I was typing my last answer just as the pool reporter was relaying the news of the indictment to the MSNBC Commentator. Thus, the post was not complete. Subsequent reports have shown that there were quite a few other counts against him and an "unindicted co-conspirator." I have heard that term before.
For a more detailed report, here is the Mother Jones article, Embedded in that link is another link to the full indictment filed in court.
Let's be honest: if they had to arrest every single person on Wall Street who has ever avoided paying tax on 1.7m, the prison complex would need a few extra wings. But for the wealthy and well-connected, the usual punishment is just a slap on the wrist instead.
This is one of the reasons the American penal system is so draconian. Those with the most power to push for reform (i.e. "the wealthy and well-connected") are confident that they will never be subjected to it.
Not saying Weisselberg should walk away scot-free if he's actually guilty . . .
And yet that's what it sounds like you're saying. This goes back to your previous post implying that tax fraud and grand larceny aren't real crimes. I've always disliked the rhetorical device of "I'm not saying [ thing I just said ], but [ slight variation on thing I just said ]."
For those who are interested the indictment can be found here [PDF].
Thanks for the link, Croesos. According to the indictment, this wasn't just a failure to pay taxes on some fringe benefits granted in addition to Weisselberg's salary - the Trump Organization and Weisselberg took very specific steps to hide some of Weisselberg's income. Prosecutors allege the organization maintained detailed internal spreadsheets showing how Weisselberg's direct compensation was reduced in the amount of his indirect compensation on which no income or payroll taxes were paid.
There is also the way they overvalued their properties when going for loans and undervalued them when paying taxes (if any) on them. Then, if any of this went through the mails, there is mail fraud.
Gramps, if they send the same things electronically (rather than through the postal service) would it still be fraud or is this only
about using mail?
By the way NZ has a cute little (active) volcanic island if Guam is unsuitable.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Al Capone’s jail term for tax evasion wasn’t deserved because he was a brutal gangster, it was deserved because he was guilty of tax evasion.
If prosecutors had probable cause to suspect fraud in the Trump organization and then, upon investigation, found enough evidence of it, then it doesn’t matter that he was a terrible president and remains a menace to society. The fraud is quite enough.
Al Capone’s jail term for tax evasion wasn’t deserved because he was a brutal gangster, it was deserved because he was guilty of tax evasion.
If prosecutors had probable cause to suspect fraud in the Trump organization and then, upon investigation, found enough evidence of it, then it doesn’t matter that he was a terrible president and remains a menace to society. The fraud is quite enough.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
The alternative you seem to be proposing is little more than a suggestion that rich, powerful or famous people ought not to be prosecuted for their crimes. If anything, THAT is 'politically motivated', though I can also think of several far worse things to call it.
You're basically suggesting that important people need to be charged with 'important' crimes or something. And that's ludicrous. Just because Trump thinks he's the centre of the goddamn universe doesn't mean the criminal justice system has to agree with him. If he engaged in criminal activity that you'd describe as petty, then let him be treated like a petty criminal. The fact that Capone was convicted of tax crimes does not mean that the tax charges were somehow engineered or fabricated, it simply means those were the charges that prosecutors were confident they could make stick.
Besides, when it comes to Trump, the evidence that his shonky behaviour mostly relates to money and finance is abundant. He basically took 4 years off being a shyster businessman to play at President. I don't know why you want to treat that interlude as his main function and suggest that going after his decades of dodgy business practices is 'politically motivated'.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First of all, if you're guilty of the crime, it doesn't matter really WHAT the motivation is behind the investigation/charging/etc. You did the crime, you do the time (or pay the fine, or whatever). Whining about the motivations of the investigators is either self-pity or a smokescreen. Or both.
The one exception to this would be when it comes to either social justice issues or bullying--that is, cases where the investigation itself exists mainly for the purpose of making the person's life a misery, aka harassment (for example, by repeatedly investigating the parking tickets of a poor black person at vast expense to the public with no resulting benefit to the public either financial or justice-wise, meanwhile stressing out the person and pushing him/her into bankruptcy trying to afford legal counsel).
But Trump and his organization (henceforward "Trump") doesn't fall into this category. He is neither poor nor disadvantaged, and the crimes he/his org are accused of are not minor--unless you have a very odd scale of what is minor and major. Nor are the investigations the same old thing repeated fifty times simply to make the target's life a misery. And the value to society of demonstrating that even the rich and powerful have to come to terms with justice is enormous. (Not to mention that I'd rather Trump pay the money he owes the IRS than that I and others like me make up the shortfall.)
Second--
Why go after Trump now? Because there is such a thing as an urge, a thirst, a driving need for justice--and any nation which no longer feels that need or tries to satisfy it is a nation on the verge of self-destruction.
I'm talking here about the basic human instinct that would rather see Al Capone brought down over tax evasion than see him get off scot-free altogether because his main crimes certainly happened but can't be brought home to him for technical reasons (for example, witnesses too terrified to testify). If tax evasion is all we can make stick, tax evasion will have to do. Because the man has done severe evil, as everybody knows--there's no reasonable doubt on the subject-- and the man must pay. If not one way, then another.
That's going to look like revenge. I submit that there is a difference. The drive for justice is an innate human need to see that the moral order of the universe is restored--that evildoers "get theirs" in the end--that victims are compensated, if at all possible--that truth be known as truth, and lies be recognized as lies. This drive can be entirely disinterested. An investigator can go after a person who the investigator personally rather likes, but nevertheless, the job has to be done.
Revenge differs because it takes the drive for justice and adds personal hatred and a desire to see the other person suffer, not in proportion to the crime, but as an emotional satisfaction to the revenger. And because it is emotionally driven, it has a tendency to pitch justice overboard--so people get killed for minor offenses on the street, and so on. It also has nasty effects on the psychology of the revenger, whether or not she/she succeeds in getting revenge. All of which is why we try to avoid revenge.
So, Trump. Investigating Trump for crimes he certainly committed (all right, "almost certainly" since we aren't at the end of a trial yet) meets the standards for justice. It is an attempt to bring home to their perpetrator crimes which are real, substantial, damaging, repeated, and bad for society. That given, I don't give a rip if an individual investigator is a flaming Democrat or a flaming Republican. I don't care if he/she goes home at night and kisses a Trump altar or alternately throws darts at his photo--provided the investigation is done properly and according to the standards of justice.
It might help to consider the Hunter Biden thing as a counter-example. That was clearly politically motivated, but again, that's not the real problem. The real problem (as I understand it) is that there was no evidence of crime going into the investigation, either major or minor, and yet public money and effort was being spent in an effort to dig up or manufacture evidence that on the face of it did not exist. It did not meet the usual standards for opening an investigation, and was not apparently carried out as a proper investigation (done in a half-assed, incomplete way). Nor did it turn up any evidence of crime. If it HAD turned up evidence of crime then we would have had to suck it up and lay charges, in spite of the fact it was obviously politically motivated. Because crime is crime, and justice is justice.
tl;dr: It doesn't matter what the motivations are, as long as it results in justice.
Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else.
He poses a threat to the entire country -- indeed, to the world -- if he is reelected.
He poses a very real threat until 2024 even if he isn’t re-elected, since he effectively continues to control the Republican Party and continues to stoke the fires of The Big Lie.
I also wanted to challenge Marvin's post too, though I agree with others above too.
My point is that if a known or suspected crook and liar can get into the White House and evidence of wrong-doing against him/her is found, that evidence should very definitely be followed up and charges laid. This sends a signal to other crooks and liars who may be considering a future run for POTUS that past embarrassments can't be made to disappear by being in power and being able to put pressure on people (eg on Georgia Governer to overturn the election result) so you'd better be pretty clean before deciding to throw in your hat.
The result should be a higher standard of moral integrity for the biggest political jobs. Political bias is irrelevant; crooks should to be charged if the evidence points against them and high profile crooks getting caught and punished is a good deterrent.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Remember the stripper hush-money scandal? (I know, I know, who can keep track of these things?) In 2018 the Wall Street Journal reported that just before the election in 2016 Trump had his fixer Michael Cohen pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about their alleged affair in 2016. Cohen at first denied everything, then said he paid out of his own pocket, then eventually said he was reimbursed by Trump. This all was investigated by (among others) the New York County District Attorney's Office (under the heading "business transactions involving multiple individuals whose conduct may have violated state law") which issued a grand jury subpoena for Trump's tax returns and other financial records from Mazars, his accounting firm. He fought this all the way to the Supreme Court but lost, so the DA got the records from Mazars and ... here we are.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
If everyone is guilty then no one is guilty? I'm not sure "why don't you go after that other guy?" is a valid legal defense. It seems like it could be deployed by any accused criminal. Maybe that's the point, and the rich really are different from you or me.
A more pragmatic answer to "why now" is that if the Justice Department under Donald Trump considered it part of his presidential* duties to (allegedly) libel someone accusing him of rape, granting Trump sovereign immunity, what do you think their reaction would have been to charges like this?
And as a nitpicking point, the Trump Foundation is a now-defunct fake charity Trump and his various adult spawn used as a private slush fund. It was liquidated by the NY Attorney General in 2019 and the remaining funds distributed to legitimate charitable organizations. Trump and his three oldest kids had to admit to nineteen different forms of wrongdoing [PDF] and are now barred from operating a charity in the state of New York for a number of years. The Trump Organization is Trump's mafia-sounding main business enterprise. Which I guess is another way of saying this is not just some sudden development.
It is not just about tax evasion between the upper echelon of the Trump Organization. It is also about Trump's long history of housing discriminatory practices. It is about him refusing to pay people who contracted to do work for him the agreed amount. It is also about him inciting an insurrection on 6 Jan 2021 to say nothing about his illegal contacts with Russian Oligarchs and their illegal activities.
Trump is a dangerous man. We need to discredit him, humiliate him, and incarcerate him.
Al Capone’s jail term for tax evasion wasn’t deserved because he was a brutal gangster, it was deserved because he was guilty of tax evasion.
If prosecutors had probable cause to suspect fraud in the Trump organization and then, upon investigation, found enough evidence of it, then it doesn’t matter that he was a terrible president and remains a menace to society. The fraud is quite enough.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Are these offences which are never prosecuted? If so then (like the anecdote that celebrating Christmas in England was criminalised under Cromwell and is still illegal) then @orfeo has a point. But if the offences are sometimes prosecuted, then the argument that needs to be made is that Mr Trump's (et al) behaviour is more like the cases where there's no prosecution than those where there is. This, I think, is rather harder to show.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Why NOT?
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Why NOT?
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Hmm.
When it comes to Trump personally, the narrative of victimhood will exist no matter what. I'm at a loss to understand how "real Americans" ever saw a New York billionaire as one of them in the first place, but given that, you might possibly have something. I will have to ponder further.
Really, the best way of fixing that narrative has nothing to do with Trump, though.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Why NOT?
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Hmm.
When it comes to Trump personally, the narrative of victimhood will exist no matter what. I'm at a loss to understand how "real Americans" ever saw a New York billionaire as one of them in the first place, but given that, you might possibly have something. I will have to ponder further.
Yeah, I couldn’t give two short ones about how Trump himself feels about it. But I’m pretty sure the 2024 candidacy speeches are already being written: “Trump tried to Make America Great Again and the liberal elites locked him up for it.”
It practically writes itself, and the MAGA crowd will gobble it up. Last time it ended with them storming the Capitol in a (fortunately failed) coup attempt. Where will it end next time?
Really, the best way of fixing that narrative has nothing to do with Trump, though.
It may be a subject for another thread, but I’d be interested in what you think the best way is. Especially as I’m not 100% convinced the narrative is false to begin with…
Well no, I don't think the narrative is false either, in the sense that there are large portions of America that were badly left behind by economic forces, from the Reagan era onwards.
I don't think the grievance is unjustified. I think the chosen methods for fixing it, ie voting for Trump, are completely ill-suited to the purpose.
To me these are exactly the situations where governments should intervene rather than leaving it to the market, but that's terribly left-wing communist thinking of me. Here in Australia I see a government that keeps talking about how we can't ditch coal because of the number of people employed in the coal industry, which leaves me screaming at the television that the government ought to be figuring out ways of getting other jobs into the geographical areas currently dominated by the coal industry.
Marvin, that is the counsel of despair. The only way to fix Trumpian America is to do justice. It is folly to try to do anything else.
Of course, the best way forward would be if the GOP had a spine and/or some morality at all and they stood up to Trumpism thus negating the charge of partisanship. We both know that's not happening anytime soon. But to respond by giving up on justice only compounds the problem.
Of course, the best way forward would be if the GOP had a spine and/or some morality at all and they stood up to Trumpism thus negating the charge of partisanship. We both know that's not happening anytime soon. But to respond by giving up on justice only compounds the problem.
This.
Meanwhile, the narratives would be written regardless of the indictments. There would be plenty of other excuses for the narrative, and have been for the last 5+ years.
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Because if there's anything "real Americans" feel strongly about, it's their God-given right to lie to the IRS and commit tax fraud on their employer-provided luxury apartments.
"Your honor, my client is a wealthy man. Therefore he's obviously innocent and this is an insult to all those hard-working, blue collar Chief Financial Officers out there."
I'm not sure that's really a message that resonates with "real Americans", unless by "real Americans" you mean "middle-to-upper income white Americans", which is very often the case when the phrase "real Americans" gets deployed.
Of course, the best way forward would be if the GOP had a spine and/or some morality at all and they stood up to Trumpism thus negating the charge of partisanship. We both know that's not happening anytime soon.
I think this kind of narrative is part of the problem; the idea that there are a lot of officials inside the institutional Republican party who secretly oppose their party's agenda (which is now the same as Donald Trump's agenda). The reason they're not opposing Trump and Trumpism isn't because they're afraid, it's because they agree with him/it.
When it comes to Trump personally, the narrative of victimhood will exist no matter what. I'm at a loss to understand how "real Americans" ever saw a New York billionaire as one of them in the first place, but given that, you might possibly have something. I will have to ponder further.
Really, the best way of fixing that narrative has nothing to do with Trump, though.
It's not easy either to acknowledge or accept that pronounced, deep-routed strain of American culture which insists that "real truth" is invariably simple, obvious, and straightforward. Complications, exceptions, and other anomalies are best disregarded in this mindset; these are suspect and get in the way of "action" and "prompt solutions." These gum up the image (some) Americans have of ourselves as practical problem-solvers -- a belief which has, alas, a tendency to disregard realities which might interfere with prompt, action-oriented solutions.
In its cultural role of National Image-Builder, this drive toward insisting that all problems are simple or at least simplifiable has been one of our greatest strengths (at times) and also one of our greatest weaknesses.
Of course, the best way forward would be if the GOP had a spine and/or some morality at all and they stood up to Trumpism thus negating the charge of partisanship. We both know that's not happening anytime soon.
I think this kind of narrative is part of the problem; the idea that there are a lot of officials inside the institutional Republican party who secretly oppose their party's agenda (which is now the same as Donald Trump's agenda). The reason they're not opposing Trump and Trumpism isn't because they're afraid, it's because they agree with him/it.
Fair point. It's more complex than that. Many moral people have left the party. Even those who oppose him and lament the Trumpification of the party are not remotely guiltless as they cultivated this dishonest divisive politics for decades that created Trump and Trumpism. And, as you say, many agree with him anyway. Let me phrase it slightly differently: as long as the GOP want to give Trump a free-pass for both his unethical behaviour and his illegal actions, any attempt to hold him to account will be open to the charge of partisanship. Not because the Dems are persecuting him but because the Repubs have left the field. That does make the pursuit of justice more difficult but it also makes it more important.
Where there is wrong doing by an opposing political actor, there are 3 possible positions: 1) disinterested justice. 2) Bias against them (because they are my opponent and I am an opportunist). And 3) Bias towards them because I don't want to appear partisan or have to defend that charge.
Whilst, avoiding 2) is clearly important, 3) is also a failing. Moreover if you do achieve 1) (or as close to it as humanly possible), dishonest actors will accuse you of 2) from ignorance, their own bias or simple cynicism.
Whilst the GOP remains the Trump party, Dems have no choice but to tred this difficult path and deal with the flak.
I don't think the problem lies in a preference for simple answers.
The simple answer to why Biden is now President and Trump isn't is that Biden just won the election in the ordinary way.
Trumpist explanations of the same fact involve vast conspiracies, the hand of Hugo Chavez reaching out from beyond the grave, cabals of cannibalistic Satan-worshiping pedophiles, the deep state, and bamboo-flecked ballot paper shipped over from China. You could call this colorful mishmash a lot of things, but simple isn't one of them.
Point of information. There is a difference between the Trump Foundation and the Trump Organization. The Trump Foundation was set up under New York State Law to be a Not For Profit Charitable organization, but it was closed down by the New York Attorney General through a consent decree since it was shown to be a shell for the self-aggrandizement of Mr. Trump. The Trump Organization is a for-profit entity that handles all businesses carrying the Trump name. Again set up under the laws of New York State, but cannot be shut down directly by the Attorney General.
You can't succeed at anything good by trying to appease Trump and his ilk. If they have no real grievances, they will manufacture some, because their whole appeal rests on it, and they don't give a single fuck about lying or even being caught lying. Nothing you can do will prevent them from plopping their butts down on the "I'm a victim" spot, so you might as well do justice.
You can't succeed at anything good by trying to appease Trump and his ilk. If they have no real grievances, they will manufacture some, because their whole appeal rests on it, and they don't give a single fuck about lying or even being caught lying. Nothing you can do will prevent them from plopping their butts down on the "I'm a victim" spot, so you might as well do justice.
I think you're right. However, I hardly think they are alone in that trait. There are people on the other side of politics who will equally come up with another reason to be victim if the original reason is addressed or turns out to be misplaced. There is great emotional appeal in this.
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Because if there's anything "real Americans" feel strongly about, it's their God-given right to lie to the IRS and commit tax fraud on their employer-provided luxury apartments.
I imagine a good number of the MAGA crowd would quite happily avoid paying taxes if they could. Damn government, taking their hard-earned money.
Where there is wrong doing by an opposing political actor, there are 3 possible positions: 1) disinterested justice. 2) Bias against them (because they are my opponent and I am an opportunist). And 3) Bias towards them because I don't want to appear partisan or have to defend that charge.
I’m suggesting that this prosecution - not to mention the joyous reaction to it from many sources - is a case of (2) rather than (1). That it’s about finding a charge - any charge - that can be made to stick so that he can be punished for the things he did as president (aka for political reasons).
But both before and throughout Trump's presidency there were reports about his dodgy business practices, and concerns that various edifices built on debt were going to collapse, that his presidency was a way of avoiding business collapse as the fraud was prosecuted - see this Vox article from October 2016 (link), dated months before he was elected. I understood the prosecutions are now because the president could not be prosecuted as a president without impeachment first, and that failed.
You can't succeed at anything good by trying to appease Trump and his ilk. If they have no real grievances, they will manufacture some
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
And they’re right about that! Obviously the liberals in question are doing it because they believe it’s absolutely the right thing to do, but is it any wonder that those who disagree are going to fight back?
Where there is wrong doing by an opposing political actor, there are 3 possible positions: 1) disinterested justice. 2) Bias against them (because they are my opponent and I am an opportunist). And 3) Bias towards them because I don't want to appear partisan or have to defend that charge.
I’m suggesting that this prosecution - not to mention the joyous reaction to it from many sources - is a case of (2) rather than (1). That it’s about finding a charge - any charge - that can be made to stick so that he can be punished for the things he did as president (aka for political reasons).
Fair enough. I completely disagree. Firstly, he's run his business as a scam for a very long time. Secondly there's (almost certain, although not yet proven*) criminal wrong doing as president thus not pursuing him is a political decision. Or to put it more strongly, it would be an act of political cowardice to not pursue him. It's not about his political acts as president but his criminal ones both before and after taking office. Indeed, he is attempting to turn the presidency into a form of criminal immunity which is far more dangerous in the long term.
AFZ
*not proven in the legal sense but if you really don't think he committed crimes whilst holding office, then you've not been paying attention.
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
And they’re right about that! Obviously the liberals in question are doing it because they believe it’s absolutely the right thing to do, but is it any wonder that those who disagree are going to fight back?
I couldn't just let this pass as it's absolute bollocks. You're right about what they believe but that belief has very little basis in reality.
Let's just take your 3:
1) The vast majority of Republican voters are being made better off by Biden's agenda. The giveaway here is the number of GOP Congressmen and Women / Senators who are claiming credit for the recent infrastructure spending in their states due to a bill they voted against... not to mention how Healthcare reform benefitted the majority and will do so in the future. It's only a tiny number who will have to pay more tax (and then only something similar to the proportion that 'ordinary' people pay).
2) No one, anywhere is promoting homosexuality. That would mean trying to make heterosexuals - into / pretend to be - homosexuals. Oh, the irony.
3) Abortion is actually a much more complex issue than many on both sides pretend. I am a pro-Life* social-democrat but here's the clear fact: abortion rates are consistently lower under Democratic Presidents. Indeed the recent so-called 'heartbeat' bills will probably increase the number of abortions**
The better way to characterise the situation is that when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
AFZ
*I spend my working life looking after babies born from 23, 24 weeks. I think it abhorrent that UK law allows abortion up to birth in certain circumstances but I don't often describe myself as "pro-Life" anymore due to how poisonous that term has become. Unthinkable not illegal is my aim.
**Happy to expand on this but think we're already at risk of major tangents.
I don’t want to argue about the specifics - as you say, it’s a tangent too far for this thread, as well as being more Epiphanic than Purgatorial - but suffice it to say that much of the “reality” of these things depends greatly on ones base beliefs about them, and indeed about life itself.
I think the way American justice works when dealing with large scale suspected criminal conspiracies is to go for the easy charges first and try to use those charges as leverage to obtain evidence to prosecute other, bigger crimes. I understand that method was used to great effect by Rudy Guiliani to obtain the convictions of mafia figures that made his reputation, launching his political career. It was also the method used by the Starr fellow to put pressure on Monica Lewinsky to advance his campaign to impeach President Clinton.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
Why NOT?
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Hmm.
When it comes to Trump personally, the narrative of victimhood will exist no matter what. I'm at a loss to understand how "real Americans" ever saw a New York billionaire as one of them in the first place, but given that, you might possibly have something. I will have to ponder further.
Yeah, I couldn’t give two short ones about how Trump himself feels about it. But I’m pretty sure the 2024 candidacy speeches are already being written: “Trump tried to Make America Great Again and the liberal elites locked him up for it.”
It practically writes itself, and the MAGA crowd will gobble it up. Last time it ended with them storming the Capitol in a (fortunately failed) coup attempt. Where will it end next time?
Really, the best way of fixing that narrative has nothing to do with Trump, though.
It may be a subject for another thread, but I’d be interested in what you think the best way is. Especially as I’m not 100% convinced the narrative is false to begin with…
I don’t want to argue about the specifics - as you say, it’s a tangent too far for this thread, as well as being more Epiphanic than Purgatorial - but suffice it to say that much of the “reality” of these things depends greatly on ones base beliefs about them, and indeed about life itself.
That being true we are circling back to where we were a short time ago.
1. Trump's prosecution is not politically motivated
2. Despite this, there are some of wish to depict it as such
3. Pandering to that constituency is likely to achieve nothing
4. Not prosecuting Trump would set a dangerous precedent
5. Finally, political celebration of Trump's putative prosecution is not the same as political motivation for prosecution of potential crimes
Where there is wrong doing by an opposing political actor, there are 3 possible positions: 1) disinterested justice. 2) Bias against them (because they are my opponent and I am an opportunist). And 3) Bias towards them because I don't want to appear partisan or have to defend that charge.
I’m suggesting that this prosecution - not to mention the joyous reaction to it from many sources - is a case of (2) rather than (1). That it’s about finding a charge - any charge - that can be made to stick so that he can be punished for the things he did as president (aka for political reasons).
Yes, you keep "suggesting" this but so far I don't think you've mentioned any particular reason why anyone should agree with you.
It's possible you might have something like this - like you can point to evidence that this prosecutor has a history of politically slanted activity, or that he has behaved improperly in this case, or that the charge is a violation of an obscure law which is practically never enforced, or that Trump's sterling reputation as a paragon of honesty in all his business dealings makes him an unlikely target for a fraud investigation, or something like that. (Well, maybe not the last one.)
But so far it just sounds like your suggestion amounts to nothing more than "Democrats don't like Trump, therefore any prosecution against him must be presumed improper" - so basically cynicism and bias. Is that all it is?
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
That being true we are circling back to where we were a short time ago.
1. Trump's prosecution is not politically motivated
2. Despite this, there are some of wish to depict it as such
3. Pandering to that constituency is likely to achieve nothing
4. Not prosecuting Trump would set a dangerous precedent
5. Finally, political celebration of Trump's putative prosecution is not the same as political motivation for prosecution of potential crimes
AFZ
In America all prosecution is politically motivated. Using vast resources to pursue and avoid taxes is immoral either way.
Using vast resources to pursue and avoid taxes is immoral either way.
Note that as a legal term of art (and leaving aside morality for the moment) there's a difference between tax avoidance (which is legal) and tax evasion (which is essentially tax avoidance without legal justification).
I'm reminded of the time Elizabeth Warren called out Amazon for not paying any taxes in the U.S. Amazon's response was that they paid all the taxes they were legally required to, and Warren's riposte was "Yeah, I know. . . . That's the problem."
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
Indeed.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
Indeed.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.
Comments
For a more detailed report, here is the Mother Jones article, Embedded in that link is another link to the full indictment filed in court.
Gramps, if they send the same things electronically (rather than through the postal service) would it still be fraud or is this only
about using mail?
By the way NZ has a cute little (active) volcanic island if Guam is unsuitable.
If this analogy is apt, then there's a bit of a problem - it kinda means Trump is right when he says this is all just a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at getting to him by any means possible.
Capone needed to be brought down because he was a brutal gangster, and any charge that could stick was sufficient if it could be used to protect society by getting him off the streets. Trump is a disgraced ex-President who as far as I can see poses no threat to anyone else, so why the urgency to get him? Is it to punish him for his policies and pronouncements during his Presidency, or to prevent him from standing for election next time? Either way, that's a political motivation rather than a legal one.
If prosecutors had probable cause to suspect fraud in the Trump organization and then, upon investigation, found enough evidence of it, then it doesn’t matter that he was a terrible president and remains a menace to society. The fraud is quite enough.
This.
Plus,
Exactly this.
Eh? I'm sorry but this is completely bizarre reasoning. If someone is actually guilty of a crime and you have evidence to prove it, prosecuting them for that crime is not 'politically motivated' beyond the fact that there's a general discretion to decide whether to pursue a prosecution in any case.
The alternative you seem to be proposing is little more than a suggestion that rich, powerful or famous people ought not to be prosecuted for their crimes. If anything, THAT is 'politically motivated', though I can also think of several far worse things to call it.
You're basically suggesting that important people need to be charged with 'important' crimes or something. And that's ludicrous. Just because Trump thinks he's the centre of the goddamn universe doesn't mean the criminal justice system has to agree with him. If he engaged in criminal activity that you'd describe as petty, then let him be treated like a petty criminal. The fact that Capone was convicted of tax crimes does not mean that the tax charges were somehow engineered or fabricated, it simply means those were the charges that prosecutors were confident they could make stick.
Besides, when it comes to Trump, the evidence that his shonky behaviour mostly relates to money and finance is abundant. He basically took 4 years off being a shyster businessman to play at President. I don't know why you want to treat that interlude as his main function and suggest that going after his decades of dodgy business practices is 'politically motivated'.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First of all, if you're guilty of the crime, it doesn't matter really WHAT the motivation is behind the investigation/charging/etc. You did the crime, you do the time (or pay the fine, or whatever). Whining about the motivations of the investigators is either self-pity or a smokescreen. Or both.
The one exception to this would be when it comes to either social justice issues or bullying--that is, cases where the investigation itself exists mainly for the purpose of making the person's life a misery, aka harassment (for example, by repeatedly investigating the parking tickets of a poor black person at vast expense to the public with no resulting benefit to the public either financial or justice-wise, meanwhile stressing out the person and pushing him/her into bankruptcy trying to afford legal counsel).
But Trump and his organization (henceforward "Trump") doesn't fall into this category. He is neither poor nor disadvantaged, and the crimes he/his org are accused of are not minor--unless you have a very odd scale of what is minor and major. Nor are the investigations the same old thing repeated fifty times simply to make the target's life a misery. And the value to society of demonstrating that even the rich and powerful have to come to terms with justice is enormous. (Not to mention that I'd rather Trump pay the money he owes the IRS than that I and others like me make up the shortfall.)
Second--
Why go after Trump now? Because there is such a thing as an urge, a thirst, a driving need for justice--and any nation which no longer feels that need or tries to satisfy it is a nation on the verge of self-destruction.
I'm talking here about the basic human instinct that would rather see Al Capone brought down over tax evasion than see him get off scot-free altogether because his main crimes certainly happened but can't be brought home to him for technical reasons (for example, witnesses too terrified to testify). If tax evasion is all we can make stick, tax evasion will have to do. Because the man has done severe evil, as everybody knows--there's no reasonable doubt on the subject-- and the man must pay. If not one way, then another.
That's going to look like revenge. I submit that there is a difference. The drive for justice is an innate human need to see that the moral order of the universe is restored--that evildoers "get theirs" in the end--that victims are compensated, if at all possible--that truth be known as truth, and lies be recognized as lies. This drive can be entirely disinterested. An investigator can go after a person who the investigator personally rather likes, but nevertheless, the job has to be done.
Revenge differs because it takes the drive for justice and adds personal hatred and a desire to see the other person suffer, not in proportion to the crime, but as an emotional satisfaction to the revenger. And because it is emotionally driven, it has a tendency to pitch justice overboard--so people get killed for minor offenses on the street, and so on. It also has nasty effects on the psychology of the revenger, whether or not she/she succeeds in getting revenge. All of which is why we try to avoid revenge.
So, Trump. Investigating Trump for crimes he certainly committed (all right, "almost certainly" since we aren't at the end of a trial yet) meets the standards for justice. It is an attempt to bring home to their perpetrator crimes which are real, substantial, damaging, repeated, and bad for society. That given, I don't give a rip if an individual investigator is a flaming Democrat or a flaming Republican. I don't care if he/she goes home at night and kisses a Trump altar or alternately throws darts at his photo--provided the investigation is done properly and according to the standards of justice.
It might help to consider the Hunter Biden thing as a counter-example. That was clearly politically motivated, but again, that's not the real problem. The real problem (as I understand it) is that there was no evidence of crime going into the investigation, either major or minor, and yet public money and effort was being spent in an effort to dig up or manufacture evidence that on the face of it did not exist. It did not meet the usual standards for opening an investigation, and was not apparently carried out as a proper investigation (done in a half-assed, incomplete way). Nor did it turn up any evidence of crime. If it HAD turned up evidence of crime then we would have had to suck it up and lay charges, in spite of the fact it was obviously politically motivated. Because crime is crime, and justice is justice.
tl;dr: It doesn't matter what the motivations are, as long as it results in justice.
My point is that if a known or suspected crook and liar can get into the White House and evidence of wrong-doing against him/her is found, that evidence should very definitely be followed up and charges laid. This sends a signal to other crooks and liars who may be considering a future run for POTUS that past embarrassments can't be made to disappear by being in power and being able to put pressure on people (eg on Georgia Governer to overturn the election result) so you'd better be pretty clean before deciding to throw in your hat.
The result should be a higher standard of moral integrity for the biggest political jobs. Political bias is irrelevant; crooks should to be charged if the evidence points against them and high profile crooks getting caught and punished is a good deterrent.
It’s the decision to prosecute that I’m talking about. Unless I’m expected to believe that the city where Wall Street thrives suddenly got all conscientious about financial misdealings.
I’m sure the Trump Foundation, and Trump himself, have plenty of financial skeletons in their closet, some of which are crimes. I’m just as sure that the same can be said of virtually every major corporation. Why go after this one, now?
If everyone is guilty then no one is guilty? I'm not sure "why don't you go after that other guy?" is a valid legal defense. It seems like it could be deployed by any accused criminal. Maybe that's the point, and the rich really are different from you or me.
A more pragmatic answer to "why now" is that if the Justice Department under Donald Trump considered it part of his presidential* duties to (allegedly) libel someone accusing him of rape, granting Trump sovereign immunity, what do you think their reaction would have been to charges like this?
And as a nitpicking point, the Trump Foundation is a now-defunct fake charity Trump and his various adult spawn used as a private slush fund. It was liquidated by the NY Attorney General in 2019 and the remaining funds distributed to legitimate charitable organizations. Trump and his three oldest kids had to admit to nineteen different forms of wrongdoing [PDF] and are now barred from operating a charity in the state of New York for a number of years. The Trump Organization is Trump's mafia-sounding main business enterprise. Which I guess is another way of saying this is not just some sudden development.
Trump is a dangerous man. We need to discredit him, humiliate him, and incarcerate him.
Bingo.
Why NOT?
Are these offences which are never prosecuted? If so then (like the anecdote that celebrating Christmas in England was criminalised under Cromwell and is still illegal) then @orfeo has a point. But if the offences are sometimes prosecuted, then the argument that needs to be made is that Mr Trump's (et al) behaviour is more like the cases where there's no prosecution than those where there is. This, I think, is rather harder to show.
Because it feeds (and/or confirms) the narrative of victimhood, persecution and oppression of “real Americans” by the “liberal elites”. A narrative that propelled Trump to power in the first place, and is just waiting for the next populist demagogue to exploit.
Hmm.
When it comes to Trump personally, the narrative of victimhood will exist no matter what. I'm at a loss to understand how "real Americans" ever saw a New York billionaire as one of them in the first place, but given that, you might possibly have something. I will have to ponder further.
Really, the best way of fixing that narrative has nothing to do with Trump, though.
Yeah, I couldn’t give two short ones about how Trump himself feels about it. But I’m pretty sure the 2024 candidacy speeches are already being written: “Trump tried to Make America Great Again and the liberal elites locked him up for it.”
It practically writes itself, and the MAGA crowd will gobble it up. Last time it ended with them storming the Capitol in a (fortunately failed) coup attempt. Where will it end next time?
It may be a subject for another thread, but I’d be interested in what you think the best way is. Especially as I’m not 100% convinced the narrative is false to begin with…
I don't think the grievance is unjustified. I think the chosen methods for fixing it, ie voting for Trump, are completely ill-suited to the purpose.
To me these are exactly the situations where governments should intervene rather than leaving it to the market, but that's terribly left-wing communist thinking of me. Here in Australia I see a government that keeps talking about how we can't ditch coal because of the number of people employed in the coal industry, which leaves me screaming at the television that the government ought to be figuring out ways of getting other jobs into the geographical areas currently dominated by the coal industry.
Of course, the best way forward would be if the GOP had a spine and/or some morality at all and they stood up to Trumpism thus negating the charge of partisanship. We both know that's not happening anytime soon. But to respond by giving up on justice only compounds the problem.
AFZ
Meanwhile, the narratives would be written regardless of the indictments. There would be plenty of other excuses for the narrative, and have been for the last 5+ years.
Because if there's anything "real Americans" feel strongly about, it's their God-given right to lie to the IRS and commit tax fraud on their employer-provided luxury apartments.
"Your honor, my client is a wealthy man. Therefore he's obviously innocent and this is an insult to all those hard-working, blue collar Chief Financial Officers out there."
I'm not sure that's really a message that resonates with "real Americans", unless by "real Americans" you mean "middle-to-upper income white Americans", which is very often the case when the phrase "real Americans" gets deployed.
I think this kind of narrative is part of the problem; the idea that there are a lot of officials inside the institutional Republican party who secretly oppose their party's agenda (which is now the same as Donald Trump's agenda). The reason they're not opposing Trump and Trumpism isn't because they're afraid, it's because they agree with him/it.
It's not easy either to acknowledge or accept that pronounced, deep-routed strain of American culture which insists that "real truth" is invariably simple, obvious, and straightforward. Complications, exceptions, and other anomalies are best disregarded in this mindset; these are suspect and get in the way of "action" and "prompt solutions." These gum up the image (some) Americans have of ourselves as practical problem-solvers -- a belief which has, alas, a tendency to disregard realities which might interfere with prompt, action-oriented solutions.
In its cultural role of National Image-Builder, this drive toward insisting that all problems are simple or at least simplifiable has been one of our greatest strengths (at times) and also one of our greatest weaknesses.
Fair point. It's more complex than that. Many moral people have left the party. Even those who oppose him and lament the Trumpification of the party are not remotely guiltless as they cultivated this dishonest divisive politics for decades that created Trump and Trumpism. And, as you say, many agree with him anyway. Let me phrase it slightly differently: as long as the GOP want to give Trump a free-pass for both his unethical behaviour and his illegal actions, any attempt to hold him to account will be open to the charge of partisanship. Not because the Dems are persecuting him but because the Repubs have left the field. That does make the pursuit of justice more difficult but it also makes it more important.
Where there is wrong doing by an opposing political actor, there are 3 possible positions: 1) disinterested justice. 2) Bias against them (because they are my opponent and I am an opportunist). And 3) Bias towards them because I don't want to appear partisan or have to defend that charge.
Whilst, avoiding 2) is clearly important, 3) is also a failing. Moreover if you do achieve 1) (or as close to it as humanly possible), dishonest actors will accuse you of 2) from ignorance, their own bias or simple cynicism.
Whilst the GOP remains the Trump party, Dems have no choice but to tred this difficult path and deal with the flak.
AFZ
The simple answer to why Biden is now President and Trump isn't is that Biden just won the election in the ordinary way.
Trumpist explanations of the same fact involve vast conspiracies, the hand of Hugo Chavez reaching out from beyond the grave, cabals of cannibalistic Satan-worshiping pedophiles, the deep state, and bamboo-flecked ballot paper shipped over from China. You could call this colorful mishmash a lot of things, but simple isn't one of them.
I think you're right. However, I hardly think they are alone in that trait. There are people on the other side of politics who will equally come up with another reason to be victim if the original reason is addressed or turns out to be misplaced. There is great emotional appeal in this.
I imagine a good number of the MAGA crowd would quite happily avoid paying taxes if they could. Damn government, taking their hard-earned money.
I’m suggesting that this prosecution - not to mention the joyous reaction to it from many sources - is a case of (2) rather than (1). That it’s about finding a charge - any charge - that can be made to stick so that he can be punished for the things he did as president (aka for political reasons).
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
And they’re right about that! Obviously the liberals in question are doing it because they believe it’s absolutely the right thing to do, but is it any wonder that those who disagree are going to fight back?
Fair enough. I completely disagree. Firstly, he's run his business as a scam for a very long time. Secondly there's (almost certain, although not yet proven*) criminal wrong doing as president thus not pursuing him is a political decision. Or to put it more strongly, it would be an act of political cowardice to not pursue him. It's not about his political acts as president but his criminal ones both before and after taking office. Indeed, he is attempting to turn the presidency into a form of criminal immunity which is far more dangerous in the long term.
AFZ
*not proven in the legal sense but if you really don't think he committed crimes whilst holding office, then you've not been paying attention.
I couldn't just let this pass as it's absolute bollocks. You're right about what they believe but that belief has very little basis in reality.
Let's just take your 3:
1) The vast majority of Republican voters are being made better off by Biden's agenda. The giveaway here is the number of GOP Congressmen and Women / Senators who are claiming credit for the recent infrastructure spending in their states due to a bill they voted against... not to mention how Healthcare reform benefitted the majority and will do so in the future. It's only a tiny number who will have to pay more tax (and then only something similar to the proportion that 'ordinary' people pay).
2) No one, anywhere is promoting homosexuality. That would mean trying to make heterosexuals - into / pretend to be - homosexuals. Oh, the irony.
3) Abortion is actually a much more complex issue than many on both sides pretend. I am a pro-Life* social-democrat but here's the clear fact: abortion rates are consistently lower under Democratic Presidents. Indeed the recent so-called 'heartbeat' bills will probably increase the number of abortions**
The better way to characterise the situation is that when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
AFZ
*I spend my working life looking after babies born from 23, 24 weeks. I think it abhorrent that UK law allows abortion up to birth in certain circumstances but I don't often describe myself as "pro-Life" anymore due to how poisonous that term has become. Unthinkable not illegal is my aim.
**Happy to expand on this but think we're already at risk of major tangents.
Beliefs don't change facts.
No do facts often change beliefs either.
That being true we are circling back to where we were a short time ago.
1. Trump's prosecution is not politically motivated
2. Despite this, there are some of wish to depict it as such
3. Pandering to that constituency is likely to achieve nothing
4. Not prosecuting Trump would set a dangerous precedent
5. Finally, political celebration of Trump's putative prosecution is not the same as political motivation for prosecution of potential crimes
AFZ
It's possible you might have something like this - like you can point to evidence that this prosecutor has a history of politically slanted activity, or that he has behaved improperly in this case, or that the charge is a violation of an obscure law which is practically never enforced, or that Trump's sterling reputation as a paragon of honesty in all his business dealings makes him an unlikely target for a fraud investigation, or something like that. (Well, maybe not the last one.)
But so far it just sounds like your suggestion amounts to nothing more than "Democrats don't like Trump, therefore any prosecution against him must be presumed improper" - so basically cynicism and bias. Is that all it is?
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
In America all prosecution is politically motivated. Using vast resources to pursue and avoid taxes is immoral either way.
Note that as a legal term of art (and leaving aside morality for the moment) there's a difference between tax avoidance (which is legal) and tax evasion (which is essentially tax avoidance without legal justification).
I'm reminded of the time Elizabeth Warren called out Amazon for not paying any taxes in the U.S. Amazon's response was that they paid all the taxes they were legally required to, and Warren's riposte was "Yeah, I know. . . . That's the problem."
Indeed.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.