I'm delighted. And by separating it into various counts of various flavored crimes, they make it that much harder for him to evade justice. I think he's up to 78 felony counts so far.
Speaking as a foreigner, with no right to speak on this thread, I'd have rather more respect for the US judicial system and constitution if it had arrested and charged him on January 7th 2021 in stead of dithering for 2½ years before getting round to it.
One of the worst aspects of this whole thing is that it drags down Republican voters. Ten years ago most of them (I believe) would never consider supporting someone with Trump's record, but because they have got on board the Trump train they have been pulled along by his charisma and moral turpitude over the past decade so that their consciences have been blunted. This is a major long-term blow to US civil society.
Speaking as a foreigner, with no right to speak on this thread, I'd have rather more respect for the US judicial system and constitution if it had arrested and charged him on January 7th 2021 in stead of dithering for 2½ years before getting round to it.
That would have been a stupid and disastrous move for which this American retired lawyer would have had little respect. That you describe what has been going on for the last 2½ years as “dithering” rather than as careful investigation and building of the strongest case possible demonstrates that your lack of respect is based on your ignorance of a system other than yours and of what has actually been going on.
There are several states which will not allow a convicted criminal serving time to run for office. Each state controls their own election. Moreover, some states have regulations requiring candidates to file financial disclosures. Trump has refused to do this in the past.
I too wish the indictment would have come down sooner, but as the former lawyers have said, it takes a while to develop a case against the Big Fish. Sometimes that means going after smaller actors first, building up the larger case. I think Smith made the right decision to charge Trump alone in this indictment. Get him out of the way quickly.
Now, the Judge assigned to the case is Judge Tanya Chutkan. She has been a tough jurist when it comes to January 6 convictions. She had ruled the January 6 Select Committee could have access to the Trump White House papers. And she hails from Jamacia. She studied law in the United States eventually becoming a US citizen. Trump has very strong opinions when it comes to naturalized citizens who happen to be black and female.
Here's a blog post from about a year ago making the distinction between personal charisma and political charisma.
But again I think it’s a category error to confuse personal charisma with political charisma. Clinton has or had both, and the two are no doubt in some ways related, but the differences between the two seem to me more important than the similarities.
The idea of charisma in the political sense was first described by Max Weber, who considered it one of the three basic forms of political authority, along with the traditional and the bureaucratic. Here’s his definition:
Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.
The key point about Weber’s definition, besides its inherent vagueness — he never in his extant writings provides any concrete description of this “certain quality” — is that he locates the origin of this certain quality in the audience, not in the charismatic leader (“treated as endowed,” “are regarded,” “is treated.”).
This point is constantly overlooked or ignored. Standard political discourse assumes that political charisma is an inherent personality trait of certain politicians; Weber’s definition assumes, correctly I believe, that political charisma is a quality that is projected onto the leader by the led, because they want to find what they are looking for, and therefore do find it in whatever convenient vessel they pour their desires for “genuine leadership” (genuine meaning the opposite of traditional or bureaucratic in Weber’s schema).
<snip>
This is why we can find political charisma attributed to figures who have little or no personal charisma. Donald Trump has zero personal charisma: he is the exact opposite personality type from Bill Clinton and Jay Gatsby: in a room full of hundreds of people, he seems completely unaware that any of the others besides himself actually exist. A monstrously narcissistic sociopath, he is utterly bereft of charm or personal attractiveness in the conventional sense.
This same basic observation can be made about the most infamous charismatic leader in history, Adolph Hitler. Hitler was an ugly little man who screamed a lot at his audience in what people who know German tell me was a vulgar and ineloquent way, that was the opposite of rhetorically convincing on its own terms. But the audience and the nation was hypnotized by him. Why? Because they wanted to be.
What Hitler was screaming at them was what they wanted to hear, so they imbued this absurd and disgusting figure with essentially supernatural qualities of “leadership.” This is the essence of cult leadership: most cult leaders are not in any way charismatic in the personal sense, as anyone who has not allowed themselves to become spellbound by the cult can readily attest.
What Trump screams at his audience is what the audience desperately wants to be told. (Standard disclaimer: Trump is not Hitler). That is why this absurd and disgusting figure is “charismatic” in the Weberian sense: because his audience wants to be hypnotized.
This is something to remember when people argue about whether a particular politician is charismatic or not: political charisma is something the audience creates in the politician, rather than something the politician inherently possesses.
Italics from the original, bolding added by me.
tl;dr - Donald Trump's "charisma" is that he gives his followers implicit permission to be their own worst selves without shame.
ABC news is reporting Trump has been indicted for the January 6 riot. There a four charges
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Conspiracy to obstruct a formal proceeding.
Obstructing a formal proceeding, and
Conspiracy against rights.
Why didn't they just sum it all up with one word: sedition?
Jack Smith seems to be limiting himself to charges that he is certain can be supported by what must now be a Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse full of evidence. Sedition is a bit of a heavier lift to prove.
The interesting bit of the indictment [PDF] for me was Trump's six unnamed co-conspirators (pp. 3-4). Despite the fact that they're unnamed they're described in enough detail that we can figure out who most of them are.
Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.
This is most likely [Redacted - see below].
Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President’s ceremonial role overseeing certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
Almost certainly [Redacted - see below].
Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3’s disinformation.
Probably [Redacted - see below], though there are other possibilities.
Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
I don't think anyone other than [Redacted - see below] meets this description.
Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
Probably [Redacted - see below], though there are other, less likely candidates.
Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
??? There are so many possibilities here.
Although Trump is the only one indicted these six co-conspirators seem to be likely to be charged in any superseding indictment.
Am I wrong to be thinking of this in terms of a new Æschylus play, Seven Against the Electoral College? We have to be abundantly cautious about defamation aboard Ship. We consider that naming names in this way may present a risk. If some reputable publication comes to the same conclusions a link there would be acceptable. But on the Ship there should be no discussion identifying other possible persons who might be indicted.
Speaking as a foreigner, with no right to speak on this thread, I'd have rather more respect for the US judicial system and constitution if it had arrested and charged him on January 7th 2021 in stead of dithering for 2½ years before getting round to it.
I don't blame you for thinking so--I just don't think you realize just how much goes into preparing for a successful prosecution. I hear a ton of Americans saying the same thing, and for the same reason.
The problem of course is that if you take shot at an ex-President, you best not miss. That's why it takes so long to prepare for his arrest--because once you indict him, the clock on the "speedy trial" thing starts ticking. You've got to be sure you can get a conviction.
We are in uncharted waters on this one--Nixon was minor compared to this--and the stakes have never been higher. If they had failed to go after him for his obvious many and major crimes (and it could have happened, either out of fear or political corruption), it would have been the end of America. Something called America might have survived for a while in terms of power and geography, but it would not have been the country it has been--one which, despite so many flaws, is still at base committed to justice. It would have been a nightmare. Who wants a superpower that has utterly abandoned its commitment to basic morality? We're bad enough as it is.
Then there's the question of what would have happened if we had tried to investigate him but failed to indict him. That would also have been bad, because his crimes are so well documented and public that it could only have been total incompetence (or again, fear or corruption) that failed to get an indictment.
Now that we've reached three indictments (for 78 felony counts!) with more to come, I am breathing easier. Even if the man drops dead tomorrow, we have this line in the sand drawn. Even, God help us, if we get hung juries or some MAGA idiot manages to screw up every single trial jury in such a way that he gets off from every single charge, still, everyone will know the truth and that a damn serious effort has been made to hold him to account. We have, as a country, publicly said "This is NOT okay," and put future Trumps on notice that they too will be held to judgement. Whatever happens to Trump going forward, he can never say "nobody investigated me, nobody had a problem with my conduct." He can never say (truthfully, I mean!) that he was never arrested for his shit. He will forever be the president who was twice impeached and three times indicted, and (please God) he'll be the first one convicted and sentenced as well.
Why do I care? Because America, like every human country, sucks sometimes. But I can't bear it, that we should destroy ourselves so utterly that we fail to lift a finger when it comes to crimes so great and obvious.
And so, yeah. If it takes two and a half years to get all the ducks in a row to produce these indictments, I'm happy with that. I'll be even happier if it produces a conviction or 78. Because I love America, and I can't bear to see us lose what remains of our ideals and commitment to what is right.
One of the worst aspects of this whole thing is that it drags down Republican voters. Ten years ago most of them (I believe) would never consider supporting someone with Trump's record, but because they have got on board the Trump train they have been pulled along by his charisma and moral turpitude over the past decade so that their consciences have been blunted. This is a major long-term blow to US civil society.
This is very true, and that's why I'm hoping/expecting to see a new replacement party emerge to take over the gaping hole in our politics. The Republicans by and large are not what they were even ten, twenty years ago. There are a few honorable hold outs, but I can't imagine how they deal with the stink. I had to bail myself, as you know.
One of the worst aspects of this whole thing is that it drags down Republican voters. Ten years ago most of them (I believe) would never consider supporting someone with Trump's record, but because they have got on board the Trump train they have been pulled along by his charisma and moral turpitude over the past decade so that their consciences have been blunted. This is a major long-term blow to US civil society.
This is very true, and that's why I'm hoping/expecting to see a new replacement party emerge to take over the gaping hole in our politics. The Republicans by and large are not what they were even ten, twenty years ago. There are a few honorable hold outs, but I can't imagine how they deal with the stink. I had to bail myself, as you know.
I hope you are right LC but what I see (albeit from a great distance) is that most Republicans appear to be adapting their political morality to the new Trumpian establishment. I find it difficult to envisage a new party finding the political space to thrive. It looks to me much more likely that Trumpublicanism becomes embedded for the foreseeable future.
I'm not the only one who's dived off that ship, and quite a few of us are not comfortable signing up as Democrats, though we may vote that way in the absence of anything closer to where we stand. This country has not historically had a huge number of independents or unaffiliated people who remain that way. Nor have we had a one party system. What we have had is new parties emerging when an older one has taken a dive, so we wind up with two biggies again. So that's what I'm suspecting we'll see.
As a lifelong Democrat, I am so sad about what is happening to our two-party system. I want a strong honest Republican party, willing to work on issues for the best of all, not just trying to undo the other side. I think things work out best when both sides work on issues and come to an agreement both giving to reach a common goal that all can live with, and thinking what is best for the people of this country.
Speaking as a foreigner, with no right to speak on this thread, I'd have rather more respect for the US judicial system and constitution if it had arrested and charged him on January 7th 2021 in stead of dithering for 2½ years before getting round to it.
The problem of course is that if you take shot at an ex-President, you best not miss.
The other problem is that on January 7th, 2021 Donald Trump was still president*, not an ex-president*.
There are several states which will not allow a convicted criminal serving time to run for office. Each state controls their own election. Moreover, some states have regulations requiring candidates to file financial disclosures. Trump has refused to do this in the past.
I can easily understand your first sentence in general principle, but is there any difference should the conviction be for a shoplifting committed 30 years ago and a break, enter and steal a month or 2 before the primary?
There are several states which will not allow a convicted criminal serving time to run for office. Each state controls their own election.
Yes, but federal law, and in particular the US Constitution, sets the qualifications for the office of president, and states can’t add to those qualifications or add disqualifying factors that aren’t in federal law.
Moreover, some states have regulations requiring candidates to file financial disclosures. Trump has refused to do this in the past.
If you’re talking about the California ”Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act,” it was struck down by the federal courts on the grounds it violated the US Constitution and by the Supreme Court of California on the grounds it violated the California Constitution.
Unsurprisingly Donald Trump has plead not guilty to the charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Looks to me like his defence is going to mostly be "it's my 1st Amendment right to say stuff like that, and I'm not responsible for what other people may do in response".
Looks to me like his defence is going to mostly be "it's my 1st Amendment right to say stuff like that, and I'm not responsible for what other people may do in response".
I'm guessing that's why the indictment was structured the way it was, as a short list of conspiracy charges rather than a longer list of the overt acts in pursuit of that conspiracy. The Bulwark has an interesting analogy along these lines.
Think, for instance, of a conspiracy to kidnap and hold a person for ransom. In furtherance of the scheme, the conspirators locate and rent a safe house, stock up to hold the hostage for a protracted period of time, buy ski masks, restraints and a telephone voice changer, and carefully observe the comings and goings in the target area. Not one of these acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy is, standing alone, a crime. But individually and taken together, those overt acts are powerful evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
So it is with Trump. If he could convince a jury that he truly believed he had won the election, some of the overt acts alleged against him, standing alone, might look less sinister. But those acts do not stand alone. Rather, they are powerful evidence of the criminal conspiracy alleged in the indictment.
As part of his release agreement, Trump is not supposed to do or say anything that is criminal. Yet every time he speaks about the last election it certainly sounds criminal. And his business activities allegedly operate like organized crime.
He certainly appears to be a walking criminal.
I bet he will be given wide latitude on that agreement.
So would he get proper prison or one of those nice ones if he is found guilty?
He will likely be put in a minimum-security prison camp white color convicts are sent to. But, considering the number of years he may be facing, it will be like a death sentence. After all, he is an old man.
The dangers of imprisoning trump are fairly clear: the mob will be incited just as easily as it always has been, and the consequences could be catastrophic. However, given the increasing number of indictments, trials and appeals, it is quite possible that he will spend the rest of his miserable life in the courts being bled dry by his lawyers and paying massive fines. He will probably have to sell off his golf courses (starting with Balmedie, I hope) and will end up broke and bankrupt. It won't satisfy the "Lock him up!" brigade, but should ensure a lifetime of well-earned misery that could be much worse than relaxing in a white collar prison.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people around suffering from "Trump derangement syndrom". For goodness sake folks, he may be a morally very suspect individual, on numerous counts, but he's not some kind of Orange Satan!
So many folk think that if Trump can be just gotten rid of, by any means from what I can see, then all is going to be sweetness and light after, but it won't be. Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom of a problem. A lot of Americans are really, really unhappy about the directions the country is going in, and they see Trump as a focus for their dissatisfaction. Even if Trump is locked up for a century (which is what could happen if he is convicted on all 78 counts) those people aren't going anywhere.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people around suffering from "Trump derangement syndrom". For goodness sake folks, he may be a morally very suspect individual, on numerous counts, but he's not some kind of Orange Satan!
He tried to overturn a democratic election and disrupt the peaceful handover of power. That's incredibly dangerous for a democracy. That a significant number of people support him in spite of or, worse, because of that behaviour makes him more dangerous, not less. His personal moral turpitude is a problem but it's not really what worries people. Clinton was morally corrupt, but he wasn't a threat to the American republic or the rule of law. That's not "derangement", that's a sober examination of the facts.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people around suffering from "Trump derangement syndrom". For goodness sake folks, he may be a morally very suspect individual, on numerous counts, but he's not some kind of Orange Satan!
He tried to overturn a democratic election and disrupt the peaceful handover of power. That's incredibly dangerous for a democracy.
A failed coup that goes unpunished is a training exercise.
Oh, unfortunately I quite agree that getting rid of Trump will not make everything better. But I disagree that he is merely a symptom. He is a peculiarly malign and rather unusual agent who has been given his chance by the tensions and fissures existing in the US and has by his actions made those tensions and fissures considerably worse.
Oh, unfortunately I quite agree that getting rid of Trump will not make everything better. ...
Are you quite sure about that?
Getting rid of Trump won't restore perfection to US politics - were they ever such - or even return them to some place where he never was. But from outside it does look as though his political demise would make everything quite a lot better than it is at the moment or than it will be if he doesn't get his just comeuppance.
A lot of Americans are really, really unhappy about the directions the country is going in, and they see Trump as a focus for their dissatisfaction.
I would agree many Americans have been dissatisfied with the direction the country has been going in, but I would not say it is near a majority. There are a number who think they have not had the same opportunities come their way. There are some who have been left in the dust with economic changes. There are some who are concerned about the morals of our contry. But I would say that makes up 1/3 of the total population.
It seems the diehard Trumpistas do not want to admit they have been doped by him, because they don't like to admit they bet on the wrong horse. They would rather ride him into the ground come hell or high water.
(Notice how I mix metaphors)
It has been my experience American politics swing like a pendulum. Whenever the pendulum swings to the left, there will be an opposite and equal reaction to the right. We saw a lot of societal changes during the Obama administration, people wanted to cool off a bit during the Trump era, but that did not happen. Things all but blew up with riots in the cities, the exponential increase in national debt, and the gross mishandling of the COVID crisis.
The pendulum has now swung back to the left, but not as far left as Obama (though I would like to have seen it go even further)
I would hope if the Republicans get into power again they could find a less radical person.
A lot of Americans are really, really unhappy about the directions the country is going in, and they see Trump as a focus for their dissatisfaction.
...There are some who are concerned about the morals of our contry. But I would say that makes up 1/3 of the total population...
I set great store by my step-daughter, now a civil servant for the prison service who advises ministers, who served on the seg wing of Gartree, that when she ran security for a large retail outfit, noted that one third of the staff would turn in a lost ha'penny while one third were too timid to steal and the other would rob you blind like Fagin's boys. You can rely on human nature.
I do not understand how, if Trump's First Amendment defenc is valid, anyone in the USA can ever be convicted of an offence of fraud.
That, of course, is why Trump's 1st Amdt. defence is almost certainly bollocks.
Right. Fraud is not protected speech. Conspiring to break the law is not protected speech. And threats are not protected speech.
Speaking of that last one, during Trump's latest arraignment Judge Upadhyaya felt need to issue the following warning.
It is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. Do you understand these warnings and consequences, sir?
Trump responded in the affirmative. Then pretty much exactly twenty-four hours later this was posted to Trump's Truth Social account:
IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!
Apparently he got mad enough to go into CAPSLOCK mode. Shortly after this the prosecution filed a motion for a protective order. The Hillexplains.
Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it’s “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”
Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”
<snip>
A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president’s post “is the definition of political speech,” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”
Which brings us back to the whole "threats are not protected speech" thing.
BTW, what to people think about televising the trial?
Well, I think we have been told that is not going to happen. I am not sure it would make much difference, the people who support him are going to continue to support him. If all that has come out so far has not changed their minds televising the trial would not make any difference. I personally am sick of looking at his face on the news every night so I will take my news of the trial second-hand from those few reporters who will be allowed in the courtroom, thank you.
I grew up in Canada, where artists are the only visual media allowed in every jurisdiction and at all levels of the legal system. And I have a bit of nostalgia for seeing the sketches on the news; it added a real tone of high seriousness to the reportage.
Pretty sure I've seen them on US news for federal trials, and I think I could enjoy the trump proceedings via that medium as well.
Comments
Could someone describe trump’s charisma?
I too wish the indictment would have come down sooner, but as the former lawyers have said, it takes a while to develop a case against the Big Fish. Sometimes that means going after smaller actors first, building up the larger case. I think Smith made the right decision to charge Trump alone in this indictment. Get him out of the way quickly.
Now, the Judge assigned to the case is Judge Tanya Chutkan. She has been a tough jurist when it comes to January 6 convictions. She had ruled the January 6 Select Committee could have access to the Trump White House papers. And she hails from Jamacia. She studied law in the United States eventually becoming a US citizen. Trump has very strong opinions when it comes to naturalized citizens who happen to be black and female.
Should be an interesting trial to watch.
Here's a blog post from about a year ago making the distinction between personal charisma and political charisma.
Italics from the original, bolding added by me.
tl;dr - Donald Trump's "charisma" is that he gives his followers implicit permission to be their own worst selves without shame.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/30/the-connection-between-political-lies-and-conspiracy-theories-00108378?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Jack Smith seems to be limiting himself to charges that he is certain can be supported by what must now be a Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse full of evidence. Sedition is a bit of a heavier lift to prove.
The interesting bit of the indictment [PDF] for me was Trump's six unnamed co-conspirators (pp. 3-4). Despite the fact that they're unnamed they're described in enough detail that we can figure out who most of them are.
This is most likely [Redacted - see below].
Almost certainly [Redacted - see below].
Probably [Redacted - see below], though there are other possibilities.
I don't think anyone other than [Redacted - see below] meets this description.
Probably [Redacted - see below], though there are other, less likely candidates.
??? There are so many possibilities here.
Although Trump is the only one indicted these six co-conspirators seem to be likely to be charged in any superseding indictment.
Am I wrong to be thinking of this in terms of a new Æschylus play, Seven Against the Electoral College?
We have to be abundantly cautious about defamation aboard Ship. We consider that naming names in this way may present a risk. If some reputable publication comes to the same conclusions a link there would be acceptable. But on the Ship there should be no discussion identifying other possible persons who might be indicted.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I don't blame you for thinking so--I just don't think you realize just how much goes into preparing for a successful prosecution. I hear a ton of Americans saying the same thing, and for the same reason.
The problem of course is that if you take shot at an ex-President, you best not miss. That's why it takes so long to prepare for his arrest--because once you indict him, the clock on the "speedy trial" thing starts ticking. You've got to be sure you can get a conviction.
We are in uncharted waters on this one--Nixon was minor compared to this--and the stakes have never been higher. If they had failed to go after him for his obvious many and major crimes (and it could have happened, either out of fear or political corruption), it would have been the end of America. Something called America might have survived for a while in terms of power and geography, but it would not have been the country it has been--one which, despite so many flaws, is still at base committed to justice. It would have been a nightmare. Who wants a superpower that has utterly abandoned its commitment to basic morality? We're bad enough as it is.
Then there's the question of what would have happened if we had tried to investigate him but failed to indict him. That would also have been bad, because his crimes are so well documented and public that it could only have been total incompetence (or again, fear or corruption) that failed to get an indictment.
Now that we've reached three indictments (for 78 felony counts!) with more to come, I am breathing easier. Even if the man drops dead tomorrow, we have this line in the sand drawn. Even, God help us, if we get hung juries or some MAGA idiot manages to screw up every single trial jury in such a way that he gets off from every single charge, still, everyone will know the truth and that a damn serious effort has been made to hold him to account. We have, as a country, publicly said "This is NOT okay," and put future Trumps on notice that they too will be held to judgement. Whatever happens to Trump going forward, he can never say "nobody investigated me, nobody had a problem with my conduct." He can never say (truthfully, I mean!) that he was never arrested for his shit. He will forever be the president who was twice impeached and three times indicted, and (please God) he'll be the first one convicted and sentenced as well.
Why do I care? Because America, like every human country, sucks sometimes. But I can't bear it, that we should destroy ourselves so utterly that we fail to lift a finger when it comes to crimes so great and obvious.
And so, yeah. If it takes two and a half years to get all the ducks in a row to produce these indictments, I'm happy with that. I'll be even happier if it produces a conviction or 78. Because I love America, and I can't bear to see us lose what remains of our ideals and commitment to what is right.
This is very true, and that's why I'm hoping/expecting to see a new replacement party emerge to take over the gaping hole in our politics. The Republicans by and large are not what they were even ten, twenty years ago. There are a few honorable hold outs, but I can't imagine how they deal with the stink. I had to bail myself, as you know.
I hope you are right LC but what I see (albeit from a great distance) is that most Republicans appear to be adapting their political morality to the new Trumpian establishment. I find it difficult to envisage a new party finding the political space to thrive. It looks to me much more likely that Trumpublicanism becomes embedded for the foreseeable future.
The other problem is that on January 7th, 2021 Donald Trump was still president*, not an ex-president*.
I can easily understand your first sentence in general principle, but is there any difference should the conviction be for a shoplifting committed 30 years ago and a break, enter and steal a month or 2 before the primary?
If you’re talking about the California ”Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act,” it was struck down by the federal courts on the grounds it violated the US Constitution and by the Supreme Court of California on the grounds it violated the California Constitution.
I just don’t get it.
I'm guessing that's why the indictment was structured the way it was, as a short list of conspiracy charges rather than a longer list of the overt acts in pursuit of that conspiracy. The Bulwark has an interesting analogy along these lines.
He certainly appears to be a walking criminal.
I bet he will be given wide latitude on that agreement.
He will likely be put in a minimum-security prison camp white color convicts are sent to. But, considering the number of years he may be facing, it will be like a death sentence. After all, he is an old man.
No, I think I will keep the typo. After all, most white-collar crimes are made by people of that color.
So many folk think that if Trump can be just gotten rid of, by any means from what I can see, then all is going to be sweetness and light after, but it won't be. Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom of a problem. A lot of Americans are really, really unhappy about the directions the country is going in, and they see Trump as a focus for their dissatisfaction. Even if Trump is locked up for a century (which is what could happen if he is convicted on all 78 counts) those people aren't going anywhere.
He tried to overturn a democratic election and disrupt the peaceful handover of power. That's incredibly dangerous for a democracy. That a significant number of people support him in spite of or, worse, because of that behaviour makes him more dangerous, not less. His personal moral turpitude is a problem but it's not really what worries people. Clinton was morally corrupt, but he wasn't a threat to the American republic or the rule of law. That's not "derangement", that's a sober examination of the facts.
A failed coup that goes unpunished is a training exercise.
To be honest, I thought the typo was intentional on your part for just that reason!
Getting rid of Trump won't restore perfection to US politics - were they ever such - or even return them to some place where he never was. But from outside it does look as though his political demise would make everything quite a lot better than it is at the moment or than it will be if he doesn't get his just comeuppance.
I would agree many Americans have been dissatisfied with the direction the country has been going in, but I would not say it is near a majority. There are a number who think they have not had the same opportunities come their way. There are some who have been left in the dust with economic changes. There are some who are concerned about the morals of our contry. But I would say that makes up 1/3 of the total population.
It seems the diehard Trumpistas do not want to admit they have been doped by him, because they don't like to admit they bet on the wrong horse. They would rather ride him into the ground come hell or high water.
(Notice how I mix metaphors)
It has been my experience American politics swing like a pendulum. Whenever the pendulum swings to the left, there will be an opposite and equal reaction to the right. We saw a lot of societal changes during the Obama administration, people wanted to cool off a bit during the Trump era, but that did not happen. Things all but blew up with riots in the cities, the exponential increase in national debt, and the gross mishandling of the COVID crisis.
The pendulum has now swung back to the left, but not as far left as Obama (though I would like to have seen it go even further)
I would hope if the Republicans get into power again they could find a less radical person.
I set great store by my step-daughter, now a civil servant for the prison service who advises ministers, who served on the seg wing of Gartree, that when she ran security for a large retail outfit, noted that one third of the staff would turn in a lost ha'penny while one third were too timid to steal and the other would rob you blind like Fagin's boys. You can rely on human nature.
That, of course, is why Trump's 1st Amdt. defence is almost certainly bollocks.
Right. Fraud is not protected speech. Conspiring to break the law is not protected speech. And threats are not protected speech.
Speaking of that last one, during Trump's latest arraignment Judge Upadhyaya felt need to issue the following warning.
Trump responded in the affirmative. Then pretty much exactly twenty-four hours later this was posted to Trump's Truth Social account:
Apparently he got mad enough to go into CAPSLOCK mode. Shortly after this the prosecution filed a motion for a protective order. The Hill explains.
Which brings us back to the whole "threats are not protected speech" thing.
In the minimum-security camps Trump would most likely be sentenced too, the prisoners are often allowed to wear leisure clothing.
Sorry.
Well, that didn't take long. And what would happen if he still makes such threats if the judge issues a protective order?
BTW, what to people think about televising the trial?
Well, I think we have been told that is not going to happen. I am not sure it would make much difference, the people who support him are going to continue to support him. If all that has come out so far has not changed their minds televising the trial would not make any difference. I personally am sick of looking at his face on the news every night so I will take my news of the trial second-hand from those few reporters who will be allowed in the courtroom, thank you.
I grew up in Canada, where artists are the only visual media allowed in every jurisdiction and at all levels of the legal system. And I have a bit of nostalgia for seeing the sketches on the news; it added a real tone of high seriousness to the reportage.
Pretty sure I've seen them on US news for federal trials, and I think I could enjoy the trump proceedings via that medium as well.