party's chances at the next election. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if Bragg were to refuse to prosecute a Democrat congressman for a crime because he wants that congressman to be re-elected.

At least acknowledge the irony of the left demanding law and order and siding full step with law enforcement. Cities burned in lawlessness as politicians offered tempered politically motivated responses the past few years. And today it's being argued that the right is the party of innocent until proven guilty? — Hanover

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is there evidence that some Democrat politician committed a crime and that some Democrat district attorney refused to prosecute them because they are a fellow Democrat, and that "the left" are okay with this?

Cities burned in lawlessness as politicians offered tempered politically motivated responses the past few years. — Hanover

That wasn't due to a lack of interest in law enforcement. They were trying to avoid making the protesters more violent.

don't know what you're trying to say here. Is there evidence that some Democrat politician committed a crime and that some Democrat district attorney refused to prosecute them because they are a fellow Democrat, and that "the left" are okay with this? — Michael

Clinton committed perjury.

assume they believe that there is a good chance of conviction, and that the consequences are that a criminal is punished for his crimes. — Michael

They had no chance of convicting Trayvon but they prosecuted anyway.

It just strikes me as naive and unrealistic to suggest that politicians are apolitical. It's also unnecessarily cynical to suggest it's purely political. It's nuanced and multifactorial, like everything.

That wasn't due to a lack of interest in law enforcement. They were trying to avoid making the protesters more violent. — frank

The basis was politics, not justice. Maybe it was the right call, but the point is that politics is a valid consideration too.

Clinton committed perjury. — Hanover

And he was rightfully impeached for it. Whether or not he was wrongfully acquitted is a different matter. But also, as I said before, impeachment and prosecution are two different things.

It just strikes me as naive and unrealistic to suggest that politicians are apolitical. — Hanover

I'm not saying that they're apolitical. I'm saying that it's wrong for you to suggest that Bragg should have considered how prosecuting Trump would have affected the Democrat Party at the next election. If there's evidence of a crime than it is right to press charges.

I've just asked that politicians pay attention to the political landscape. — Hanover

That's what bothers me. That you don't even worry that the justice system is run by the politicians.

Clinton committed perjury. — Hanover

He should have gone down for that. The Democrats have no moral standing here either.

He should have gone down for that. The Democrats have no moral standing here either. — Baden

I recall reading that it was due to a technicality and that Starr messed up. Clinton was asked if he had had sexual relations, and was given a list of activities that count as "sexual relations". Receiving a blow job wasn't on the list.

It would have been interesting if he'd answered "yes" because under a "normal" understanding of the phrase it would have included receiving a blow job, and then he be found guilty of perjury because receiving a blow job wasn't on the pre-defined list of what was meant by "sexual relations".

The basis was politics, not justice. Maybe it was the right call, but the point is that politics is a valid consideration too — Hanover

People were mainly thinking about justice for the black guy who was brutally murdered by the white cop. Public safety was the concern that prompted forbearance on the part of riot police.

Did Democrat politicians play it for all it was worth? Probably. I don't see how you'd identity that as the basis for anything. That's just what smart politicians do.

That's what bothers me. That you don't even worry that the justice system is run by the politicians. — unenlightened

Not sure what apolitical means. Whether the person in power is appointed, elected, born into power, or the product of a coup, it's still politics.

If you mean democratic power ought be checked to a greater degree than it is in the administration of justice, then that's just a matter of degree.

If you want to know what Trump is guilty of, not just in this case but since the beginning of his political career, look at what he accuses others of.

He has turned a legal issue into a political one, and accused the Democrats of being the ones doing that. If they don't cuff him he will request that they do. All the better for his image as a reality TV star martyr, an image he has been cultivating from the beginning. As he told the faithful in Waco:

"They're coming after you." — Fooloso4

This he has convinced them is the real threat of what he calls the "weaponization of law enforcement". He has turned law enforcement into a weapon to be used against the faithful MAGA followers, the good people who must fight against the forces of evil.

The threat of civil war is real, but given the disparity of power and weapons, it will not be fought by conventional means. The battleground will be the hearts and minds of the people.

I recall reading that it was due to a technicality and that Starr messed up. — Michael

Here's where I read it:

"Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the court?"

...

"Sexual relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."

People were mainly thinking about justice for the black guy who was brutally murdered by the white cop. Public safety was the concern that prompted forbearance on the part of riot police.

Did Democrat politicians play it for all it was worth? Probably. I don't see how you'd identity that as the basis for anything. That's just what smart politicians do. — frank

But we're agreeing here. The point of others is that politics has no role in the justice system, that Justice stands upon Mount Sinai as truth, and that its wisdom is to be imparted on the masses regardless of consequence. What you're saying is that temperance in the name of pragmatics is appropriate. If that is conceded, then you have to ask yourself with Trump whether forebearance makes sense in terms of causing outrage among his supporters and an empowering of his position.

I don't agree that Clinton should have been prosecuted for perjury. Holding people accountable for their misdeeds and promoting justice is important, but it's not the only thing that is important.

After years and years of litigation, let us assume that Trump is found guilty and the convictions are all upheld on appeal so that our now 80+ year old man can placed on probation or whatever, and in the meantime, you've polarized a huge segment of society even more and empowered a position that would have been forgotten.

The political energy for change is limited, meaning we have limited ability to multi-task. What do we want to spend our time on? Gun violence, medical care, criminal justice reform, climate change, Trump's form filing, Hunter Biden's computer, or whatever else?

Is anyone really going to be surprised if Biden gets indicted for something some day in retaliation? The only thing that will save him from that is his age.

Guessing at what the short and long term consequences of indictment might be should not be the determining factor. We do not know what those consequences will be. In addition, these are not the only consequences to be considered. Treating someone as if he is above the law and unaccountable to the people he is sworn to serve is a bigger problem.

From the New York Young Republicans Club:

"President Trump embodies the American people – our psyche from id to super-ego – as does no other figure; his soul is totally bonded with our core values and emotions, and he is our total and indisputable champion."

:rofl:

It really is a cult.

There is a political reality that cannot be ignored. You can go on about how justice demands the prosecution of every prosecutable crime damn the torpedoes, and we can then end up with failed impeachments and acquittals followed by emboldened politicians who should have lost power.

The Manhattan case is a case about misuse of campaign funds and falsification of records. It's a finance regulatory case.

Prosecute the man for calling the Georgia Secretary of State and asking for fabricated votes and stop with this diversion into whether Form 1876-b (I made that form up, so don't look it up) was falsified. — Hanover

I think you're right about this indictment in particular. This is not the crime justice should be going all in on.

Makes the North Koreans and Branch Davidians look kind of bland:

"Our father, the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, is the most outstanding leader of the times, who has made the greatest contributions to the development of human history. He has devoted his all to the people, to the revolution, and to the country for over 70 years since he embarked on the road of revolution in his early years. With his great ideology and theories, his seasoned leadership and noble virtues, and his outstanding, energetic activities, he has provided a sure guarantee for the victory of our revolution and the happiness of our people, and he has contributed to the accomplishment of the cause of global independence."

"David Koresh has shown us the true path, the way to salvation. Through his teachings, I have come to understand the true meaning of the Scriptures and the will of God. I trust him with my life, and I am prepared to stand by him until the end. He is the chosen one, and only through his guidance can we hope to find our way to eternal life."

If that is conceded, then you have to ask yourself with Trump whether forebearance makes sense in terms of causing outrage among his supporters and an empowering of his position. — Hanover

Turning assholes into martyrs is counter productive. But who decides to push forward or pull back?

With our annual summer riots, that decision is actually coming from mayors and chiefs of police. They don't want a massacre on their hands.

Who would decide not to prosecute Trump because of unfortunate side effects? The DA?

I assume that this particular charge was brought forth because the prosecution thought it was the strongest case against him, legally speaking. After so much time - and with the campaign for the White House going strong, they wouldn't want to bring forth charges that might be easier to get out of.

And yes, there are strong political currents guiding this investigation. And US presidents have committed far worse crime than using campaign funds to pay off a porn star - that is mere peanuts.

It will be interesting to see if this somehow complicates his candidacy for the White House, or if it will only strengthen people to support him more.

I think you're right — T Clark

Thought I'd quote this quotable quote.

Thought I'd quote this quotable quote. — Hanover

You and I often agree when we're not trying to prove who the biggest smarty-pants is.

You and I often agree when we're not trying to prove who the biggest smarty-pants is. — T Clark

I disagree

I disagree — Hanover

This is an image of a tardigrade. I've decided to use it as my new smiley face temoji. Temoji - that's short for T Clark emoji.

We know that the DA, among others, campaigned on getting Trump. Statin’s secret police chief’s infamous quote, “You show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”, is exactly the sort of justice at work here. A possible misdemeanor, well beyond the statute of limitations, speciously elevated to a federal crime; the use of a disgruntled perjurer as a star witness; a politicized DA and Attorney general who both campaigned on getting the man; all of this indicates the failure of the American justice system, particularly in New York. A travesty.

or he’s guilty

Here are some facts for those who think they are important:

Bragg did not start the investigation. He inherited it. He was concerned with the strength of the case and slowed down the investigation. As a result the two leading prosecutors resigned. It was not until successfully convicting the Trump's company of tax fraud that he convened a new grand jury. He would not have done so if he did not think he now has a strong case. We do not know the details of the case. The Republican leaders do not know the details of the case either, but are circling the wagons and amping up the rhetoric and threats. All in an effort to get the voters to decide before the trial even begins and evidence is heard.

This is an image of a tardigrade Trump [after several years in prison due to his various and numerous crimes, his form reduced to a more accurate rendition of his personality; to whit, an ugly blowhard of parasitical aesthetic blind to his own stupidities]. — T Clark

Yes, and it may not all work out so wonderfully, but it's kind of beautiful to imagine the cult members' heads explode in sycophantic shock as their ego, id and general psychic overlord begins his fast decent to earth sans landing gear, the final remonstrations of delusional grandeur streaming like stale farts from the doomed craft of MAGA, the impression less like a fiery comet than a burning witch on her flaming broom, the penultimate gaslit fantasy sniffed out to the sad coda of Don Jr.'s whimpers and the gleeful inner orgasms of meatball Ron as he contemplates domination over the charred remains. God bless 'Murica! God bless our fallen hero! Thank you Sigmund! Bring on the clowns!