SUNDAY, JUNE 2, 2024
And that's just what the Times has now said: "In wildness is the preservation of the world."
Our Middlesex neighbor, sacred Thoreau, made that statement in Walking, an essay first published in 1851. (It's sometimes said that his intended meaning has been misunderstood.)
That said:
In complexity and convolution may lie the makings of a societal whirlwind. We believe that we've said that in the past few weeks—and we're afraid that the statement is true.
Concerning the complexity of the matter at hand, we were struck by the front-page report by Protess et al. in today's New York Times.
How complex—how convoluted—was the legal case against Donald J. Trump? In this morning's front-page report, a trio of Timesmen explore the likelihood that Trump's convictions will be overturned on appeal.
Trump's prospects are poor, the Timesmen judge, rightly or wrongly. Along the way, though, the reporters offer this portrait of the vast complexity which was involved in the criminal trial just concluded.
New York Times headline included:
Trump Has Few Ways to Overturn His Conviction as a New York Felon
[...]
The legal theory underpinning the prosecution included not only untested law, but a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls.
This theory required Justice Merchan to provide the jury with byzantine legal instructions.
“The more complex the jury instructions, the more likely they are to bear appellate issues,” said Nathaniel Z. Marmur, a New York appellate lawyer. “And these are some of the most complex instructions one could imagine.”
Citing the views of legal specialists, the reporters say it may be hard for Trump to win an appeal of these guilty verdicts. But having said that, Yikes!
Even as they offer that view, the reporters say that Trump was prosecuted on the basis of "untested law"—untested law which was fashioned from "a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls."
To our ear, that's quite a statement! But as you can see, the portrait of the alleged complexity doesn't end there.
According to the Times reporters, this complex combination of statutes forced Judge Merchan to provide the jury with "byzantine legal instructions"—instructions described by one observer as "some of the most complex instructions [a person] could imagine.”
So say the Times reporters! Earlier in their report, the concept of "convolution" has already come in:
In an appeal, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that Mr. Bragg inappropriately stretched the state election law—a convoluted one, at that—to cover a federal campaign. And they could claim that the false records law itself does not apply to Mr. Trump’s case.
“I certainly don’t think there has been a prosecution of falsifying business records like this one,” said Barry Kamins, a retired judge and expert on criminal procedure who teaches at Brooklyn Law School. “This is all uncharted territory, as far as an appellate issue.”
None of this criticism will surprise Mr. Bragg, a career prosecutor who has shown himself to be comfortable with innovative applications of law.
The reporters seem to say, in their own voices, that the state election law in question is "a convoluted one, at that." This has created "uncharted territory, as far as an appellate issue," one expert is quoted saying
Indeed, the district attorney in the case "has shown himself to be comfortable with innovative applications of law."
That doesn't necessarily mean that there was something "wrong" with the legal theory which drove this case. It does suggest the possibility that we're all about to experience the whirlwind, in the legal and the political spheres, as Trump's appeals move forward.
Should a presidential candidate be charged with crimes in such a complexified manner? We'll answer your question with one of our own:
Should anyone ever be charged with a crime, if the charges can't be described in a more straightforward manner?
Ideally, we'd be inclined to say that the answer is no. But when extremely complex legal charges are brought against a major political figure, we're gambling with the force of the whirlwind, which may take us where it will.
According to the Times reporters, the prosecutor's legal theory involved "a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls." This forced the judge to hand the jury a set of "byzantine legal instructions."
In the end, this resulted in 34 guilty verdicts. It also resulted in a situation where major journalists, right to this day, seem unable to define the crimes the defendant has been found to have committed.
We'll offer examples as the week proceeds. Ironically, that will include several outright errors in a "fact check" piece which appears in today's New York Times!
We'll also look in on CNN legal analyst Elie Honig. He now seems to have said, at New York Magazine but also right here, that the jurors did an excellent job with the case as it was presented, but the case itself qualifies as "an ill-conceived, unjustified mess."
Is Honig right? Is Honig wrong? That isn't really the question. The question involves the political fallout which may result from a legal event of this type.
Tomorrow we'll start to ponder the whirlwind—the types of upheaval which may result from this major event.
"Complex, convoluted," the New York Times has now said. "Byzantine legal instructions."
And that's just what the Times is saying! You should hear what they're saying at Fox!
Margot Benaceeraf, Alan Choe, Hughes Gall, Richard Ellis, Larry R Hicks, and Richard M Sherman have died.
ReplyDeleteFarewell to them all.
Deleteoh no! my god, no!! not Margot, Alan, Hughes, Richard, Larry, and Richard! please god, take anyone but Margot, Alan, Hughes, Richard, Larry, and Richard! what are we going to do without them, weirdo? where do we go from here??
DeleteSomerby's quote of the subhead of the NY Times article he linked to was truncated. Here is the complete subhead:
ReplyDelete"The judge in Donald J. Trump’s case closed off many avenues of appeal, experts said, though his lawyers might challenge the novel theory at the case’s center."
Then Somerby focused in on the possible ways Trump's lawyers might seek to challenged the theory. Somerby presents those as if they were the sole opinions of the legal experts being reported -- not possibilities to be used by Trump's defense.
Somerby entirely skips the part of the article where lawyers express doubts about Trump overturning the verdict. In fact, Somerby ignores, skips, all of the discussion in the article to focus only on a few places where adjectives like convoluted and nesting dolls are used. He makes it sound like the focus of the entire article is complexity when it is only raised as a minor point and not considered a likely way of overturning the verdict.
When you read the actual article, it is nothing like what Somerby presents here to his readers. The distorted presentation of what was said in the NY Times is dishonest and yet another example of why anything Somerby quotes or excerpts or summarizes must be checked at the source.
Somerby’s point is that even the NYT reports that the charges are complex and complicated, and that convicting a leading presidential candidate on such difficult to understand grounds will lead to a political tornado, the full effects of which are completely unpredictable.
DeletePP, did you not read the comment? The NYT does not report that the charges are complex and complicated. It reports that Trump's attorneys may claim that in their appeal. That occurs near the bottom of the article, after the rest of the experts discuss the reasons why Trump is unlikely to win on appeal. Somerby then talks about a political tornado, furthering the threats emerging from MAGAdom.
Deleteanon 2:45, only one paragraph of the portions of the Times article opined on what Trump's lawyers might argue. The others include quotes from a retired judge who teaches criminal procedure at Brookly Law School and a NY appellate lawyer. The judge notes, that the law behind the conviction is "uncharted territory."
DeleteExcept it is NOT uncharted territory. That is a mistaken claim that has been refuted here and elsewhere. Repeating that over and over does not make it true. The only novel part of this case is that Trump is a former president.
Deleteanon 3:22, I know that it has supposedly been "refuted" here, but only by conclusory assertions like yours, which don't prove anything. Point to some other NY Court decisions, federal or state, upholding the guilt of a defendant in circumstances comparable to the Trump case. Yes, he's the only ex-POTUS to have been found guilty under this NY statute (or any statute) - but point me to these cases that show that the statute has been applied in a comparable manner. I doubt you can - but your conclusory claim that this isn't "uncharted territory" is worthless unless you show the territory that has been charted. If you do, I'll gladly acknowledge my error.
DeleteOthers researched this and commented here. Why should we have to do it again just because you write the same old complaint?
Deleteanon 5:05, others "researched it" did they? - what precedents did they cite? They didn't cite any, just conclusory claims. Did you read what I said? No one has backed that up. If I''m wrong, it should be easy to prove. The Times article acknowledges that the court here broke new ground.
DeleteThis all appeared here in comments with cited cases and number of prosecutions under the relevant statute. You apparently ignored it then, but that’s on you.
Deleteanon 6:32 - it's hard to argue with a troll, who casually makes things up
Delete"what precedents did they cite? They didn't cite any, just conclusory claims."
DeleteI'm imagining Pied Piper reading a complaint like this about Somerby, and how he might insult anyone who made such a truthful claim.
Oh look. Another Trump trial post at TDH. Quelle surprise.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"...byzantine legal instructions"
At least it sounds like we're not exactly in the Trojan war period now, but more than a millennium more advanced.
Take comfort in that, Bob.
Somerby is now fervently hoping for a reversal.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that.
Wait till the MAGA judges decide they have stalled enough to repay the guy who had appointed them and we get down to the easy cases..
DeleteI read the Boston Globe. Reading the Globe, you'd never suspect that there is anything questionable about Bragg's prosecution of Trump. Yesterday, the letters section consisted of letters from readers commenting on Trump's conviction. Everybody, with one exception, was delighted that justice had won and the "rule of law" had prevailed - the letters the Globe prints rarely diverge from the "blue" side take. the one exception was a letter from Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate, who wrote: "the legal theory on which Donald Trump stands convicted is what legal scholars and lawyers call 'a creative prosecution.' This means that a number of statutes and doctrines have been woven together in order to elevate a misdemeanor into a felony." I believe this is true and describes pithily what's wrong with this prosecution. Silverglate goes on to suggest the decision will set a bad precedent that "will be used in the future for those temporarily in power to 'get' their opponents and perceived enemies." I'm not sure about this, but it seems entirely possible. The headline on the Times piece doesn't jibe with the parts quoted by TDH, which point to the distinct possibility that the conviction will eventually be reversed.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect of Boston readers?
DeleteThe so-called elevation of a misdemeanor to a felony is described in a single law, not a series of laws woven together. A Boston lawyer may not be the most qualified person to comment on New York state statutes. As has been noted many times here and elsewhere, this particular statute has been used frequently to prosecute such crimes in NY.
Silvergate reveals his own political views when he supports the idea that this will be a politically motivated prosecution. That has not been true of the many times that law has been applied in NYC.
The headline on the NY Times piece as quoted by Somerby is only part of the headline in the actual paper, and Somerby's characterization of the piece does not jibe with what actually appeared in the paper. Go read it for yourself and see how different they are.
“ will be used in the future for those temporarily in power to 'get' their opponents and perceived enemies.”
DeleteAs long as those opponents conveniently break laws. Hmmm?
anon 2:30, TDH accurately quotes the Times quote of a retired judge who teaches criminal procedure at Brooklyn Law School and also a NY appellate lawyer. I read the Times article yesterday. The Times also quoted lawyers who were fine with the prosecution. The partisans here are unwilling to acknowledge that there is another side to the story. I look dread the possibility another Trump presidency, but I prefer to look at things like Trump prosecution objectively.
DeleteThere is not another side. The case was decided. There will be an appeal. Trump will win or not, but until then this conviction is the only lawful “side” to Trump’s case. Opinion is not law.
Deleteanon 5:20, the Rittenhouse and Trayvon Martin cases were both decided also. I guess there's not another side about those cases - the verdicts can't be questioned or criticized. There's no other side. Same with the SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v Wade. That's how your "logic" goes. You do state the obvious, though, that there will be an appeal and a final appellate decision. but you are wrong about whether people can express views disagreeing with court decisions, and that has repercussions.
DeleteI’m not irganizing a civil war over any of those decisions. Republicans are, from Trump on down. Opinions are not law, mine or theirs, but I know that and Magas do not.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou can't compare the Dobbs decision to this case. That decision was determined by six out of nine votes, with the six votes coming from known ideologues, it wasn't a fact-based/evidence weighing case - it was purely about interpretation of law. Compare that to the Trump case, in which 12 random citizens who have been vetted by both prosecution and defense have to all agree -- without one exception -- that specific evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a law was broken. Night and day difference.
DeleteMike L you are right\, Dobbs isn't the same. My point was that the anonymous posited that since the jury had decided the case, there was nothing more to talk about, and question in the rationale of the prosecution was inadmissible.
DeleteI've been told this verdict isn't going to sway anyone from not voting for Trump (i.e. it's not the least bit political). Is that just typical Right-wing bullshit being amplified by our corporate media?
DeleteAC/ MA,
DeleteWhere did you get your law degree? I want to call that school and laugh at them.
Why does Somerby quote Thoreau today? Perhaps it is to remind us that civil disobedience is lurking in MAGAdom in the form of real violence that Trump would love to unleash to keep himself out of jail? "It was Henry David Thoreau who coined the term “civil disobedience” in 1848, in an essay about his refusal as an abolitionist to pay the pool tax." Is that a comparable situation to Trump's conviction for election fraud crimes?
ReplyDeleteSomerby, with his coy references to whirlwinds, is aiding the call for a MAGA uprising in support of Trump. He is urging us to set aside the jury's lawful verdict and take things into our own hands, because sacred Thoreau called for overturning decadent society in favor of wilderness (or some such bullshit).
Somerby today says that Trump shouldn't be tried if the charges are too too complicated. That's ridiculous. Simplicity has nothing to do with whether a crime is a crime or not. Somerby's claim that complicated charges cannot be brought is NOT one of the bases for appeal discussed by the NY Times article or the lawyers interviewed. That is Somerby's invention and it is about as silly as claiming that Trump shouldn't be tried because he has spray tan and a combover or because it would make Ivanka unhappy.
Laws exist to protect society. This one about falsifying records exists to prevent white collar criminals from covering up more serious crimes by hiding them with fake record-keeping. That is easy to understand. For anyone except Somerby or perhaps Trump, although he seems to have known what he was doing in both this case and the one where he was convicted of civil business fraud on a massive scale.
This made up objection of Somerby's is about as silly as anything any of the MAGAs have said in reaction to this verdict. It boils down to Somerby not wanting Trump to be a felon and perhaps go to jail. And it is clear today, as most days, that Somerby's purpose here is to defend Trump, a man for whom no defense is possible because he is possibly the most guilty presidential candidate to ever run for an office he is utterly unfit to hold.
"complexified"
ReplyDeleteDid the prosecution invent the law under which Trump was tried? No. How then did they complexify anything about the case? Their efforts were to simplify the circumstances (which Trump created) for the understanding of the court. It has been Somerby here complexifying discussion so that he can claim that it is all too Byzantine to pursue, since Somerby's own obfuscation has made everything seem like a big mess, when Trump's actions and the paperwork were sufficiently straightforward that the jury reached a decision "in a flash".
Somerby can be such a goofball. But there are morons who will agree with him.
"Should anyone ever be charged with a crime, if the charges can't be described in a more straightforward manner?"
ReplyDeleteTrump cooked his books to hide an illegal contribution to his campaign which he later reimbursd.
Sixteen words. Is that straightforward enough?
Candidate's own contributions to his campaign have no limit. If the nda was indeed a campaign contribution, and he reimbursed it from his own funds, then it's a perfectly legal contribution.
DeleteNope. Inducing someone else to make a contribution--in excess of legal limits--and then reimbursing them for the contribution isn't legal.
DeleteYou are correct that if Trump had contributed the money directly, without laundering it through a third pary, he might have avoided his current difficulty. But then for some reason, he didn't want to make it known that he was "buying the rights" to Ms. Daniels' tale.
Trump didn't pay the NDA from his own funds. He had Micheal Cohen pay Stormy Daniels, to camouflage that the money was coming from him (to hide that Trump was the person paying her off). Micheal Cohen took out a mortgage on his house to pay the hush money. Michael Cohen was not allowed by law to make such a large in-kind donation to Trump's campaign. The limit is $2600 and it must be reported according to FEC rules. Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 using funds from his personal business, in a series of installments that he hid by calling them a legal retainer and pretending they were for legal services. Because Cohen would pay taxes on that as income, the amount reimbursed was increased (grossed up) to cover Cohen's additional taxes. These payments were listed in Trump's records as legal services, but Cohen stated that no legal services were performed. Because legal services are deductible as a business expense, that description constituted tax fraud because they resulted in Trump paying lower taxes on his business.
DeleteSo, this was not a contribution made by Trump to his campaign, which would have been legal, but was a convoluted scheme by Trump to avoid anyone tracing the money that Stormy Daniels received back to him.
When money goes through a third party in order to conceal its source, that is called money laundering.
Republicans know this. They just don't care about it.
Delete"Nope. Inducing someone else to make a contribution--in excess of legal limits--and then reimbursing them for the contribution isn't legal."
DeleteBorrowing from your lawyer isn't legal?
Aren't we in the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory now?
And even if it isn't (for the sake of argument) exactly kosher, how is it a felony? I bet literally every politician has a bunch of much more serious violations in every election.
Pretending that you were borrowing money when you were actually hiding the source of an in-kind campaign contribution is illegal. You don't seem to understand the concept of fraud.
DeleteIt is a felony because a state law in NYC, where Trump's business is, defines it as one. We have a penal code that tells both criminals and lawyers what the laws are in each state and federally.
There exists a website that tells each campaign what the rules are for running for office. Candidates have to follow them or there are penalties of various sorts. Candidates do not routinely break the rules for campaigns because they hope to get elected and breaking the rules will reflect badly on them, under normal circumstances.
Normal people do not going around breaking laws and lying to the extent that Trump does. Breaking laws without constraint is part of the definition of sociopathy. Sociopaths who are not protected by a cushion of great wealth tend to go to jail a lot sooner than Trump will. Your suggestion that breaking rules and laws is normal for "literally every" politician is not supported by evidence -- in real life, the politicians who are caught breaking rules and laws are the exception not the rule.
One of the problems with Trump's candidacy is that fools who see him get away with crimes tend to think that it is OK for them to do that too. As a result there are a lot of unhappy 1/6 insurrectionists who have been put in jail, lost their jobs, paid fines, and had other serious consequences, because they didn't understand that there are protections for billionaires but not for people like them (or Lauren Boebert, for example).
When people stop obeying the norms, customs, traditions, etiquette, and the rules and laws of society, the consequences may be a whirlwind (aka anarchy) but I don't think that is the whirlwind Somerby is referring to. No sane person wants to live in a society where there is no trust, people don't keep their promises and break their word, and behavior is unreliable and chaotic. Trump is not sane. Are you? You don't sound like it, which suggests you may be a sociopathic troll and not a regular person.
What would it be like if the market were not open during business hours, your employer didn't pay you your wages, school teachers failed to show up at whim, cars went through red lights as often as they stopped, dogs and cats were stolen by people who wanted them as pets, the govt could put you in jail without due process of any kind, food was being sold despite being spoiled, doctors didn't have to know anything about treating illness but made up treatments, thieves set up fake charities, gangsters operated protection rackets everywhere, and so on? Would that be a fun world? It is what Trump's University and Steaks and Airline and other businesses were like and why they were closed as fraudulent. But you seem to think that is what our government should be operated like -- everything for sale, secrets given to our enemies, no public trust.
3:56 nice
DeleteThey sow the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind.
ReplyDeleteSource: The Bible, Hosea 8:7
DeleteUnlike Christian Nationalists, I believe the Bible should not guide the actions of government, including our courts.
I would rather see the courts deliver fair and just decision, consequences be damned. If the MAGAs are now going to throw tantrums, that is on them. They should have known Trump for what he was instead of placing all of their hopes on a con artist.
Somerby thinks he is being literary when he quotes the Bible.
DeleteElie Honig said things that gave Republicans comfort during Trump's trial, causing the National Review to suggest that everyone read his comments. Now Somerby is doing the same.
ReplyDeleteOur Host's concerns with the charges brought against Trump seem to be of the same type that arise whenever a bill before Congress fills more than a bare minimum number of pages.
ReplyDelete"The bill is ONE THOUSAND PAGES long! Who knows what might be hidden in there!" wail the initiative's opponents.
Sometimes the law is complex. Simple explanations don't always meet the needs of the moment. That doesn't mean the bill--or the charges--are necessarily flawed. Whining that it's "too haaaarrrrd" is merely a dodge to deflect attention from the substance of the matter.
Is it? You seem to be among those willing to admit the obvious point that the charges are difficult to understand. Legally, someone who breaks the law should be prosecuted, no matter who it is or how complicated the charges. But politically, is it wise to prosecute the leading Presidential candidate when you can’t readily explain the charges?
DeleteWe’ll see. Half the country sees this prosecution as a tyrannical abuse of power. I disagree and think the prosecution was righteous. But the storm is coming.
The charges have been explained.
Delete"Legally, someone who breaks the law should be prosecuted, no matter who it is or how complicated the charges."
DeleteThat's not true. I've seen statements to the effect that every American commits two crimes a day on average. Giving food to homeless could be a crime, for example.
That's why there is the concept of "prosecutorial discretion". Most (potential) criminals are never charged, and that's a feature, not a bug.
That is giving “crime” a very broad definition. We aren’t going around committing multiple felonies every day. The idea that we’re all criminals is untrue.
Delete"I've seen statements to the effect that every American commits 2crimes a day." I don't know what you were doing in the last week, but go ahead and list your 14.
DeleteThis would be neither convoluted nor complex if Trump were to step down and stop pursuing the nomination, or if the Republicans would simply select someone else to run for president. Trump only holds power within the party because the Republicans have ceded it to him. There are any number of other Republicans who could challenge Biden. The MAGA supporters of Trump are not going to simply go home and not vote. Without Trump on the ballot, they will shift to whoever else is running, as they do with the down-ballot choices.
ReplyDeleteAs on 2020, this situation is only a whirlwind (or whatever other histrionic term Somerby wants to use) because Trump is refusing to accept defeat. He cannot and will not win as a felon and he needs to accept that and step aside. That won't happen because of who Trump is, but that doesn't mean his supporters need to behave like lemmings and follow him off the cliff, destroying the Republican party in the process.
Smart Republicans need to talk sense to Trump or ignore him and select their own alternative candidate.
There were a lot of voices calling for Biden to step aside because they thought he was too old. Trump is old too, and a convicted felon as well. Why aren't there voices calling for him to step aside for the good of the party and his people? And why isn't the press talking about THAT situation? Instead there are stupid articles about how convoluted Trump's case was, neglecting that he himself made it that way, not the lawyers trying it, much less the judge who bent over backwards to make it as fair as possible despite the abuse heaped on him (and his family).
The problem for Republicans is as always, very simple. Those advocating that Trump step down would be targeted, in all likelihood successfully, by Trump. They are more frightened than appalled.
Delete"And that's just what the Times is saying! You should hear what they're saying at Fox!"
ReplyDeleteWhat a farce! Somerby grabs some quotes that support his own opinion from an article that says much more, including opposite views, then he calls that "what the Times is saying!" Talk about dishonest!
Yesterday Somerby described the call in to C-SPAN by Jackie from Stratford CT, a Democrat. She said she would want Biden to be tried if he had committed these crimes. Somerby then said:
ReplyDelete"How would Jackie define or describe "these crimes?"
Note that Jackie said nothing about the crimes being convoluted or complexified or too difficult to understand. Neither did pro-Trump Ed from Darien.
If the crimes were so incomprehensible to anyone, including spontaneous C-SPAN callers, wouldn't they be saying so? Wouldn't Somerby have some evidence beyond his own perplexity?
ReplyDeleteHere's the money quote from Mat Taibbi's piece I just read:
"Not one of these people recognized the obvious: that of all the things Donald Trump has been accused of, none are as serious or system-imperiling as abusing the courts to dispose of a political rival. If Trump was caught buggering a corpse while smoking joints rolled in rubles, it wouldn’t approach the offense of “concocting” a charge to put away someone you want to “nail” for “something.”"
And the title is: "A Sham Case, and Everyone Knows It"
It doesn't seem right that Republicans should call this trial heinous for being public targeting of Trump while Trump himself is promising to target his own enemies once he gains power again. Why is it wrong for Trump to be targeted but OK when Trump says he will do it to others?
DeleteAnd Republicans have already been doing this themselves through the various congressional hearings, not just with Hunter but going back to Hillary. What else did "Lock her up" mean?
That may be why Republicans in general and Taibbi specifically are so quick to suggest that this is a political prosecution -- because that's what prosecution is to them.
1. The Biden administration didn't bring this case. This was a state case brought by a New York district attorney.
Delete2. Even if we assume that Bragg was politically motivated, that has no bearing on the merits of the case. If someone commits murder, and the prosecutor who brings the case is motivated by career advancement, that has no bearing on the merits of the case.
3. Where exactly does the "sham" occur? Regardless of anyone's motivations, either Trump broke the law or he didn't. 12 random citizens, after being vetted by both sides in the case, unanimously agreed that Trump broke the law. Aren't Trump supporters all about "law and order"? If you disagree with the law, that's a separate issue -- take it up with the law makers. But does anyone really think falsification of business records to improve your chances in an election should be legal? This isn't "concocting" a charge. In fact, one of the charges Michael Cohen was convicted of six years earlier had to do with this same scheme -- a scheme he implemented at Trump's direction. So the charge wasn't "concocted" just to get Trump.
4. Trump has likely been the biggest abuser of the courts in American history -- he's been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits. He brought 60 utterly bogus cases after the 2020 election merely to give the appearance that the election had been rigged. These cases were rejected even by Republican judges, some appointed by Trump himself. Trump has consistently called for his political opponents to be locked up. He repeatedly pressured his justice department to go after Clinton and other political figures. He is promising to politicize and weaponize the justice department if he wins again. For this reason (and countless others!), he represents a much bigger threat to our country than Bragg's case against Trump.
5. Taibbi plays the "everyone knows" game, so I'll play it to. Everyone knows that if the stolen documents case were allowed to go forward, Trump would be convicted of much more serious crimes than he was in the New York case. So personally, I don't give a flying fuck if he were jailed for driving 1 mph over the speed limit. Everyone knows he's guilty as fuck. Who cares if he's taken out by some lesser case? "Gangsters like Al Capone are such a dire threat to public safety that the most important thing is to get them for something. If his criminal conspiracy is so tight that you can’t get him for organizing the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, then by God you hunt around and see if he’s done some other crimes. And Capone did, in fact, fail to pay his taxes. It would have been senseless to let him skate on a small crime because you can’t build a case for a much worse one that he obviously committed.... Trump poses a threat to the American republic that’s a million times worse than Capone ever did.... The fact that the partisan hacks Trump installed throughout the federal judiciary have successfully delayed his federal cases past the election (enabled by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s inexcusable dithering), in a flagrantly corrupt effort to help him escape justice, only makes it all the more urgent he be punished for whatever other crimes he’s done. And again, these were not “to be determined” charges; as the jury agreed, they were genuine and serious." https://bit.ly/4c3Q8O2
OH, well if Matt Tabbi says it must be true. What will the Tabbis and Somebys say when the "I can take any document I want, the President must have full immunity" cases come to trial. Well, most likely they are praying Trump gets reelected and can make it all go away. Will Satan hear their prayers?
DeleteHow could the case be political at all? The media keeps saying it won't effect the election in November.
DeletePerhaps the most accurate, realistic and expert legal opinion on the possibilities of a successful appeal would be he videos posted by Dershowitz. It's better to get this analysis from a super defense attorney than from some reporters.
ReplyDeleteThis is a useless exercise of speculation. Dershowitz is not respected by anyone any more, beyond right wing hacks. But beyond that, Trump will of course be appealing and there is no guarantee his lawyers will do any better job on appeal than they did during his trial, perhaps due to Trump's own interference. Trump has not won any of his previous appeals, so it seems unlikely he will prevail based on his track record. Either he will win or not on this appeal, but it will be too late for this election and he may be embroiled in the various other trials being brought in the meantime. So this conviction is Trump's reality for the forseeable future.
DeleteSpeculation like Somerby's has nothing to do with the merits of the case of the likelihood of overturning the verdict. It is only a complaint about the due process that has resulted in this verdict. Somerby is looking for reasons to set aside that Trump is now a felon, to excuse Trump and exonerate him for voters so that he can prevail in the November election. That means he must invalidate the conviction in order to pretend Trump is very very innocent.
That shouldn't work, but when Republicans want to believe something counter to reality, they don't need much encouragement. Today's essay is just more shilling for Trump. If Somerby were a serious blogger, he might be concerned about what the failure to accept this verdict means for our acceptance of the rule of law in our nation. That is what bothers me, as someone who now lives hand in hand with citizens who think it is OK to ignore Trump's crimes because he claims he is being framed. I worry about what has happened to so many people's grasp on reality.
There are plenty of other attorneys in the media, David, many of them highly experienced, who disagree with Dershowitz. Have you examined their arguments, or are you looking for confirmation of your bias?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePerhaps the most accurate, realistic, and expert legal opinion on the innocence of Donald Trump is the widely respected attorney for the likewise innocent Simpson, Von Bulow and Epstein, none other than Alan Dershowitz.
DeleteIs this the type of upheaval Somerby is talking about?
ReplyDelete“Poll: 49% of Independents think Trump should drop out post-guilty verdict”
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/01/poll-trump-conviction-election-independent-voters
It appears Honig's piece contains a serious factual inaccuracy. I emailed this to Bob to alert him to it. Once, Bob would correct such errors on his part. Is he still that Bob Somerby?
ReplyDeletehttps://bsky.app/profile/qjurecic.bsky.social/post/3ktrwnc2nv22r
Can you post this here? I don’t have the app, don’t want to install it.
DeleteYou can view it in a web browser and you do not need to download or install the app in order to view it. I do not use BlueSky, and I was able to view it.
DeleteThe brazenness of so many aspects overwhelms one. The first few words are enough to make this a historic scandal.
ReplyDelete"The legal theory underpinning the prosecution included not only untested law..."
For the in party to convict the out party's Presidential candidate based on untested law is incredible and appalling and frightening.
The Democratic Party had nothing to do with this case.
DeleteIt is not untested law.
DeleteYesterday, QiB asked what I was implying, when I invited commenters to acknowledge a few facts. Implicitly I was inviting them to say that although they like Biden and Trump is appalling, the prosecution in NY was improper. None of you said that. I think most Biden supporters would not say that. From by POV, that means the Dems got away with an improper action that caused long term harm to the country.
DeleteWhat's the limit? Is there some act so appalling that commenters here would denounce it or even withdraw their support?
What would you do if the judge put Trump in prison or house arrest so he couldn't go out and campaign?
Suppose Trump was put in prison without Secret Service protection? (Democrat Bennie Thompson has introduced such a bill.)
Suppose he was murdered in prison?
At what point would you not just calmly go out and vote for Biden?
TRUMP SHOULD QUIT COMMITTING CRIMES DAVID.
Delete@7:37 Try reading "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"
Deleteby Harvey Silverglate
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.
DIC@ 7:48. I don't know what you were up to last week (apart from posting nonsense on this site) but go ahead and list your 21. You may enlist a lawyer friend of yours, or AI, to complete this homework assignment. 12 or more federal violations grades as an A. Go ahead and pen a letter to Alan Dershowitz if you like. Ludicrous as usual.
Delete@7:56 Trump's behavior with the classified docs was not innocuous. OTOH, "hush money", namely, paying someone for a Non Disclosure Agreement, is a normal, common legal thing to do. Showing such payments as "legal expense" is a rather small crime.
DeleteI'd have no problem if Trump was convicted of possessing classified documents.
I'd have no problem if Trump was convicted of possessing classified documents.
DeleteThe charges Trump faces under the indictment include:
31 counts of willful retention of classified documents
1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice
1 count of withholding a document or record
1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record
1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation
1 count of scheme to conceal
and
1 count of making false statements and representations.
A superseding indictment was unsealed on July 27, 2023, which charged an additional defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, and included three additional charges against Trump of evidence tampering, willfully retaining national defense information, and lying to investigators.
*********
Quit trying to minimize the 37 + 4 felony indictments of Trump in the classified documents case, David. It is far more serious than just "possessing" classified documents.
Trump cannot allow this case to go to trial before the election and his judge is happily obliging the fucking treasonous bastard.
I just don't understand the rationale for this litigation that Trump lost. It is all so convoluted and complex that no one has ever been able to explain it. And if that argument is insufficient, let me tell you that I break federal laws on average 3 times a day. Yeah, that's the ticket. Everybody does. I really empathize with Trump since on average I broke federal law 1,095 times last year. I can't keep up with it. It seems I am a multiple offender, but then who isn't? I literally cannot control myself. Excuse me while I get into my car. I'm going to drive to the station house and turn myself in.
Delete"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day."
DeleteYou left out "has sex with a porn star" and "gets a supermarket tabloid to agree to bury negative stories".
That's pretty much a typical day for most Americans, yeah?
"At what point would you not just calmly go out and vote for Biden?"
DeleteFirst we'd have to establish that Trump's hallucination that Biden has anything to do with this is actually true. Then we can talk.
"Yeah, that's the ticket. Everybody does."
DeleteYes. For example, one Joe Biden illegally kept classified documents for years and decades, and willfully and knowingly shared them with a person without clearance.
He was investigated by a special counsel, and found to be too demented to stand a trial. Consequently, he hasn't been, and most likely will never be charged with these undeniable, documented crimes that he committed.
That's what "prosecutorial discretion" is. Happens every day.
Speaking of prosecutorial discretion:
DeleteGOP commissioners have single-handedly blocked FEC action against Trump 29 times
As of December 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has received 59 allegations that Donald Trump or his committees violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 29 of those cases, nonpartisan staff in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) recommended the FEC investigate Trump. Yet not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any such investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/gop-commissioners-have-single-handedly-blocked-fec-action-against-trump-29-times/
"GOP commissioners have single-handedly blocked FEC action against Trump 29 times"
DeleteSure. And how many actions against Democrat pols did Democrat commissioners single-handedly block?
And in any case, this ain't anything prosecutorial. It's a political committee, and its M.O. is reliably and openly political. By design.
7:36, I don't know, how many?
DeleteMaggot turd brains are all over social media claiming the FEC absolved Trump of the campaign contribution violations described in the NYC trial, which is pure disinformation rightwing bullshit.
5:10,
DeleteCool story, bro.
5:10 nice try. Biden, Pence, and Trump had classified documents in their possession. Biden and Pence turned them over willingly. No claim was ever made that Biden was too demented to prosecute. What is your explanation that Pence did not go to trial? Trump was asked three times to turn over papers he instructed his underlings to hid from the feds and lied to his lawyers about. If he had returned all the documents the first or even second time, none of this would be happening. But go ahead and explain why Pence wasn't prosecuted.
Delete"No claim was ever made that Biden was too demented to prosecute."
DeleteSay what? Are you really typing this on the planet of shape-shifting Reptiloids?
And the point I was making has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump or Pence. Obfuscating much, Reptiloid?
God is a figment of shape-shifting Reptiloid planets.
Delete8:14 yeah dumbass, show us the text stating that the decision to not prosecute Biden was based on dementia, then explain why Pence wasn’t prosecuted.
DeleteThe anti-Trump (reality based?) community has been crowing that the press (including some surprising names like Ari Melber) misled the public in predicting the verdict would be anything but a slam dunk for the State. Is this article more forced "objectivity" from he folks who brought you Whitewater, Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc.?
ReplyDeleteThe Trump defenders like Bob and Pied now sound pretty much like the DUI drunks getting hauled into the squad car in the Body Cam videos who keep screaming "what am I being charged with??!!!" over and over no matter how many times the question is answered. It's like David in Cal's daily, silly claim that Alan Dershowitz is still a respected, anti Trump figure.
Can Bob's defenders explain why common sense Bob also defends Trump in the stolen documents case? Is THAT one too hard to understand also? How about Bob's outrage that the Press was referring to the fake election ballets as forgeries, now that people have been tried and convicted for that very crime?
The desperate hopes for an appeal of these crimes Bob is still referring to as "alleged" may well be a good sign. People like Bob, who never believed in anything about America accept perhaps the Confederacy, are really on the ropes.
"Tomorrow we'll start to ......."
ReplyDeleteDrone on, Bob. Another 2 or three months ought to cover it.
Al Gore's brown suit would argue that that timeframe is an understatement.
DeleteHarpinder, this is Propa. You pick me up from airport.
ReplyDeleteThis is the future MAGA wants:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexican-candidate-assassinations-hit-grim-record-ahead-sundays-election-2024-06-01/
@DiC:
ReplyDeleteYou "invited commenters to acknowledge facts"?
These were your "facts."
1. the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process
2. No state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything
3. This case was brought only because the defendant was Donald Trump
Only #2 even comes close to being an assertion of fact. (And though I haven't investigated it, I have a shiny Jefferson nickel that says you're repeating a talking point that is demonstrably wrong.) The others are conclusions without argument or evidence. Stop it.
And, for the record, QiB = Quaker in a Basement. Both are me. Sometimes I'm too lazy to type the 17 characters and three spaces in my full nym. I thought it was obvious.
I was just searching for No. 2 and found this on X.
DeleteRep. Eric Burlison
@RepEricBurlison
CNN senior legal analyst: "In fact, no state prosecutor - in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere - has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."
Basically, DiC just copied and pasted a direct quote from Rep. Eric Burlison's X feed who was quoting an unidentified CNN "legal analyst". Anyone want to be it was Honig?
Oh, I'm pretty sure the assertion originates with Honig. Is it true though? Could be.
DeleteAt the risk of aggravating Our Host's concern over complexification, I'll posit additionally that DA Bragg also did not charge federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime.
DeleteBut this thread has run its course. Further discussion to follow if warranted.
BTW, DiC and Maomao:
ReplyDeleteThe conservative media company behind the book and film “2,000 Mules,” which alleged a widespread conspiracy by Democrats to steal the 2020 election and was embraced by former president Donald Trump, has issued an apology and said it would halt distribution of the film and remove both the film and book from its platforms.
In a statement posted to their website, Salem Media Group, Inc. apologized specifically to Mark Andrews, a voter from Georgia falsely depicted illegally voting in “2,000 Mules.”
So some company decided to stop distribution of the film? Is that it?
Delete"some company" - Bwahahaha!!!! Keep it up, shit for brains troll boy.
Delete7:45,
DeleteSome company run by Right-wingers, so not even a legal business, most likely.
Here is a debunking of the arguments raised above and others being brought up by right wingers:
ReplyDeletehttps://popular.info/p/all-the-arguments-against-trumps?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=brgvh&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If Trump can get his appeal to the Supreme Court, I could totally see Alito and Thomas letting him walk, citing the fact that Somerby didn't understand the case.
ReplyDelete