COMPLEXITY: At long last, the judge has instructed the jury!

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2024

Complexification is us: With what set of 34 criminal offenses does Donald J. Trump stand charged?

(For the record, they're felonies, every one!)

We've been asking the question for some time now. All in all, it hasn't been easy to answer.

Yesterday morning, Judge Merchan spent roughly an hour reading his jury instructions to the twelve-member jury. To the extent that our question can be answered, that answer has finally been given.

There may be absolutely nothing "wrong" with the legal theory under which the defendant stands charged. Beyond that, there may be no source of reversible error in the judge's jury instructions.

There may be nothing "wrong" with any of that—although there always could be. For better or worse, here's the one conclusion we'll reach at this point:

Complexification is us!

Let the word go forth to the nations! Let it be said that Donald J. Trump hasn't been charged with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. 

He hasn't been charged with robbing a bank. He hasn't been charged with assaulting one of his creditors—with hitting one over the head.

He hasn't been charged with driving away when a policeman told him to stop. He hasn't been charged with anything quite as straightforward as that.

Some criminal offenses are fairly easy to picture and describe. Other (possible) criminal offenses are not. 

In the case of the current defendant, our major newspapers are currently trying today to describe the offense with which he stands charged.  It hasn't been especially easy to accomplish that task. 

That doesn't mean that the legal theory is wrong, or that the journalists are incompetent. That said, it seems to us that the complexity of this matter is a societal problem.

At the Washington Post, it has fallen to the (highly competent) Devlin Barrett to try to describe the nature of the charges against Trump. His analysis was posted yesterday afternoon, but it was still featured near the top of the online Post's front page as of this very morning.

Barrett tried to sort things out. Headline included, you can see the (possibly somewhat puzzling) way he started out:

Jurors must be unanimous to convict Trump, can disagree on underlying crimes

The jurors weighing whether to convict former president Donald Trump of charges that he falsified business records will have to determine whether he did so in furtherance of another crime—a somewhat complex process that the defendant railed against Wednesday afternoon.

On social media, Trump called it ridiculous, unconstitutional and un-American “that the highly Conflicted, Radical Left Judge is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me.”

Say what? The judge isn't requiring a unanimous verdict in this case?

That's what the defendant has apparently said! As for Barrett, he started by saying that the twelve jurors are now faced with "a somewhat complex process." 

As you'll see, Barrett, who is highly competent, soon heightened his language concerning the degree of complexity involved in this high-profile case. Before we show you what he said, we'll offer one instant criticism:

We're not sure why Barrett featured the defendant's assessment of the legal theory which the judge has now accepted as part of his jury instruction. 

The defendant isn't a legal analyst. On his own, he has no idea what he's talking about in this matter.

That said, many actual legal analysts were offering a similar critique of the jury instructions all through yesterday afternoon and evening. Some of these analysts have been offering similar criticisms for a fairly long time.

Several of these legal analysts don't seem to be visibly crazy! All day yesterday, they were saying that these jury instructions—and that legal theory—create a strong possibility of "reversible error" if the defendant in this case is convicted of these alleged crimes.

They may be right in that assessment—or they could be wrong. But they have some idea what they're talking about, unlike Donald J. Trump. 

That said:

As Barrett started, he said the jury in this case was facing "a somewhat complex process." Four paragraphs later, he substantially heightened his language. He was now saying this:

"The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations."

Just like that, we'd moved from "a somewhat complex process" to "a Russian nesting doll of [alleged] criminal violations." Just like that, all of a sudden, complexification was us!

From there, Barrett made a valiant attempt to explain the legal theory under which Donald J. Trump stands charged. 

How about it? Does the jury have to reach a unanimous verdict? Here's what Barrett wrote:

[Trump] was probably referring to one of the quirks of the precise way in which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) charged Trump, who faces 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations—under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime.

Prosecutors have said that other crime was violating a state law against unlawfully promoting or preventing an election. But the “unlawful” reference in the state code has to refer to a distinct, different crime.

In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records.

The jury must be unanimous when it comes to determining whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of each specific falsifying business records count, and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said. He added, however, that the panel did not have to be unanimous about which of those three types of crimes could serve as the underlying violation that brings the state election charge into play.

That’s what Trump was probably getting at in his online post while he sits in the courthouse waiting for the jury to come to a decision.

For the record, it isn't just "a Russian nesting doll." It's a Russian nesting doll which comes equipped with "quirks." 

At any rate, here's what Barrett said:

The jury has to be unanimous, he wrote. But then again, it doesn't! 

That's what a highly competent journalist wrote—and we're not saying he's "wrong." Meanwhile, this very morning, on Morning Joe, legal analyst Lisa Rubin seemed to add to the confusion:

According to Barrett, the prosecution has offered "three types of crime" that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play. On Morning Joe, Rubin seemed to jump the number up to "five or six!" 

Eventually, we'll be able to link you to videotape of what Rubin said. At that point, you can decide for yourself. Meanwhile:

The jurors have to be unanimous—but then again, they don't! There are three (or four) ways they can decide to convict—or possibly five or six!

None of this means that anyone has been "wrong" in what they've written, done or said. More specifically, none of this means that the prosecution is wrong in the legal theory it assembled (although, of course, it could be). 

None of this means that Judge Merchan was wrong in his instructions to the jury (though that's always possible too).

This doesn't mean that Barrett was wrong in what he wrote for the Washington Post. It doesn't mean that Rubin was wrong in what she said this morning. 

This does seem to mean that the charges against this particular defendant are extremely hard to describe and explain. Especially given the prominence of the defendant, that represents a basic problem for the critter we Blue Americans now refer to as "our democracy."

Donald J. Trump isn't charged with robbing a bank. He isn't charged with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

Such alleged actions would be easy to picture and to describe. The allegations he is facing are hard to describe and hard to explain, and they have been all along.

This type of bureaucratic complexity is found all through our culture. It isn't exactly anyone's fault, but it does represent a type of societal problem.

In Red America, voters are being told that the charges here don't make sense. In Blue America, this critique is largely being ignored—but it's proving hard to describe the serious criminal offenses with what Trump does stand charged.

Confusion and anger can grow in such soil. It's a bit like in the ancient parable we cited yesterday:

Blind men and an elephant

The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. 

In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows...

Actually, it can happen here! With respect to this deeply fraught criminal case, it already has.

This morning, we have a medical appointment to keep. Tomorrow, though, we'll try to detail the general problems with the complexification which infests so many of our societal procedures. Also, we'll try to offer some final account of the 34 felonies with which Trump stands charged.

What is the crime with which he stands charged? Even today, we'd have to say this:

It still isn't real easy to say.

Tomorrow: Complexity is everywhere. It can lead to alienation, confusion and anger.


  1. Trump is whining about certain witnesses not being called by the prosecution. Well Donald, you could have called them and you could have testified. Stop the whining.

  2. Richard Ellis, Bette Nash, and Stanley Goldstein have died.

    1. So long, Dick, Bette, and Stan.

  3. Are we supposed to let Trump off on his election-related crimes because he didn't kill someone on 5th Ave? If not, why does Somerby mention that incredible innocence so many times? Today's essay is clearly another attempt to imply that Trump did nothing really wrong and shouldn't be tried, much less convicted for crimes too complex to explain to his satisfaction by a news reporter. As if that were any kind of legal standard.

    Trump managed to slide by Clinton in 2016 due to a combination of factors (Russia, Comey, Wikileaks of hacked emails, vote suppression in WI, MI, PA) but one of those was keeping the public from hearing Stormy Daniels' account of Trump's sexual behavior which supported the Access Hollywood tape. That might have swung the election to Clinton because women react badly to candidates who behave like pigs.

    Somerby can't seem to acknowledge that Trump's own cheapness created this crime in which Trump directed Cohen to make an excessive campaign contribution which was covered up by falsifying Trump's business records, so that the voting public never got to hear about Stormy Daniels until 2018, when Cohen confessed to his role in the campaign fraud, implicating Trump.

    None of this is complex. But Somerby's stupidity in defending Trump is mystifying given that Somerby keeps claiming to be liberal and a Biden voter while spouting MAGA disinformation.

    This trial will be over soon and then Somerby can go back to using the Illiad to illustrate how women should be treated in a world where men are men and women are objects to be stolen, swapped, abused and chased into the ocean to drown. Those were the days, amirite?

    1. The trial will soon be over, and Somerby still won't have made the case that the media can't explain the charges to the public. I've seen this Somerby show before. It's his "go to" move.

    2. There’s a legitimate question here that Bob is getting at that I haven’t heard expressed anywhere else. Which is, exactly HOW did Trump violate this specific election interference law, and is it what the law was designed to address?

      He didn’t stuff ballot boxes. He engaged in a speech act (or didn’t engage in one ) that might have induced someone to vote for him rather than his opponent. But is that sort of vagary really a violation of this particular law?

      What’s the case law there for this statute?

    3. This has been discussed here ad nauseam, and yet you keep coming back with the same dumb question.

      Here is a website that goes over the issues that seem to concern you, although that concern also seems disingenuous:

    4. I’d like to chase a woman into the sea, but I’m too old. Maybe I could chase Cecelia, and she’d let me win. Ye gods, that would be fun.

  4. Yes, of course, I never realized! Somerby believes women should be stolen, swapped, abused, and drowned!

    Has it ever occurred to you that you might be a nut?

    1. It occurs to me that someone who comes here solely to bash other commenters might have something wrong with him.

      Somerby's ongoing defense of Trump's liaison, which has focused on Stormy and not on the law, supports @10:05's point pretty well. Others are talking about the cover up. Somerby says women shouldn't be able to accuse men for mistreating them because it might hurt their run for president.

    2. So you also think that Somerby believes women should be drowned? And you worry that there’s something wrong with me?

    3. No, I believe Somerby would defend the asshole who chased the woman into the sea, not the woman who fled a "fate worse than death" as rape used to be called. He would, in keeping with the times, suggest that the woman should have somehow fought harder to defend her virtue.

    4. So, about Somerby’s views:
      1. You agree that 10:05 was wrong to say that Somerby thinks women should be drowned.
      2. But you believe that Somerby would defend a man who, while trying to rape a woman, chased her into the sea to be drowned.

      Do I get the nuance of your “thinking” right?

    5. Somerby seems to draw his views, or at least support for his views, from ancient stories that endorse mistreatment of women.

      Excessive literalism, often seen in unsubstantive criticisms of comments, can indicate either some kind of mental issue, or arguing in bad faith.

    6. It seems to me that when you’re going to accuse someone of supporting the abuse of women, you could use a dose of “literalism.” Put down what they said, not what you imagine they might have meant. But that’s me.

    7. When some types of people are trying to promote an agenda, particularly unpopular, unethical, or immoral ones, they rarely mean only what they say; it is imprudent to take such folks at face value, because you are either getting conned or, in essence, you are endorsing their agenda.

    8. Yes! Let's stop Somerby and his agenda of defending rapists who chase women into the sea to be drowned! He might not have said any of that, but we don't want to be conned into endorsing his unspoken agenda!

    9. Yes! I have been conned by Somerby, or at least present as such!

      I endorse whatever Somerby says, and become a crybaby whenever Somerby is criticized!

      Yes! I am a snowflake right winger, and to hide that I insult commenters in my White Knight defense of Somerby, who himself is engaged in a White Knight defense of Trump and men, generally older men, that leer at and lust after and harass young women!

      Yes! I cling to my views, even in light of those views being exposed as utter nonsense, because it is emotionally comforting for me to try to "own the libs", to try to get some sense of superiority!

      Sure! Everyone here is just laughing at me, at my clown act, at my incoherent rants, but I am ruled by my base urges!

    10. Talk about incoherent rants!

    11. We get it, even if you don’t.

  5. Yes, life can be complex. That's why people hire lawyers to navigate the law. Trump had lawyers in his campaign, in his business and now in this criminal trial. But Trump's use of lawyers has not been to untangle legal complexities but to use the law to avoid paying creditors, attack others through suits they cannot afford to defend against, to defend himself from charges of defamation, to buy off wronged women and employees, and to delay actions he wishes to prevent from taking force. Trump's lawyers are his army in using power against others, not a way to understand much less comply with complexities of life.

    Somerby's complaint against complexity is an old person's gripe. Young people keep up with the changes and the requirements of their lives, work and recreation. They follow the plot, understand the news, do their jobs in accord with the rules applying to them. Old farts like Somerby let their minds drift because it is too hard to focus any more. That is the fault of aging, not of society.

    Education prepares young people for the complexities of life in a chosen field or career. Young people seek out the information they need to participate fully. Somerby's age has made him passive. He expects to be spoon-fed whatever he consumes, without effort that he no longer has the energy to expend. Using Google to search is too much work for him any more.

    1. This is a pile of ageist bullshit.

    2. How many old people do you know personally? Keeping up with complexity is a choice that people make when they start to feel overwhelmed (at any age). They can either dig in and master the complexities or avoid them.

      Some people make a choice to never again read a difficult book, after leaving high school. Some avoid fields of study with math in college. Some don't do their own taxes but pay someone else to do them. TV shows are cancelled because their plots become too complex for people to follow (c.f. Fringe). There are people who cannot figure out how often to get an oil change or replace tires. So, I agree it is not simply a matter of age but aging does require harder work to keep up and many older people do make an explicit choice to avoid complexity. That is unfortunate because if you don't use your mind for problem solving, you lose the capacity to do so. (Use it or lose it.)

      Somerby has become passive about seeking out information and understanding things he would have been on top of in 2000. He says articles in the press don't exist, without ever checking for them. He thinks that if HE personally cannot understand something without effort, then it is too complex for anyone else. His essays are a mess because he doesn't expend any effort to edit them before publishing. It looks like laziness, but perhaps it is just too hard for him to do such things any more.

      Biden is surrounded by young people who do the heavy lifting for him while he stays mentally and physically active. Somerby lets it all slide. Trump never put in the effort to understand anything and it shows.

      Pied Piper, if you disagree with something someone else has said, why not identify it and argue your point? Calling a comment "ageist bullshit" is name-calling and it is about as lazy as someone can be. Why comes to a discussion and spend your time calling names instead of participating in the back and forth? Are you afraid someone might disagree with you? I guarantee they will, but that is part of the process. I have no idea how old you are, but I can see how lazy you are.

    3. Perhaps Trump's biggest appeal is to people as intellectually lazy (or limited) as himself. It would explain why Somerby has drifted over to his side, but Pied Piper is right that people can be intellectually lazy at any age. Gutfeld's jokes are easy to grasp. I'm surprised Piper didn't just call @10:16 an elitist.

  6. Trump won't defend himself in court, because lying under oath is a crime.
    Instead, he defends himself in the media, because everybody knows he's a liar, but the media and his fanboys don't care.

    1. I don't call him Donald J Chickenshit for nothing. He is a punk coward who will never be a man. He is a big brave blustering bully in front of his cult fans, attacking people and taking cheap shots at those who can't defend themselves but when called on to speak under oath, shriveled balls.

    2. 11:31: Polls show a significant drop in support for Biden among Black and Hispanic Americans, with Trump leading in national polls and key swing states.

    3. I'll believe that when the Republican Party stops suppressing the votes of Black and Hispanic Americans.

  7. It is easy to describe what this trial is about. Simply stated, it is illegal to use a cover up to conceal another crime.

    When you deliberately falsify business records to conceal a different crime, the evidence of that other crime is no longer available to charge that crime, so the falsification of business records (the cover up) is boosted from a misdemeanor to a felony, to address the other crime that was concealed by the false records and thus cannot be charged. The cover up becomes the felony crime.

    Somerby's confusion is obfuscation. He nitpicks trivialities in the statements of (carefully selected) journalists and tries to generalize them to the entire situation, everyone who has discussed the trial everywhere. Today he wants to throw a dishcloth over his head and say it is all too complicated. Except it isn't.

    After the jury comes back with a verdict that Trump is guilty on all counts, Somerby will claim that the jury couldn't possibly have understood the evidence and the charges, they didn't know what they were doing, and thus Trump should be excused from culpability.

    Trump will keep shouting that he is a victim and Somerby will agree with him. Somerby will claim Trump should never have been tried because it has made him a martyr (echoing Trump's complaints). Then we can go forward with the election and make Trump more of a martyr by defeating him at the polls, as should have occurred back in 2016 if it weren't for Trump's crimes of election fraud, collusion with Russia to meddle in our election, hacking emails and posting them to Wikileaks (Assange is still escaping extradition and trial for that), Comey's October surprise, and now Trump's catch-and-kill operation and suppression of information about his behavior with women (Access Hollywood was the tip of an iceberg).

    Somerby says it is all too complex and yet millions of people are following what Trump did and understanding this trial fine, including 12 jurors who had a front row seat on this trial.

    1. The cover up and evasion is obvious. It was bad publicity.

      But exactly what was the other crime?

      Does this election interference statute cover what Trump was doing? How so?

      He tried to keep knowledge of his past under wraps — so people would vote for him — but that’s election “interference”?

      Unless there’s case law on this, it sounds like a stretch — like punishment for a speech act. Couldn’t this statute then be applied to all manner of campaign activities then?

    2. As has been explained repeatedly, the other crime does not need to be proven because the cover up eliminates the evidence needed to prove it. There only needs to be intent.

      Three such crimes were listed and the jurors can use any or all of them to determine intent to cover up a crime. And yes, there is case law on this and it is not like punishment for a speech act. There are both documents and witnesses as evidence of the cover up.

      It is illegal to make an unreported in-kind donations to a campaign. Michael Cohen's donation (by paying Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet) exceeded the personal limit of $2600 by a huge amount. The record falsification attempted to disguise Trump's reimbursement as "legal services" which would be deductible as business expenses for his organization which would be the crime of tax evasion (it didn't have to be proven to have occurred). These are not normal campaign expenses but violations of campaign and NY state tax laws.

    3. Trolls feign ignorance just like Somerby does.

    4. I’m a troll, and I don’t feign ignorance. I really am ignorant.

  8. Old people who can no longer navigate the complexities of daily life often move to assisted living or to live with relatives who can help them remove the caps from prescription bottles and keep track of their medical appointments. It is a natural stage in aging, not a social phenomenon that is unfairly convicting Trump of the obvious crime of falsifying business records to cover up a more serious crime.

    We can have sympathy for Somerby but we don't have to believe anything he says any more.

  9. Look how easy it is to confuse the situation...

    From the Borowitz Report:

    Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

    Trump Says it is Totally Unfair That He is Not Allowed to be a Juror
    MAY 30


    Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images
    NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the situation a “rigged disgrace,” Donald J. Trump said on Thursday it is “totally unfair” that he is not on the jury of his trial.

    “You have these twelve losers in a room, trying to figure out what the hell was going on,” he told reporters. “Meanwhile, I was there the whole time and know everything, but I’m not allowed to be a juror? This is like some kind of banana republic.”

    “I saw the movie ‘Twelve Angry Men,’” Trump continued. “I should be one of those angry men. I would be the angriest man, by far.”

    Blasting Judge Juan Merchan, Trump said, “Look at him. Look at where he’s from. I’m not going to name the place, but he’s from a very bad place. That’s why he won’t let me be a juror. I'd be a juror if Aileen Cannon was the judge.”

    That all sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

    1. Apologies for failure to edit out the misc crap.

  10. Biden is considering approval of direct strikes on Russia.

    1. By Ukraine, you know, the country that has been invaded by Russia. OK, Boris?

    2. Ukraine has been doing direct strikes on Russia for months.

      One could certainly look on Russia favorably, for what they have achieved in the last 2 years:

      _A strengthening and expansion of NATO
      _A marked decline in the Russian military, both equipment and personnel
      _A significant reduction in oil production, reducing the impact of climate change
      _A demonstration that Russia is no longer a major military threat, making the world a much safer place
      _Destroying Russia's economic power, thereby reducing a major imperialist threat in the world

      Putin seems like a lunatic right wing dictator, but the results of his actions are more in line with liberals and leftists.

    3. Ukraine has been doing direct strikes on Russia for months.

      Not with weapons or munitions we supplied them.
      You know that is what the issue is, you mendacious treasonous bastard.

      Pressure builds on Biden to let Ukraine strike inside Russia using U.S. weapons
      Some top officials back lifting the restrictions on how Ukraine uses weapons provided by Washington, two sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

    4. Oof. Triggered much? Learn to cope.

      Actually the US has supplied Ukraine with drones and drone tech, and the Ukraine attacks in Russia have been drone-based.

      Defending Daddy Putin may be perfectly fine, he has exposed Russia as a paper tiger and reduced Russia to a joke, so good on him!

    5. So when you started this thread by writing "Biden is considering approval of direct strikes on Russia.",

      you were just being an asshole trollboy? Got it

    6. The war is pretty much lost at this point. The latest $61 billion hasn't improved a thing and Ukraine continues to lose ground. War thirsty President Biden is considering escalating the war by sanctioning direct strikes on Russia with our weapons.

      Failure in Ukraine would represent a major personal defeat for the aged president. He has spent decades trying to promote a neocon, anti-Russia NATO expansion project but it is obvious now it is destined to fail.

      The US will have to accept a diminished global role and pursue a more tolerant relationship with the world one way or another.

    7. You wish, Boris. The war will end when Zelensky sends a rocket up Putin's ass.

    8. Biden's failure at diplomacy in Ukraine has cost over half a million Ukrainian lives.

  11. Complexity is in the mind of the beholder, it is largely an illusion generated by ignorance.

    On Einstein, Somerby steadfastly refuses to learn about time dilation and length contraction, which impedes his ability to have a coherent understanding of Relativity.

    Much of Somerby's ignorance seems willful; he is biased towards his pernicious right wing agenda.

    1. I don’t know if inability to understand relativity is more common on the right or on the left.

    2. Ignorance, willful or not, does seem to more of an issue on the right, and those on the right do seem to delight in willful ignorance, such as in the case of Somerby.

  12. "According to one of the original producers of Donald Trump's "The Apprentice" reality show, the first two years starting back in 2008 exposed him to the now-former president where he stood back and watched Trump's casual racism, his demeaning treatment of women, and complaints that the former president was lousy at paying his debts.

    Writing for Slate, producer Bill Pruitt claimed his non-disclosure agreement (NDA) has expired and he is now free to divulge what he saw behind the scenes while working with Trump and , in some cases, it was shocking.

    According to Pruitt, "By carefully misleading viewers about Trump—his wealth, his stature, his character, and his intent—the competition reality show set about an American fraud that would balloon beyond its creators’ wildest imaginations."

    From Rawstory --

    1. Not to diminish the point being made about Trump's corrupt nature, but it should be noted that all of reality tv is like this, it is all fake, the worst kind of manipulative storytelling; it is one of the great shames of our country (I have worked in realty tv for over a decade, so I have lots of insider knowledge).

  13. Criminals often use complex schemes to hide their crimes. And because of the complexity, they must never be charged. I am not a crank.

  14. Shooting someone on fifth avenue would be easy to understand or describe. Kind of like taking whatever classified documents you want when you left the White House, and then declaring endlessly that because you are President you have every right to do so.
    And yet, Bob ALSO thinks when the DOJ comes after Trump for doing this, it is merely Democrats "trying to find a legal solution to a political problem."
    White collar crime is often done by people trying to skit the law in devious fashions confusing to the laymen. Would Bob generally think we should stop any attempts to curb White Collar Crime? I doubt it. He is just committed to defending Trump by any means he can relate with a straight face.

  15. Trump has recently declared that the New York Courthouse was in lock down, by Biden, so his supports could not rally there. He also says Biden sent the DOJ to Mar-a-logo to shoot him.
    Bob would be outraged if a journalist referred to these is lies. It would be too confusing for him.

  16. Some of you made valid objections to my analogy yesterday. The judge is highly partisan, but I shouldn't have called him "corrupt". Prosecutor Bragg did a big no-no in publicly boasting that he would find some crime to charge a particular person with. That's not justice. He was promising to enforce the law unequally. It's improper, but, maybe I shouldn't have called this "corrupt".

    Then the Prosecutor couldn't find a legitimate crime. He's prosecuting Trump based on an eight-year old misdemeanor. That's incredible! Are there other examples of people being prosecuted for an 8 year old misdemeanor?

    1. You have no evidence the judge is "highly partisan" or that he would be biased in his performance as judge by whichever choice he makes when he votes (as all American citizens are entitled to do, regardless of their occupation).

      Trump is not being prosecuted solely on the basis of those misdemeanors (there are 34 charges, not 8). He is being prosecuted because those misdemeanors were a cover up of a major crime.


    2. So, again, what crime is the former and future president charged with, by shape-shifting alien Reptiloids?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    3. What major crime?

      Stealing my vote in 2016, fuckface.

      This question is asked by the same maggots who have been whining and crying for the past 4 years because they were denied having a publication print Hunter Biden's dick pics for about a day.

    4. the Prosecutor alleges that Trump stole you vote by hiding something negative about him. Isn't that normal for candidates? Is that a major crime?

    5. I wonder what all that fuss with banning any mentioning of the younger Biden's laptop and getting 51 former intelligence officials to declare it "Russian disinfo" was about.

      I'm curious what Alvin and Juan think about that.

    6. Without a doubt bias in our justice system is a concern, primarily as seen in Alito, Thomas, 5th Circuit, et al.

      Overturning a 50 year constitutional right, is a real problem.

      There are many cases that resulted in death sentences that have been overturned.

      There is a clear racial bias in convictions and sentencing.

      Noticing a problem, but then pointing to nothingburger cases (nonsense about Bragg/laptop), is a way of diminishing concerns over a real problem.

    7. As a shape-shifting alien Reptiloid I agree: getting 51 former intelligence officials to sign a false affidavit is nothing.

      It's for the children.

    8. You mean the laptop that Rudy was driving around with in the back of his trunk and then carried over to meet with his Russian goon friends in their efforts to extort the Ukrainian president to help him smear his political opponent? How 'bout that?

    9. David, the other day you claimed there were no victims of Trump's felony crimes. I was his victim in 2016 when he falsified his business records to hide his payoff to the Stormy. I was his victim when he conspired with his good buddy Pecker to use the National Enquirer to smear his political opponents. I was his intended victim when he attempted to overturn a legal and certified national election in 2020. I was his victim when he tried to extort the Ukrainian president into smearing his political opponent using American tax dollars properly appropriated by Congress on a bipartisan vote. So go fuck yourself.

      Answer the question put to you by 12:13.

    10. Yes, that laptop, moonbat. Hunter Biden's laptop, confirmed, about a million times now, to be a genuine article. But only after the election. Helpfully declared by 51 former intelligence officials to be a fake, and forbidden to be mentioned by social and state-run media just before the election.

      Does it ring a bell? Or has customary amnesia suddenly set in?

    11. Thanks, shit for brains, for continuing your whining and crying because the world was deprived of seeing Hunter's dick pics.

    12. Anonymouse 1:37pm, David was talking about real victims. Not people who think enlarged pores are a white male plot.

    13. Yes, idiot-moonbat. You and 51 former intelligence officials tasted Hunter's dick numerous times. You know a fake Hunter's dick when you suck it.

    14. Crazy mao mao, every maggot accusation is a confession. There are no exceptions.

    15. “David was talking about real victims”

      Why not do away with all campaign finance laws then? If the money comes from source a instead of source b, or contribution x > max allowed y, who really gets hurt? If you cheat on your taxes, who does it hurt? Some hypothetical government assistance recipient? Balderdash. We shouldn’t prosecute crimes like this with no victims…eh?

    16. enlarged pores????

      WTF is wrong with you, Cec?

    17. Anonymices, you are ALL victims. I didn’t mean to imply that someone else gets to be a victim, but you don’t. Not in a million years.


    18. One of the best things about our Constitution is the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press.

      And Trump perverted that too.

    19. Yes, it was a good thing.

  17. They can’t refuse, they must recuse!

  18. Trump is a psycho. A psycho leading our government could be a bad thing. But I can understand why others would want to vote for him, because I am a true humanitarian, and don’t get why a tribal meanie like Ken Burns would say you shouldn’t vote for him. I am not a crank.

  19. Apparently there is another tape from the Apprentice days with DJT using the n-word. You must be very proud, DiC.

    1. This makes David want to vote for Trump twice in November.