OFFENSES: With what offense does Trump stand charged?

MONDAY, MAY 20, 2024

Our primitive national discourse: Abraham Lincoln put it best. For the record, he was quoting the New Testament when he did. 

We aren't Bible believers ourselves. But just to be specific, he was quoting Matthews 18:7:

The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses. For it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.

The specific offense to which the president referred was the offense of chattel slavery. The fuller passage in his second inaugural address reads like this:

LINCOLN (3/4/64): Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained...Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. 

The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. 

"The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses. For it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

In the most brilliant moral statement of which we're aware, Lincoln went on to stress the fact that both parties in this particular war bore responsibility for the vast offense in question:

LINCOLN (continuing directly): If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? 

The president continued from there, making his basic point even more horribly clear. To read his full text, click here.

Were both sides, North and South, being punished by this terrible war? If so, the president said, "Can we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?"

That was an astonishing statement about a vast historical offense. That said, the offense in question was easy to describe. It was Lincoln's moral assessment which was vastly complex.

Other famous offenses, real and perceived, have been easy to describe.

In the late Bronze Age, a vast assembly of Achaean armies laid siege to Troy for roughly ten years. The (perceived) offense in question was easy to describe:

Helen, radiance of woman, had abandoned Prince Menelaus, her Achaean husband. She had run off to become the wife of Paris, the Trojan prince. 

In the face of this perceived offense—this perceived blow to Achaean honor—a vast assembly of Achaean warriors spent ten years dying in the mud and the dust outside the walls of Troy.

By modern lights, that moral assessment was almost insane, but the perceived offense is easy to describe. Years later, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump referred to a different type of possible offense.

He did so in January 2016. Headline included, here's the way NPR's Colin Dwyer limned it:

Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'

With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump remains characteristically confident about his chances. In fact, the Republican front-runner is so confident, he says his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

The businessman, whose Trump Tower stands on the major Manhattan thoroughfare, cracked the joke Saturday to a receptive audience at the Christian college.

NPR read the candidate's comment as a joke. In Trump's formulation, he could apparently shoot someone dead on the street, right there in Manhattan, without losing a single vote.

It's easy to picture the general type of offense to which Trump referred. It's easy to describe the perceived offense which produced the (legendary) Trojan War.

Lincoln referred to a vast historical offense. This leads us to a puzzling situation in the present day.

Today, Trump stands charged in a New York City courthouse—charged with a criminal offense which could send him to prison. A jury may reach a verdict in the case next week—but with what specific criminal offense has the candidate been charged?

(Next week? That's based on a new ruling by Judge Merchan.)

With what crime does Trump stand charged? Also. does the legal theory in question actually make legal sense?

As best we can tell, it remains amazingly hard to answer those basic questions. Some have tried, but a great many others haven't bothered. 

The lack of clarity tells us something about the nature of our American discourse—but also, perhaps, about the fundamental nature of human capability and human impulse themselves.

With what offense does Trump stand charged? To what extent has that offense been described by our major news organizations, Red and Blue alike?

We'll be exploring those questions all week. We'll be looking at analysis pieces by newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. We'll also be looking at opinion columns by such observers as the New York Times' David French.

French is thoroughly anti-Trump, but he's also a graduate of Harvard Law School. Headline included, his column in this morning's Times begins and ends in the manner shown:

The Trump Trial Is Disturbing on So Many Levels

I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.

At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but—and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.

[...]

Our court system does not exist to guarantee political results, no matter how much one might want Trump to lose the election. And defeating Trump with an assist from a criminal prosecution that falls apart on appeal would exacerbate the mistrust that helped make Trump president in the first place and sustains his hold on the Republican Party.

Trump’s immorality and corruption should have disqualified him with Republican voters almost a decade ago, and now we have more sworn testimony that Trump is every bit as bad as we feared. At the same time, however, one does not defend liberal democracy through dubious criminal prosecutions.

There are smart lawyers who disagree with me, who think the prosecution is standing on solid legal ground. I truly hope they’re right. But I’m worried enough to be deeply perturbed. A terrible man is in the cross hairs of American justice, but immorality alone doesn’t make him a criminal.

So says French, this morning. There's a great deal more to his column—and to the specter he presents, in which Trump is convicted and defeated at the polls, with an appeals court then coming along to declare the conviction invalid.

That would be a body blow to the citizenry's faith in our democracy. Or at least so French says. 

At this site, we're a bit more advanced than the Times columnist. In our view, the unfolding of this prosecution gives the lie to basic ideas about the way our democracy works—conceivably, about the way it has ever worked.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our American discourse has been a rolling joke for at least the past three decades.

Way back when, Lincoln described a vast offense, then offered a stunning moral assessment. "I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln," a different American president said, more than a century later.

There are very few Lincolns! All this week, we'll examine various explanations of the alleged legal offense at issue in the Gotham trial.

Do you understand the alleged offense? At this site, we're still not sure we do!

Tomorrow: French and Douthat and Stephens oh my! Concerns about the current alleged offense.


88 comments:

  1. Bud Anderson, Moorhead Kennedy Jr, Dabney Coleman, and Ebrahim Raisi have died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who will announce your death here after you pass on?

      Delete
    2. “Bud Anderson, Moorhead Kennedy Jr, Dabney Coleman…” Sorry to hear this.

      Delete
    3. Farewell, Bud and Dab. So long, Moorhead and Ebby.

      Delete
    4. Bud was a great ace.

      Delete
  2. Lincoln was correct that slavery was wrong. That doesn't mean Somerby is correct that Trump's crime is too complex to describe, because it isn't as blatantly wrong as slavery.

    On what planet is it OK for a political candidate to collude with a tabloid newspaper in order to make up fake news about opponents, while also suppressing real news about himself? And then cover up that election manipulation by faking business records?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "On what planet is it OK for a political candidate to collude with a tabloid newspaper in order to make up fake news about opponents, while also suppressing real news about himself?"

      Earth.

      Delete
    2. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html)

      Delete
  3. Yes, I understand what he is charged with. Falsifying business records. This has been all over the news for months. Aren't you paying attention?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but why is it a felony?

      Delete
    2. It is a felony because there is a law on the NY State books that says that falsifying business records in order to commit another crime is a felony, not a misdemeanor. Another way of saying this is that falsifying records to commit or to cover up another crime makes the falsification more serious.

      Somerby's contention is that the laws being applied must make sense to him or be rational, or else they need not be applied or obeyed. That isn't how the law works. Why does a dog have to be on a leash at the beach? My dog is well-behaved, so I don't see the point of such a law. Does that entitle me to break the law at will? The same principle applies to other laws too. YOU and Somerby don't have to understand the reasons for the law. And it is still a crime, even if you didn't know there was such a law. Trump doesn't have to agree that the law is valid. His staff certainly understood that there were laws against what he was doing, just as there are laws against the other types of fraud he committed and was convicted for.

      Ultimately, it is a felony because the law says it is a felony. Why is there such a law? Because business cannot be conducted effectively if people are committing fraud and that hurts all businesses and the people of the State of New York. It is better for the common good if cheats and liars like Trump are not allowed to wantonly enrich themselves by falsifying records in business. Trump was not charged with the election interference and reporting violations and election fraud, because those are federal crimes and this is a state court. But the trial must establish those crimes in order to assert that the falsification of records is a felony, so they presented evidence of them (Daniels, Cohen, Pecker).

      Delete
    3. But what is the other crime that makes this crime a felony?

      Delete
    4. It is not a crime to ask a question that has been answered already many times, but it is trolling.

      Delete
    5. What should Trump have classified the expenditures as being? What terminology would be accurate and legal?

      Delete
    6. question hasn't been answered "many times." In several paragraphs. anon 9:57 doesn't say what other crime was committed. There is the statute relating to business records and a statute for the other alleged crime. 9:57 isn't a lawyer. To make the case, you have to state what the relevant laws say (objectively, not slanted paraphrase0 and cite precedents that support the interpretation (as these statutes are subject to interpretation; they aren't narrowly drafted. 9:57's take is from an utterly partisan standpoint.

      Delete
    7. I have in fact cited the legal basis for the case including the statutes and how NY applies those statutes, repeatedly and directly in response to you AC/MA. I have posted links to a website that discusses in depth the legal justification for the case, in direct response to your comments here.

      The payments were illegal, they were reimbursements for illegal campaign contributions; the prosecution presented evidence that Trump referred to them as reimbursements, and the FEC has already said that Trump “knowingly and willfully” violated federal election law.

      AC and the other fanboys aren’t commenting in good faith, they are partisan hacks here to disrupt reasonable discourse with nonsense.

      Delete
    8. Cecelia, the expenditures were contributions to his election campaign.

      Delete
  4. We discuss something for a few weeks, then Somerby shifts his focus to Stormy Daniels and sex, then he comes back and repeats the same objections to charging Trump that we have spent time on before.

    Repeating something over and over doesn't make Somerby or the right wing correct about Trump's charges. It makes them relentless, but not right.

    Trump has a cadre of lawyers who can and will explain the charges to him. The jury will receive instructions from the judge about the elements of the crimes which must be proven in order to convict Trump. The public, including you and I and Somerby, do not need to understand anything about it in order for Trump to be found guilty or innocent.

    No one can explain anything to Somerby if he doesn't want to understand it. It is a waste of time to keep trying. But this court case is part of our country's rule of law. Trump can appeal a verdict but his conviction doesn't depend on public approval or consent. MAGAs won't like it if Trump is convicted, but their opinion doesn't matter either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 9:38, the case is part of our country's rule of law, certainly - it's a case brought in the Court of a state that is one of the 50 states comprising the country. that doesn't mean that the case isn't politically motivated. And it doesn't mean that it was good idea for the NY DA to bring this case. The case is legally far-fetched, as French, who doesn't like Trump at all, states. It's a mickey mouse case.

      Delete
    2. No it is legally sound and fairly straightforward.

      Your emotions won’t change that.

      Delete
    3. I love Trump's contempt for people like AC/MA, but even I see that this case isn't politically motivated.

      Delete
    4. 'Fairly' straightforward. An emotional characterization.

      Delete
    5. We are not a banana republic and we do not have kangaroo courts. This is NOT a politically motivated prosecution. The right has offered no evidence in support of that smear, none whatsoever. It is a good idea for the D.A. to do his job as he sees it. Don't forget that there was a grand jury comprised of diverse people that also recommended prosecution. Many legal experts believe there is a sound case and have said so in editorials.

      Criminals are rarely likeable. Why would French's opinion of Trump or Bragg's opinion of him matter? It is the facts of the case that determine whether there will be a trial, not a person's other characteristics (pro or con, including wealth, former occupation, celebrity status, social class, etc.). That is what blind justice means -- all are treated equally under the law, including a whiny assed baby man like Trump.

      Ask Stormy Daniels if she thinks this is a Mickey Mouse case. She is entitled to see justice done too. Trump's disdain for our legal system has been on view throughout this trial. He is too crippled to think of it as anything but a tool to serve his needs. This trial is important because it can and should show criminals in the Trump organization and MAGA miscreants that the law is not a joke and not a tool of the wealthy and not the farce that Trump and blue-suited goons are trying to make it.

      You should have more self-respect than to buy their pitch.

      Delete
    6. The Right doesn't believe anything they are saying. They just love Trump's bigotry, so they pretend to believe this shit.

      Delete
  5. If Trump is convicted against Somerby's will, is he going to suggest that the people shouldn't stand for a rigged trial and argue that Trump should go free (or be set free by Proud Boys)? Will Somerby join the Supreme Court's conservatives by arguing that Trump should be above or beyond the law, have immunity (even when he is no longer president)?

    Increasingly, it seems to me that Somerby's obstinate support of Trump will become a justification for setting aside the cases against Trump, for overturning our courts, so that Trump can become a dictator who will subvert all aspects of our democracy in order to rule without constraint. With all the Republican maggots clinging to his robes. We cannot let that happen.

    Vote for Biden in November and support our democratic institutions until we can finish kicking Trump down the stairs. And that begins with rejecting Somerby's fatuous arguments, no matter how many times he says the same stuff. If the Supreme Court grants Trump immunity, I will be carrying a picket sign and demanding that my Democratic representatives address court corruption.

    And no, Trump cannot stay in office three terms (as he suggested in his NRA speech Saturday). Any more than he can outrun justice for his crimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, of course, it “seems” to you that Somerby is facilitating Trump’s installation as dictator.

      It “seems” to me that you haters have no sense at all.

      Delete
    2. How is Somerby any different than any other MAGA?

      Delete
    3. Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse says:

      "In Minnesota for a rally on Friday, Donald Trump claimed he won the state in 2020. He did not. He lost by 200,000 votes. It might seem like just one more lie among many. But it’s more than that, it’s Trump revealing his “campaign strategy” for 2024. When he loses in Minnesota, as he will, as every Republican candidate has since 1972, he will call it fraud. It won’t just be Minnesota. It will be another Big Lie and Donald Trump, unchecked, will use it to rip the country apart."
      ...

      "Assuming that people view Trump as the would-be dictator those who are paying attention know him to be is not enough. It’s essential for top Democratic leaders, for our state and local leaders across the country, and not just Democrats but people who believe that we must remain a democracy, to talk about this issue persistently. Trump, who is under indictment for trying to steal American’s votes in 2020, is setting up to do it again in 2024. And with his liberty at stake in two federal prosecutions that will proceed only if he loses, he will play with everything he has. We had better be ready."

      You, Pied Piper, rush in to defend Somerby but Somerby is not behaving like a liberal who wants Biden to win. He is pushing Trump and enabling the kind of behavior that will result in another attack on our democracy when Trump loses in November. This kind of essay that Somerby has written today is part of that strategy. It delegitimizes the election by suggesting that our justice system is corrupt.

      We look at Trump and see a morally bankrupt man finally being prosecuted for his crimes. Somerby presents Trump as an innocent conservative man being persecuted by Democrats (which is the MAGA view). YOU claim to be liberal but are supporting Somerby at every opportunity. Whatever you and Somerby actually believe, no matter how you vote, you are with the forces who are attacking democracy because you enable Somerby's sophistry and Trump's criminality when you fail to defend democracy.

      Calling those of us who are concerned about the damage Trump has done to our country "haters" is just name-calling. It is your go-to tactic here, since you do not otherwise say anything interesting here. But a lie is a lie, whether it is Trump telling it or Somerby or you.

      Delete
    4. Certainly some will hate, some will not.

      Hate, like anything else, is possible.

      11:01 it seems like you are the "hater", lashing out at reasoned and reasonable criticism of Somerby.

      It seems to me that you are a Somerby fanboy, that he is your hero and that slights against Somerby instigate a strong emotional response in you to defend him and his honor.

      That is what the evidence suggests.

      I am not a mind reader; however, that is not the criterion for reaching reasonable conclusions, neither here or in court.

      Delete
    5. 1. Somerby writes that it may be difficult to understand the legal theory against Trump.
      2. …
      3. Ergo, Somerby wants Trump to be dictator!

      Delete
    6. BTW, you haters routinely call Somerby a racist, sexist, traitorous pervert, and me every name you can think of, but if I call you a “hater” you suck your thumbs and cry and call for you mommies.

      Delete
    7. Pied, your emotional turmoil is duly noted. While it is amusing, it is also sad, hopefully you find some peace of mind.

      Delete
    8. And, further BTW, wouldn't you agree that you hate Somerby? After all, he's corrupt, paid by Putin. He's fraudulent, pretending to be a liberal to mislead gullible liberals. His project is to destroy our democracy and install Trump as dictator. Moreover, he's racist, sexist, and has a creepy fascination with young women. Right? Wouldn't any red-blooded American hate such a traitor?

      Delete
    9. But if you find "haters" offensive rather than descriptive, give me something else I can call you. "Brave liberals saving gullible liberals from Somerby's traitorous seductions" seems a little unwieldy to me.

      Delete
    10. Playing the rubes on the Right as a bunch of dim-witted marks who will fall for anything is not only legal, it’s the basis of the Republican Party.

      Delete
    11. No one here hates Somerby, we criticize his views.

      PP, just because you lack self control does not make your indignation righteous, you seem to be a sputtering fool, an obsessed fanboy. Get a grip.

      Delete
    12. Cecelia is a girl, but sometimes she wears boys’ clothes and asks to be called Buck.

      Delete
    13. Oh, I guess "name-calling" is only bad if I do it, right?

      Delete
    14. I hate Trump, but not because of his contempt/ disdain for Republican voters. In fact, that's easily the best thing about him.

      Delete
    15. Here you are, Pied Piper, whining about other commenters instead of discussing any of the topics raised.

      Delete
  6. Peter Greene from Curmudgucation is re-circulating his list of 20 life rules. This one seems to apply to today's essay by Somerby:

    "13. Don't waste time on people who are not being serious.

    Some people forget to be serious. They don't use words seriously. They don't have a serious understanding of other people or their actions or the consequences of those actions. They can be silly or careless or mean, but whatever batch of words they are tossing together, they are not serious about them. They are not guided by principle or empathy or anything substantial. There's no time-waters quite like trying to change the mind of a person about X when that person has no serious opinion about X to begin with.

    Note: do not mistake grimness for seriousness and do not mistake joy and fun for the absence of seriousness. Beware: One of the great tricks of not-being-serious people is to get you to waste time on them, to spend time and energy thinking, fretting, arguing acting about shiny foolishness, leaving them free for larger abuses that go unchecked."

    https://curmudgucation.substack.com/p/20-rules-for-life-2024-edition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. time-waters should be time-wasters

      Delete
    2. Here is one ear-marked for Cecelia:

      "1. Don't be a dick.

      There is no excuse for being mean on purpose. You will hurt people in life, either through ignorance or just because sometimes life puts us on collision courses with others and people get hurt. Sometimes conflict and struggle appear, and there is no way out but through. There is enough hurt and trouble and disappointment and rejection naturally occurring in the world; there is no reason to deliberately go out of your way to add more.

      This is doubly true these days, even though some folks have decided that being a dick is a worthy goal, that inflicting hurt on Those People Who Deserve It Because They Are Wrong is some sort of virtue. It isn't. Be kind."

      Delete
    3. Cecelia is not a dick.

      Delete
    4. I can be, but I don’t call other people who share my politics traitors to their country, racists, bigots, and criminals.

      I merely call anonymices dumb, belligerent, and disingenuous political operatives. Which they are.

      Delete
    5. Sounds like Cecelia is owns 1:59 PM.

      Delete
    6. 1:59 - Shame on you!

      Delete
    7. Where are all these Brave Liberals protesting against these vile, gender-based insults?

      Delete
    8. They're quick to imagine that Somerby is a sexist creep, but go silent when vicious, misogynistic attacks are splashed all across these comments.

      Delete
    9. I’m not sure what the anonymouse obsession with my gender is about, but I’m thinking they must have some campy effeminate men in their lives.

      Delete
    10. It is misogynistic to be a man that pretends to be a woman just in order to trigger others, which is what Cecelia does. It is shameful.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 2:24pm, that goes to the point I just made.

      If your fantasies about me are triggering you, I cant help you. You need a new man.

      Delete
    12. CC is conservative, so I guess it's OK with these Brave Liberals if she's the target of bizarre attacks on her gender. Perhaps these Brave Liberals are motivated more by partisanship rather than by principle.

      Delete
    13. PP, you know that whole thing about wrestling a pig and just getting dirty and the pig liking it?

      Oink.

      Delete
    14. CC - (Laughing) You take it well, but the hypocrisy of Brave Feminist Liberals who tolerate this shit pisses me off. And I'm speaking as a not-so-Brave, but stone-cold Feminist Liberal.

      Delete
    15. PP, they’re anonymices. Nuff said.

      Delete
    16. If you wrestle with pigs, I’m not impressed. Get back to me after you’ve wrestled a few boars.

      Delete
    17. What's Cecelia going to do abut it, make a good faith argument? Let's not worry our pretty little heads with impossibilities.

      Delete
  7. Dems have been successfully using lawfare for a long time. I recall a Senator from Alaska who was not re-elected due to a conviction that was reversed on appeal. For the sake of preserving democracy Trump must by elected.

    Also, the dishonorable prosecutors should face some sort of consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald Trump has used lawfare his entire career. Now he wants to change everything because he is on the receiving end instead of dishing it out?

      Trump should only be elected if the voters determine that he would be the best person to serve in the role of president. Regardless of the outcome of this case, it is hard to argue that Trump was good at the job last time or would be good at it now.

      Delete
    2. The Republican Senator was Ted Stevens. His conviction was overturned because the prosecution hid evidence of his innocence.

      Delete
    3. Sounds like you are upset because they didn't put Karen McDougal on the stand, but would she really have established Trump's innocence?

      Delete
    4. DIC your claim is misleading and includes falsehoods.

      Stevens was defeated by a popular politician who went on to serve two terms as Senator, himself then narrowly being defeated, such is the electorate of Alaska.

      Stevens' conviction was not reversed on appeal, it was vacated by Obama AG Holder, due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

      The prosecution did withhold some evidence; however, that evidence was not exculpatory - Stevens did in fact allow a major oil company to gift him $80k in home renovations, and employees of that company did illegally fundraise for Stevens.

      A jury found Stevens guilty based on the evidence, the evidence not shared by the prosecution did not exonerate Stevens, he got away with his illegal behavior based on a technicality being exploited by partisans.

      It was Stevens who insisted the trial be held before the elections, and in fact, Stevens was guilty of illegal actions.

      Delete
    5. "For the sake of preserving democracy Trump must by elected" Does anyone want to waste their time explaining why this is more of DIC's bullshit? I don't.

      Delete
    6. Rachel Maddow's opening segment was really good. Started out reviewing how republicans protected republican politicians who had as propaganda agents for the Nazis. What is old is new again.

      Now we have politicians like that slug Jim Jordan attacking DA's and prosecutors because they they don't want donald J Chickenshit to face a jury.

      We have trump charged in four jurisdictions and the only case that will be heard by the American people is the one in NY.

      In Florida trump has the judge in his pocket, and she has paused the trial INDEFINITELY. This was a slam dunk case that should have already started. Trump has no defense so he will not allow the trial to go to a jury.

      In DC, the corrupt S.C. lead by two justices who are connected intimately to the insurrection, stepped in to delay the trial.

      In Atlanta, Georgia, we are witnessing an unbelievable full court attack on the DA, Fani Wilis, involving state and local as well as Federal lawmakers, just to protect Donald J Chickenshit and insure he will never have to face a jury before the election for his criminal conduct.

      What does dickhead in Cal conclude from this sad reality?

      For the sake of preserving democracy Trump must by elected.

      You can't fucking make it up.

      Delete
    7. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

      Watch the second video segment in the queue.

      Titled:
      "Back Off!": Maddow shames republicans attacking justice system to protect Trump.

      She is very good.

      Delete

  8. I am a vile and dishonest person.

    Judge Merchan and DA Bragg are good decent persons.

    Bob Somerby is a paragon of virtue and morality.

    And I am a vile and dishonest person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would enjoy being vile and dishonest more if you did it someplace else.

      Delete
    2. Are you speaking from experience?

      Delete
    3. Are you asking someone if they are experienced?

      Delete
    4. Are you dumb?

      Delete
    5. Are you asking someone if someone else is dumb?

      Delete
    6. Are you experienced but still dumb?

      Delete
    7. I am a vile and dishonest person. I am asking others here why they are so dumb. And I expect to receive an honest answer.

      Delete
    8. Why would you expect to receive an honest answer?

      Delete
  9. "ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA (The Borowitz Report)—The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took “full responsibility” for the piles of men’s clothing that suddenly appeared on the couple’s front lawn Monday morning.

    Neighbors awoke to an unusual spectacle outside the Alito residence, where an extensive wardrobe of men’s slacks, shirts and judicial robes had been dumped in a haphazard manner.

    A frantic Justice Alito emerged from his home to collect the items and lower a pair of boxer shorts that had been flapping in the wind atop the flagpole.

    In a terse statement, Mrs. Alito said she was “sick and tired of wives being thrown under the bus,” adding, “If the Republicans go down to defeat in November, Sammy Boy will probably blame me for overturning Roe v. Wade.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OTOH, there is nothing in the United States Constitution that allows the government to limit immigration.

      Delete
    2. In the Declaration of Independence, one of the colonists’ grievances was that the King limited immigration.

      Delete
    3. 2:42,
      It sucks that "Originalism" is just a scam Republicans on the Supreme Court use to give corporations and the rich everything they want.

      Delete
  10. The International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants for Yahya Sinwar and Benjamin Netanyahu. They are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Somerby misunderstands Lincoln's speech.

    First Somerby misdates the speech, which was 3/4/65 (not 64), at the end of a war in which Lincoln had brutally and mercilessly defeated the slavers, righteously so.

    Not only did Lincoln not stress that both parties bear responsibility, he essentially excused his brutality towards the South by saying it was God's will.

    Furthermore, Lincoln, in that speech, made it clear that the Union was in the right, that the Union tried to resolve the issue without war, but that the South insisted on continuing and expanding slavery, and thus the South caused it's own suffering.

    Lincoln in that speech made it clear: "and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword...the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

    Somerby misinterprets Lincoln's speech because his goal is to manufacture ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is no one who doesn't know what this prosecution is about. Endorsing it cuts the legs out of any claim by any Democrat that he is in any way distinguishable from Stalin or Putin. Although most have already proven that with their eager endorsement of crushing free speech.

    This clown show makes every instance of Democrats screaming TRUMP THREATENS DEMOCRACY beyond laughable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump pardoned all Democrats when he won the 2020 Presidential election.
      Trump is the one you think is a clown.

      Delete
  13. The Right has been throwing a public temper tantrum since Biden won the 2020 Presidential election in a landslide.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Trump winning the 2024 election is a hypothetical.
    Trump being convicted is, as yet, a hypothetical.
    Trump's conviction being overturned on appeal is another hypothetical.

    You don't cancel a trial or decline to prosecute because of so many hypotheticals. Life goes on and if Trump has committed crimes, he should be held accountable regardless of the consequences to other parts of his life.

    ReplyDelete