The United States v Donald J. Trump

[Hazir]

But do they want Trump? Are you really certain anybody besides Trump wants Trump? You never considered that what drives them harder than anything is that they lost trust in the people who claim to have their interests at heart while talking down to them? If you and other liberals want to know why some redneck up the hollers in Kentucky vote for Trump, you may be well advised to learn why they hate you and your candidates so much.

[wiggin]

This means that you don't understand what I am actually saying. I will try to explain it again.

Of the bat; I think there are good reasons why Trump should be prosecuted and I think such a prosecution legitimately could end in his incarceration.

What I don't think is that it is smart to do so on the basis of a law that from its inception has been used arbitrarily and also has proven to be an effective means of silencing dissenters. The law is bad, bad use of it makes things worse. Given that the application of the law has been arbitrary for as long as it has existed the claim that 'the law is the same for everyone, regardless of station' rings extremely hollow here.

What people who obsess over the letter of the law very easily forget is that the legal system is actually very fragile if not enough people believe in it any longer. And that's actually coming closer if you tell society at large that trying to interfere with the electoral process is less serious in the scheme of things than mis-filing some documents.

While there's no doubt that mishandling of classified documents has had variable enforcement over the years, Trumps behavior went far beyond 'misfiling some documents'. Trump had SCI documents stored in a wildly unsafe manner, knew he shouldn't have them, intentionally showed them to people without clearance, and then actively obstructed attempts to get them back. That's obviously criminal and should be treated such. Most other cases that aren't treated the same way are for inadvertent retention of documents that are promptly returned when they are discovered. This is just not even remotely the same.

I share your concern that people may be losing faith in the impartiality of our justice system (if they ever HAD faith in it). But for sensitive investigations like this the Justice Department takes pains to insulate decisions from political interference, and I think that any loss of faith has far more to do with incorrect rhetoric and propaganda from others rather than an actual appearance of impropriety.

You're ignoring the fact the fact that we have party primaries, GOP voters could choose to elect sane Republicans, but they consistently vote for extremists (or people pretending to be extremists). Can you please explain to me why in a crowded primary in 2016 with no incumbents, a vast majority supported Trump, Cruz, and Carson? Can you tell me how 91% support Trump's actions, even after he was convicted of sexual assault? Can you tell me why current GOP presidential candidates who voice typical Republican talking points but aren't going all in on election denial and hate mongering are polling in the single digits?

The reality is that a vast majority of Republican voters want Trump or someone like Trump. Policy has ceased to be relevant. There's certainly no serious argument that Trump has better character than the alternatives (including on the GOP side). Maybe these are good people in their normal lives, but they've also been programmed to hate and to support anyone who hates the loudest. You're not going to fix this as long as they continue to willingly be brainwashed into this hate-filled ideology. There's simply no evidence that "engagement" can reverse the brainwashing for a substantial number of these people.

Loki, we've had this discussion before and I suspect we won't get anywhere this time, either. When people are afraid, they don't make rational decisions. They're voting for extremists because they don't think that a 'sane' Republican will help them. They've been told what to be afraid of and who's to blame, and the likes of Trump and his coreligionists are good at weaponizing fear. And when you buy into the bizarro world being fed to them by Fox and its ilk, you don't actually believe any of the bad news about Trump, because obviously it's part of the liberal MSM hogwash.

I remember the whole hullabaloo about Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama Senate race. He won a whole lot of Republican votes despite his obvious deficiencies as a human being and a politician. But when you actually asked those voters why they voted for him, the answer wasn't that they voted for him despite the fact that he's a pedophile, but they simply didn't believe the allegations against him. It's an important distinction and I think it is worth remembering for other times when people support a candidate who is clearly an awful choice.

I'm not living in a fantasy world where we can solve all of our problems if we just sit down and talk to each other. Of course that's not true. But your rhetoric against Republican voters is so strident, so certain that these voters are bad people that there's no way we'll ever get to some kind of consensus reality. I'm simply advocating for empathy.

[Hazir]

I am not inclined to defend Trump,so I will end with that I would like to see him in prison for the crime of trying to overthrow government. Not for this.

I am also not so naive as to think a national townhall is feasible and will solve all problems. Yet, sitting down with even one of these people for once might make Liberals understand a little better. Assuming that Liberals want to understand.

[wiggin]

I am not inclined to defend Trump,so I will end with that I would like to see him in prison for the crime of trying to overthrow government. Not for this.

I'm not sure why it's an either/or? There's a grand jury talking about Jan 6 as well and Trump has received a target letter.

[Loki]

Loki, we've had this discussion before and I suspect we won't get anywhere this time, either. When people are afraid, they don't make rational decisions. They're voting for extremists because they don't think that a 'sane' Republican will help them. They've been told what to be afraid of and who's to blame, and the likes of Trump and his coreligionists are good at weaponizing fear. And when you buy into the bizarro world being fed to them by Fox and its ilk, you don't actually believe any of the bad news about Trump, because obviously it's part of the liberal MSM hogwash.

I remember the whole hullabaloo about Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama Senate race. He won a whole lot of Republican votes despite his obvious deficiencies as a human being and a politician. But when you actually asked those voters why they voted for him, the answer wasn't that they voted for him despite the fact that he's a pedophile, but they simply didn't believe the allegations against him. It's an important distinction and I think it is worth remembering for other times when people support a candidate who is clearly an awful choice.

I'm not living in a fantasy world where we can solve all of our problems if we just sit down and talk to each other. Of course that's not true. But your rhetoric against Republican voters is so strident, so certain that these voters are bad people that there's no way we'll ever get to some kind of consensus reality. I'm simply advocating for empathy.

Firstly, you can't take people at their word. People frequently give socially acceptable answers for their behavior. People don't like admitting that they're ok voting for a pedophile.

But more importantly, you make my point for me. The reality is irrelevant. People are getting hit by enough propaganda that they'd believe anything. You go to most dictatorships and you ask people in private whether they live in a dictatorship and most will say no. Once GOP voters decided they were fine with being brainwashed with right-wing propaganda, their underlying beliefs become irrelevant. They will believe what they're told to believe. They might believe it for different reasons, but their ultimate actions will be the same. Someone supporting removing term limits because they're ok with dictatorship and someone who supports the same policy because it's the only way to prevent antifa from taking over still support the same policy.

[Aimless]

Two of my closest and oldest friends grew up in Evangelical American households, and I thought their stories of their communities were exaggerated until I realized, as an adult, that it really is an unbelievably fucked up culture and subset of society. What a remarkable place the US would be without this inordinately influential sex-/death-/violence cult.

[Hazir]

[

Firstly, you can't take people at their word. People frequently give socially acceptable answers for their behavior. People don't like admitting that they're ok voting for a pedophile.

But more importantly, you make my point for me. The reality is irrelevant. People are getting hit by enough propaganda that they'd believe anything. You go to most dictatorships and you ask people in private whether they live in a dictatorship and most will say no. Once GOP voters decided they were fine with being brainwashed with right-wing propaganda, their underlying beliefs become irrelevant. They will believe what they're told to believe. They might believe it for different reasons, but their ultimate actions will be the same. Someone supporting removing term limits because they're ok with dictatorship and someone who supports the same policy because it's the only way to prevent antifa from taking over still support the same policy.

Now is the point where someone has to say 'The Nile is a river in Africa'.

[Loki]

Unless Fox spent the past month telling you that only sex traffickers believe that.

[Loki]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66333370

This is the kind of stuff you get jailed for even if there was no underlying crime.

[Hazir]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66333370

This is the kind of stuff you get jailed for even if there was no underlying crime.

Do you remember someone giving her boss a consensual blowjob?

The way you Americans turn every brush with the law into an entire forest of sequoias is something different. It also seems to be at its most creative when it's used against political opponents.

[Loki]

Sure, Hazir. Knowingly stealing classified documents and then engaging in a cover-up is exactly the same as a blow job.

[Hazir]

Sure, Hazir. Knowingly stealing classified documents and then engaging in a cover-up is exactly the same as a blow job.

I am talking about the wonderful practice of agglutination of indictments during fact finding. It doesn’t breed confidence in the process.

It builds legal cases on acts that in themselves weren’t even against the law. I am not saying that what Trump did was legal, but neither am I convinced that the case against him is more convincing in the public arena just because the people working the case had a new gotcha moment. Your failure to see what this is doing to your legal system and system of government is fascinating.

This may be news to you, but that system depends on the idea that the ruled consent to be ruled. The best way to obliterate such a system is to shower your fellow citizens with your hate and condescension. To the point that they don’t consent any longer. I don’t know if that rings a bell, but if not think back at January 6th, 2021. That time it failed, next time it may be someone with better organisational skills.

[Aimless]

It's fascinating to see this pathologically obsessive focus on trying (in vain) to preserve the fascistoid nutjobs' purported faith in the legitimacy of the justice system while disregarding the competing—and considerably stronger—interest in preserving sane pro-democracy voters' interest in upholding the rule of law. This is how abusers train their victims. Weaksauce.

In any case, the other, bigger cases appear to be moving forward, so this back asswards debate will be moot soon enough

[Hazir]

It's fascinating to see this pathologically obsessive focus on trying (in vain) to preserve the fascistoid nutjobs' purported faith in the legitimacy of the justice system while disregarding the competing—and considerably stronger—interest in preserving sane pro-democracy voters' interest in upholding the rule of law. This is how abusers train their victims. Weaksauce.

In any case, the other, bigger cases appear to be moving forward, so this back asswards debate will be moot soon enough

The fall out is much wider than your fascist nut jobs. 62% of Americans believe the indictment is politically motivated. That is a serious issue with regards to the legitimacy of the legal system.

Also, you're confusing 'them' using this with me wanting to convince them of anything.

[Loki]

Do we enforce the law by public opinion now?

FYI, the number is more a reflection of distrust in the legal system than cateful consideration of the law.

[Hazir]

And you don't see how problematic that is? And yes in essence what we do is enforcing public opinion bridled by a system of written rules. But in the end it's public opinion. It comes from where you put 'We the people' at the basis of your system of government. If a majority of the people approaching 2/3 of the people no longer agree you're putting the legitimacy of the entire system into question.

[LittleFuzzy]

Do we enforce the law by public opinion now?

Usually, yeah. 's how the Framers set it up. Why do you think we use juries in the first place?

You lot do understand that prosecuting this also weakens other subsequent prosecutions right? Just like the very misguided 1st impeachment of Trump negatively impacted the 2nd (and also weakened these prosecution attempts)?

Of course, it may be that there's stronger conclusive evidence against Trump personally here than for criminal election tampering which would make this the single best set of charges. . .

[Loki]

Are you really conflating juries with public opinion?

As long as the prosecutors secure a conviction, I don't really care about other prosecutions. There's no way this doesn't get Trump jail time.

[Hazir]

If not - in essence - public opinion, then what is the judgment of 12 lay people?

[Aimless]

By this reasoning, Trump was indicted by public opinion.

[Hazir]

By this reasoning, Trump was indicted by public opinion.

Actually he wasn't and also your statement, unlike what you think isn't relevant to the point at hand.

[Aimless]

Usually, yeah. 's how the Framers set it up. Why do you think we use juries in the first place?.

If not - in essence - public opinion, then what is the judgment of 12 lay people?

Juries are carefully selected, meticulously coached, continuously guided, subject to various controls, strongly encouraged to abide by various rules and laws, and informed in great detail about facts and arguments over the course of a trial. As a rule—and esp. historically—juries are not representative of the broader communities from which they're drawn, most likely to the detriment of many defendants. The claim that juries represent the enforcement of law "by public opinion" is simply not a serious position in the context of this discussion.

As to why you use juries in the first place, it's because you're English

The fall out is much wider than your fascist nut jobs. 62% of Americans believe the indictment is politically motivated. That is a serious issue with regards to the legitimacy of the legal system.

The marginal impact on the legitimacy of a legal system that is deeply influenced by politics at every level is likely to be—marginal. Only 2 out of 5 Americans approve of the President, but the Presidency abides. Barely 1 in 4 Americans have a favorable view of Congress, yet they consent to be governed by Congress nevertheless. The highest court of the land—indeed, all courts—have been regarded as political throughout modern American history; it's still here. The US legal system is heavily influenced by politics, not only through legislation but also eg. through the election of officials who have the discretion to enforce the law—or not—as they see fit.

The important question isn't whether or not legal action is "politically motivated" but whether or not it is reasonable, justified, fair, successful. I don't think the obstruction case will have any meaningful impact on the foundations of democracy in the US. If anything, the more significant cases are likely to be more dangerous—win or lose.

[LittleFuzzy]

By this reasoning, Trump was indicted by public opinion.

Yeah. . . why do you think the prosecutor went with a grand jury in the first place?

[Hazir]

Finally, an indictment that matters.

To bad though that the route of impeachment seems already closed.

[Aimless]

co-conspirator 6

[GGT]

Interesting read. I don't really understand what Hazir is going on about, but it sounds like prosecuting crimes can backfire if there are too many, and that leaves an opening to claim it's all political? That's just what Trump and his sycophants love about propaganda and why everything is a witch hunt or hoax or persecution.

I also don't see how wiggins plea for empathy or understanding emotional reactions to *fear* actually changes anything. I live in a hot red Trump county where the RNC = Regressive Neo-Nazi Cult. Confederate flags, armed militia groups, God-Guns-Trump signs all over, with heavy doses of Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists. Their *fears* are constantly stoked by Fox News and Facebook groups and Social Media silos.

So yeah, propaganda works, just as Loki says. What's the way to reach people who've been brainwashed, when the entire (R) party has been complicit or a co-conspirator? This debacle is bigger than Trump, or even DeSantis. There are literally millions of people who have fallen for (and been defrauded by) The Big Lie and The Great Grift.

Appeasing them won't work -- they would vote for Trump even if he shot someone on 5th Ave, or conspired to overturn an election.

[Loki]

My favorite new stat is that 17% of the people who says they'll vote for Trump accept that he's guilty of all the crimes he's been indicted for.

[Aimless]

As the leader of the republican party is arraigned for trying and failing to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, his currently most significant rival in the GOP can't shut up about slitting throats. What a bunch of fucking weirdos. Disgraceful to see republican elites and their somehow even more contemptible water carriers trying to defend these shitstains.

[Loki]

But what about economic anxiety!

[Aimless]

DOJ just asked the judge to issue a (limited) protective order, after Trump sent posted a threat clearly intended to intimidate eg. witnesses. Govt knew he wouldn't be able to resist trying to obstruct the trial.