FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2024
Red and Blue—and you: As a general matter, thought leaders in Red America have offered one set of reactions to yesterday's verdicts.
As a general matter, thought leaders in Blue America have said vastly different things.
This morning, we've noted the very occasional points of agreement. One example:
On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough seemed to say that, in his assessment, it's conceivable that yesterday's verdicts won't survive the expected appeal. He also said that, in his opinion, it's possible that this particular case never should have been brought!
In Red America, thought leaders have widely said that the now-concluded trial featured a high volume of "reversible error." In the comments we'll link you to later, Scarborough seemed to be in some agreement with that widely stated view.
Such moments of glancing, partial agreement have been few and far between. We're now living in two Americas—Red and Blue.
Depending on which country you inhabit, you hear vastly different sets of facts, lodged in vastly different frameworks. As Lincoln noted long ago, it's a dangerous way to play.
In Lincoln's time, "Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other."
It's a bit like that in the present day! Today, each side clings to the accounts and frameworks offered by the "cable news" channel designed to please that side.
This is good for ratings, profits and salaries. But it's not real good for you.
In the current day, each side has a "cable news" channel which tells its members the stories they like. It's a very dangerous way to play—and no, it isn't just done over there, inside Red America.
This morning, we're going to limit ourselves to one brief exposition. We're going to return to what legal analyst Lisa Rubin said on yesterday's Morning Joe.
In yesterday afternoon's report, we showed you what Rubin said to Morning Joe sidekick Willie Geist about the complex allegations with which Donald J. Trump stood charged.
To our ear, her statement didn't exactly make sense. To refresh yourself about her statement, you can just click here.
Below, you see what Rubin said. Did her statement even seem to make sense, or was it simply designed to please us?
GEIST (5/30/24): I want to get some clarification from you about the jury instructions. Donald Trump, some of his minions, going on cable networks, suggesting that the judge told the jury that they don't have to be unanimous.
That's not true. Can you explain what this little dispute may be about?
RUBIN: Yeah, that's not true at all.
First of all, they have to be unanimous that the business records here were falsified, and that is the crime that was charged.
With respect to what makes falsification of business records a felony, they also have to be unanimous that Trump intended to commit a conspiracy to promote his own election in 2016, and they have to be unanimous that he did so, or that the conspiracy was through unlawful means.
Here's the part where they can have differences of opinion.
What are those unlawful means? [Prosecutor] Josh Steinglass gave them five or six different options that kind of fall into three categories.
One is violation of the federal elections campaign through unlawful campaign contributions.
One is falsification of other business records, like Michael Cohen's submission of forms to the bank through which he opened the account that he used to pay Stormy Daniels.
The third are [sic] the tax forms that the Trump Organization prepared when they were showing Michael Cohen's quote/unquote "income," that income of $420,000 that was really the reimbursement to him.
You Willie; you Rev; me Lisa—we can all have different opinions on what those unlawful means are. But we all have to agree that there was a conspiracy, that it was executed by unlawful means. Donald J. Trump is playing fast and loose here with the concept of unanimity.
Dear God! Donald J. Trump, and some of his minions, were saying the jury didn't have to be unanimous!
"Yeah, that's not true at all," Rubin instantly said.
To our ear, Rubin's fuller statement didn't quite seem to make sense. She seemed to say that the jury would have to be unanimous—until such time as it wouldn't.
That didn't seem to make sense—except as a reinforcement of tribal true belief. Trump and his minions were lying again! The claim in question "wasn't true at all," the legal analyst pleasingly said.
In our view, we citizens need to be wary of people who want to please us in such ways. With that in mind, here's what the Washington Post says, in this morning's front-page report, about the matter Rubin batted aside:
Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in New York hush money trial
A New York jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to an adult-film actress, delivering a historic verdict that could shape the November election and that makes Trump the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime.
[...]
The jury in Manhattan was tasked with deciding whether Trump was guilty on each specific count of falsifying business records and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election. Prosecutors offered three types of underlying crimes that could raise the unlawful election-meddling allegation; jurors did not have to be unanimous about which of those they felt was at play.
According to the Washington Post, jurors "did not have to be unanimous" concerning which of those underlying crimes Donald J. Trump had committed. For the record, if Trump hadn't committed one of those underlying crimes, he couldn't have been charged with a felony!
In this morning's news report, the Post made only a modest attempt to explain the "complex" charges (their word) which were brought against Trump. That said, the tabloid-trending New York Times made no attempt to explain that matter at all.
This afternoon or tomorrow, we'll walk you through the Post's fuller attempt to explain the nature of the felonies of which Trump now stands convicted. This morning, we'll simply tell you this:
It isn't just in Red America. It's Blue America too.
Rubin said the statement in question "wasn't true at all." Pleasingly, she said that Trump and his minions were just lying to us again.
On the "cable news" programs designed to please Blue America, a "legal analyst" can't go wrong peddling script of that type. This morning, up jumped the Washington Post, saying something different.
For the record, Rubin's statement never seemed to make sense in the first place. Given the current rules of the game, "cable news" is like that.
In closing, let's return to what Scarborough said this morning. Will those 34 guilty verdicts get overturned on appeal?
We don't have the slightest idea! Also, we have no idea if there was anything "wrong: with the procedure described in this morning's Post.
(Who knows? It's always possible that some appeals court will say there was something wrong with that!)
We don't know if yesterday's verdicts will hold up on appeal. That said, you'll never see a discussion of any such question in which MSNBC's legal analysts have to defend their pleasing claims in some sort of exchange with those who may disagree.
Simply put, that's no longer done. Today, both sides pray to the same god—to the god called Tribal Script.
Albert Ruddy and Destiny Deacon have died.
ReplyDeleteAloha, Al and Destiny.
Deletethanks weirdo!
Delete
ReplyDeleteYou pathetic lib earthlings can't do anything right. Guilty on one or two count would work, but 34? Idiots. Asking for a backlash.
Do we shape-shifting alien Reptiloids need to do everything ourselves?
The counts are essentially the same, referring to repeated falsified payments by Trump. There is no basis for discrediting a few but letting others stand when they are all repetitions of the same fraudulent action.
DeleteShove your excuses, earthling.
DeleteAppeal away, Mao. Nothing suggests your chances are good.
Delete"A lot of commentary in the coming days will focus on how sad it is for the country that the former president of the United States and the current odds-on favorite to be planning a second inaugural in five months was just convicted of a scheme to fraudulently conceal payments to a porn star. But Trump finally being held accountable for the first time in his life by anyone for anything isn't a tragedy—it is deliverance, and you should feel fantastic about it.
DeleteOf course, ideally former presidents would not be convicted unanimously after a short period of deliberation during which the jurors pored over a mountain of indisputable evidence that Trump falsified business records. In a perfect world, the future president wouldn't order his erstwhile attorney to take out a home equity loan on his house to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels, with whom our illustrious 45th president apparently (she testified) had brief, joyless, unprotected sex (he still denies it) while his third wife was four months postpartum with their son. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wish that none of this utterly unwelcome information was taking up a single byte of storage in my brain and that I could have very happily lived out my days in a world in which Donald Trump remained the lecherous, tic-tac–popping host of The Celebrity Apprentice and never ran for president.
But none of this is our fault, and we shouldn't feel guilty or hesitant about celebrating the long-overdue delivery of justice—justice that President Biden's wan attorney general was incapable of pursuing for so long that he allowed Trump and his upside-down-flag-waving pals on the Supreme Court to effectively run out the clock after running a failed coup operation. It's not the fault of the tens of millions of people who until yesterday had grown cynical about the possibility that the man who tried to overthrow the American constitutional system of government live on national television could ever possibly experience consequences for what he's done to the country. It's not the fault of the prosecutors and civil servants risking their lives to do the right thing while MAGA revolutionaries doxx and threaten them and their families day and night.
The blame lies with three different but overlapping groups of people: first and foremost, with GOP primary voters, who have now picked this narcissist with a lifelong trail of personal and professional turmoil as their party's nominee for president not once, not twice, but three times.[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
The second is Republican senators, who had two different opportunities to convict Trump after his impeachments and thereby rid us all of this scourge forever, and instead chose to fold like holders of a poor poker hand.
The third is the much larger group of GOP sycophants, officeholders, aspiring MAGAworld hangers-on and the gigantic cottage industry run by merch-peddling and conspiracy-mongering "patriots" that has sprouted up around Trump, including the pitiful gaggle of wannabe veeps and later-to-be-indicted goons intended to violate gag orders for him.
Any one of these three groups could have, at any moment in the past nine years, put a stop to the total madness that has taken over their party and gravely undermined the legitimacy and functioning of American democracy. But again, and again they chose to capitulate to Trump and his minions, and the only ones who reluctantly and very occasionally did the right thing were immediately chased out of office like party-crashers by the GOP's primary voters.
No one could do it. They caved every single time, each humiliation greasing the skids for the next, each moral compromise made easier by the last, each affront to the spirit of democracy making another, even graver one inevitable, until eventually none of it felt wrong to them. And so here we are, with the Republican nominee for president now a felon saved from dozens of other convictions only by the six partisan operatives using their total impunity and lifetime sinecures to grant a series of far-right wish fulfillment fantasies.
DeleteThese convictions don't make Trump's election impossible, or even necessarily less likely. What they should do is remind voters that the man they seem to be on the precipice of electing president is a seedy huckster—and a convicted one, at that.
And the outcome should buck up everyone who spent most of the last decade dreaming of this moment and being told by Very Serious People that it would never and should never come, that it would somehow be more dangerous to prosecute Trump than it would be to just let him waltz into the White House with an army of right-wing fascists and declare himself the king America has gone without for nearly two-and-a-half centuries.
Now the voters need to finish the job." https://www.newsweek.com/yes-trumps-conviction-should-make-you-deliriously-happy-opinion-1906846
I listened to Trump's press conference and he told a bunch of lies. How can Somerby pretend there are two reasonable sides when Red America is hearing Trump tell lies?
ReplyDeleteSomerby says Morning Joe admitted maybe the case shouldn't have been brought. That is the Red America position -- Trump said it over and over in his press conference this morning. But when a jury unanimously convicts Trump of 34 felony counts, how can anyone say the case shouldn't have been tried. Selective prosecution based on Trump's campaign or his celebrity status is a corruption of the principle of equality under the law.
Trump denied that he falsified business records because Cohen was an attorney. He ignored his massive fraud trial based largely on falsifying business records to defraud others. Trump pretended this is all a political prosecution based on nothing his bookeeper did wrong.
And Trump claimed he was still under a gag order while defaming the judge and prosecutor. Then he threw in the kitchen sink of his campaign rally grievances about the terrible trouble our nation is in.
But Somerby is pretending there are two reasonable sides to this conviction. There are not. Trump was found guilty and he committed those crimes (and yes, they were crimes).
Most striking was the similarity between Trump's complaints and Somerby's repeated claim that the charges were too complex to understand. That made it very clear that Somerby has been repeating the Republican talking points, Trump's talking points here for the duration of the trial. What liberal does that? No one I know.
I didn't get this from Morning Joe (which I don't watch) but from Trump himself at his streamed press conference. This idea that we in Blue America are simply repeating what we hear on cable, while Somerby spouts Republican talking points verbatim, is as big a lie as anything Trump said this morning.
"Somerby's repeated claim that the charges were too complex to understand. That made it very clear that Somerby has been repeating the Republican talking points. . . . What liberal does that?"
DeleteAny liberal (or other sentient person) who tried to understand the criminal charges would immediately notice their complexity. They involved the cover up of a cover up of purported sexual misconduct (which, itself, did not need to be proved). But I guess the commenter believes that liberals should close their eyes, ears, and mouth to this reality because, what, we're sheep?.
huh? yesterday you were explaining how the case was not particularly complicated.
DeleteThe inconsistency pegs you as a troll.
Somerby also ignores that Scarborough is a Republican, and MSNBC is a right wing corporation with little interest outside of profit-making.
"huh? yesterday you were explaining how the case was not particularly complicated."
DeleteNo, yesterday I was explaining a complicated case.
It is obvious from the jury's behavior that they did not find it particularly complicated.
DeleteA lot of people are afraid to have their own ideas. The internet has taught people that the only thing that matters in life is appearing clever and so they say stuff other people have already preapproved of as clever ideas.
ReplyDeletehttps://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/mad-max-is-sidelined-in-his-own-movie/comments
It is very odd that Somerby has nothing to say about the need for our nation to be led by someone who respects the law, instead of a conficted felon.
ReplyDeleteYes. Bob is very concerned about hurting the feelings of the MAGA sheep, but if he has ever once considered the consequences of letting Trump break laws with impunity, he's never said so.
DeleteMore in the "Somerby talks about what he wants to talk about, rather than what I want him to talk about, which leads me to conclude that he's paid by Putin to mislead liberals into voting for Trump" genre.
DeletePiper, Somerby had already stated his contempt for this case. He has stated in previous posts that the case shouldn’t have been brought, because hushing up stormy Daniels was right by any means necessary.
DeleteThe fact that Trump will appeal the verdict does not mean he hasn't been convicted of major crimes. He has appealed every aspect of this trial as it went along, filing motion after motion. They went to appeals judges not just Merchan. It is highly unlikely that this verdict will be overturned given that the defense has already presented every argument it could think of to stop the trial while it was ongoing.
ReplyDeleteBut in the meantime, Trump should be treated as the felon he has been judged to be. He is a criminal, a man with no respect for the law. He cannot be placed in an office where he will be expected to uphold the law because he has proved himself incapable of doing that -- just as he did on 1/6.
Somerby needs to admit that Trump is a crook. It is that simple.
Why?
DeleteWhy not?
DeleteWhy? Because the Republicans are claiming that Trump is an innocent man being politically persecuted. Meanwhile a court examined evidence that convinced a jury that Trump had committed 34 felonies. The latter is reality-based. Somerby claims to be liberal, but I think he needs to convince his readers he is living in reality and not in the Republican fantasy world, which would make him no better than they are.
DeleteOthers have pointed out that it was really a bookkeeping trial, not a hush money trial. He wasn't convicted or charged with paying for a Non Disclosure Agreement, That's perfectly legal and quite common. He was convicted of reporting certain payments in the category "legal expense".
ReplyDeleteHe was convicted of election fraud.
DeleteThanks for playing.
It was, however, amusing to hear Trump ramble on this this morning: Yes common man in mainstreet USA: don't forget the working class hero's pal: Non disclosure agreements!!
DeleteI wonder if Hillary Clinton can sue the cheating lying treasonous bastard? What do you think, DiC?
Delete@12:30 - that's a common misconception. The alleged election fraud was one of the three issues that could make the bookkeeping errors into felonies. But, he was convicted of the bookkeeping errors, not election fraud.
DeleteThe jury didn't have to find election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt -- only a preponderance of the evidence. And, they didn't have to be unanimous regarding election fraud. In fact, we don't know how many jurors found election fraud rather than either of the other two possible grounds to make the misdemeanors into felonies.
@12:37 Regardless of what you think of Trump's speech, it was impressively presented, without a teleprompter. President Biden couldn't have done that.
DeleteTrump LIES like other people breath. You're right, fuckface, President Biden can't do that.
DeleteDoes anyone find it odd that getting a whore to sign an NDA is election fraud, but getting 51 former intelligence officials to sign a false affidavit is not?
Delete"He was convicted of reporting certain payments in the category "legal expense".
DeleteInteresting that the Clinton campaign was caught misreporting expenses related to the Steele dossier during the 2016 election. They listed the payments to a law firm as legal expenses, while some of the money was actually used for opposition research.
David, they weren’t bookkeeping errors. They were willful deception.
DeleteIf it was election fraud does that mean the suppression is what could have got him elected?
DeleteThat's election denial.
3:49. that's a swing and a miss, troll boy election denialist. Nice invasion of the US Capitol, any plans for an encore?
Delete"Election denialist" is funny. Is it a common expression in the idiot-moonbats dialect?
DeleteAnono 1:40 - please play by the rules, it is called a letter, not a false affidavit...
DeleteToday Bob tells us that there is a disagreement over the two sides in how they view Donald Trump in American Politics. This gratingly obvious observation always gets us ready for the fallacy Bob promotes like Harvey Kietel trying to sell you a date with Jodie Foster: Since there are two sides, they must be treated as equally credible.
ReplyDeleteYet, of course, his hand is always firmly on the scale for team Donald. After the disaster yesterday for Bob's boy, we get some mighty weak tea: the usual snark wrapped red herring about Trump claiming the jury had to be unanimous or not or... something.
In recent weeks Trump claimed the area around the Courthouse was in a police state lock down ordered by Biden, who also planned ot use FBI agents to rub him out at the Mar-a-Logo "raid." Bob hasn't found time to address these statements but of course, you better not call Trump a liar.
The drama that surrounds Trump for the rest of the year seems to center now on how far the right wing justices he appointed will go in running interference for him. This is a horrible scandal on which not near enough has been said. Yet this loss may bring the closer to the conclusion that they have done enough, and there is no reason to ruin their careers for this deranged schmuck.
We shall see.
Blanche on CNN was striking yesterday: berating the prosecution for not calling the witnesses he wanted them to call, while insisting that since he doesn't have the burden of proof, he didn't have to call them himself (this is America (!)) In brief, if you have a lawyer who insists the other side must make your case for you, you should get another lawyer.
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of all MSM reporters and journalists who have asked Donald J Chickenshit if he will/should withdraw from the race, given that he is now a convicted felon?
ReplyDelete1.
Why would they ask that?
DeleteLOL, good one 1:56!!!!! Why indeed, trollboy.
DeleteYes, why would they ask that? The mainstream media routinely fails at its job, so in that sense, 1:56 is right.
DeleteWhat are the reasons you feel the MSM reporters should ask Trump if he will/should withdraw from the race?
DeleteYeah, let's send it to Alito and Thomas and Beer Bong Brett. We need a totally non-partisan hack unbiased thorough review. LOL
Delete2:52, troll boy, go fuck yourself, ok?
Delete2:52 Why?
DeleteLike hell will Trump be withdrawing from the race. Why would a reporter waste a question on something to which everyone knows the answer?
DeleteBecause some idiot on a comment section wants him to withdraw because they are afraid of him running and winning?
That didn’t stop reporters and pundits from asking/demanding that Biden withdraw because he’s too old, in their opinion, when everyone knows he isn’t going to.
DeleteThen why does he keep calling Harris "president"?
DeleteIn 2016 they were asking Hillary Clinton if she would withdraw if she had been indicted. Actually they weren't asking her, they were telling her she would have to withdraw. Trump is under federal indictment in FL and DC and is now a convicted felon and crickets from the liberal media.
DeleteBut Donald Trump already expressed his attitude towards the indictments and this trial, numerous times, leaving little doubts in his intentions. What's the point of asking stupid questions?
DeleteRight, the Beltway press only can ask stupid questions of Democrats. The fact that Donald J Chickenshit could be sitting in prison on the day of the R Convention is not important. LOL
DeleteSo the answer to the question 'why should MSM reporters and journalists ask Donald J Chickenshit if he will/should withdraw from the race' is whataboutism.
DeleteThanks for clarifying.
It only took you, idiot-moonbat, 40 minutes to come up with this word-salad. Did you have to request it from the idiot-moonbat HQ?
DeleteYes, that is how I had to request it.
DeleteThere are an awful lot of obvious, deeply embarrassing questions the Press never seem to want to ask Trump. This is one of many. How about, "do you really believe Biden sent the FBI to kill you?" "Why did you say the Courthouse was in Lock down keeping your supporters away?
DeleteEveryone knows that the deep state wants him dead. More than they wanted Epstein dead. You're embarrassing alright, but you're only embarrassing yourself.
DeleteHere are some other questions they could ask him:
DeleteBesides your ex-wife and E. Jean Carroll, how many other women have you raped?
Do you think a rapist like yourself should be hired as a janitor, let alone the president of a country?
How many unnecessary deaths do you estimate you caused by your mishandling of the pandemic and by (twice) holding up critical military assistance to Ukraine?
Given your pathological lying, why should anyone believe anything you say? Don't you think this alone should disqualify someone from the highest office in the country?
Did you really think you could get away with stealing and hiding all of those boxes of our country's most sensitive documents -- even after being told to return them? How many did you sell to foreign adversaries?
After you tried but failed to steal the 2020 election via peaceful means and resorted to inciting a violent attack against congress, why did you, as president, sit and do nothing for three hours? Don't you think in a rational world a president who engaged in such extreme dereliction of duty should at the very least be imprisoned if not executed, and the fact that you're still a free man after all this time speaks to how broken our system is and how corrupt certain conservative judges are?
Of all the times you obstructed justice, which one was your favorite?
Of all the times you abused the presidential pardon to reward criminals like Manafort who did your bidding, which one was your favorite?
Without any evidence, you've criticized Biden for weaponizing the justice department. Don't you think that's ironic since it's actually you who, for nearly 10 years now has repeatedly called for your political opponents to be locked up, tried to pressure your justice department to prosecute Hillary Clinton, and are promising to politicize and weaponize the justice system in a second term? Isn't it doubly ironic given your preposterous argument that presidents should have total immunity to do whatever they want?
You claimed your vice president had the right to stop the certification of the election results and recognize fake electors instead. So I guess Kamala Harris can do the same then, huh?
One of the producers of The Apprentice claims to have a tape of you referring to one of the contestants as a nigger. Isn't that also ironic, given how you claim to have done more for Blacks than anyone with maybe the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln?
whataboutism.
DeleteNot totally.
Trump himself campaigned in 2016 explicitly saying a candidate under indictment cannot run for the highest office in the land. That might be another good reason to confront him with his own words. Where is Tim Russert when you need him.
“If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government,” he said. “She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way.”
“She has no right to be running, you know that,” Trump said. “No right.”
I love it when Mao calls me and Donald Trump idiot moonbats.
DeleteWhy should an adjudicated rapist, a serial fraudster including Trump University, Trump Charities, State of NY, various banks and insurance companies, a man just unanimously convicted on all 34 counts against him, a man who pardoned two of his campaign managers from jail, one for working with the Rooskies and pressuring potential witnesses, the other for stealing money from Trump's supporters, a man whose autogolpe associates are facing being debarred, indictments, and prison time, a man who encouraged folks like Rudy Giuliani to work with Russian FSB agents to ratfuck Biden and Ukraine, a man who bellows that the election was stolen even though 8 zillion recounts and the ever nimble Ninjas could not prove otherwise, a man who constantly uses stochastic terrorism to threaten and intimidate his judges, juries and his opponents. I mean it would be totally inappropriate to ask a crazy question like that.
DeleteThe jury voted 12-0 to find Trump guilty of falsifying business records. They unanimously agreed that he did this in order to hide his plot with Pecker and Cohen to advance his campaign by buying and buried negative stories about the candidate. They agree that this plot was crooked.
ReplyDeleteHe lost. Just like he lost the election. Now we'll have the hear him endlessly howl that it's all unfair.
Maybe he will be right. Maybe it was unfair.
DeleteHe will not win on appeal.
DeleteHe will not win on appeal, because of the political beliefs of the appellate judges. He might win at the SC, if they accept the case. That would be years from now
DeleteYeah, let's send it to Alito and Thomas and Beer Bong Brett. We need a totally non-partisan hack unbiased thorough review. LOL
DeleteDavid,
DeleteThat's only because the appellate judges use the law and the U.S. Constitution to make their judicial decisions.
The Supreme Court, apparently, no longer does.
The jury's verdict should be respected but it does not excuse the flaws in the case. The case was ill-conceived and pushed the boundaries of the law and due process. A number of issues with the case, including the judge's political donations, the DA's campaign promises, and the unusual and unprecedented charges brought against Trump give him a decent shot at a reversal on appeal.
ReplyDeleteI am still upset that they had to stoop to federal income tax evasion to lock up Al Capone. Trump does that every day of the week except Sundays.
DeleteTrump will not win on appeal.
DeleteTrump has a decent shot at a reversal on appeal because the prosecutors contorted the law in an unprecedented manner.
DeleteNope, 2:50.
DeleteMost of the issues that might be brought on appeal have already been denied as motions during the trial.
DeleteDenied by who?
DeleteSome motions were denied by Merchan and others by appellate judges.
DeleteThese motions were denied by a panel of appellate court judges: (1) recusal of Merchan, (2) change of venue, (3) delay of start of the trial, (4) motions for mistrial, (5) imposition of the gag order, (6) moving the case to Federal court. In other words, most of the things he complained about in his press conference have already been appealed to an appellate court prior to and during the trial and were denied.
Deleteanon 6:25, none of these things will be the main basis of the appeal. there are some real things, pointed out by anon 2:23 that could (and perhaps should) lead to a reversal.
DeleteI see no bias with Merchan, I mean his wife was the one who raised the "Fuck Trump" flag at their summer home.
DeleteBy sure does quote "The Walking Dead" over at MSNBC a lot when they he wants to make a counterpoint. What probably pisses our little Harvard Grad off is that they actually do have a different views on various points (they made no firm predictions on how the case would come out) and unlike Bob, have a background in what they are talking about. They have also not wasted endless breath contenting Trump voters are not a cult.
ReplyDeleteSomerby essentially repeats the same post from yesterday, reckon he is too depressed about the verdict to bother with an effort.
ReplyDeleteIn today's post, as in the past, Somerby misinterprets Lincoln:
"As Lincoln noted long ago, it's a dangerous way to play."
In reality, Lincoln noted the opposite, Lincoln was noting that God will only answer one prayer, and that God chose to punish the South for slavery, because there was only one side that was right.
Lincoln was not suggesting we all get along, was not suggesting we accommodate and acquiesce to oppressors; Lincoln was saying just the opposite.
Somerby makes poorly thought out claims and then attempts to back them up with ancient stories or misappropriating quotes. This is why Somerby is less convincing than even a snake oil salesman.
There's a story about a dog chasing a car. When the dog actually catches the car, he doesn't know what to do with it. Trump opponents have "caught their car" by convicting Trump, Now, what will they do with their victory?
ReplyDeleteDavid, are you aware that it was the Trump justice department who put Michael Cohen in prison in part for the same crimes?
DeleteI didn't follow Cohen's prosecution. Cohen's conviction was based on a plea bargain, not a jury decision. Trump today said that the prosecutor got Cohen to agree to a plea bargain that included naming some Trump-related crimes. But, Cohen was really innocent of the Trump-related charges. He was really guilty of other crimes not involving Trump.
Deletei don't know whether or not Trump's statement is accurate.
David, the dog is not trying to catch the car. The dog is chasing the car away.
DeleteTrump did not state by name who he was talking about when he discussed the person whose life had been ruined by being put in jail. I thought it was Weisselberg not Cohen. Cohen is out and can't be said to have a ruined life.
DeleteTrump today said
DeleteBwahahahaha!!! You're a moron, David. The bullshit artist lying coward sack of shit said what, David? You're shameless. Why didn't Trump say that under oath in his own trial? Oh, right, because he is a punk lying sack of shit coward.
You can't blame trump's conviction on Cohen anymore, fuckfact. That is what the defense tried to do and the jury unanimously found Cohen's testimony to be corroborated by multiple other sources.
You’re right, 6:11PM. David is a fuckfact. He’s a good decent person, and I like him, but he’s still a fuckfact.
DeleteOh, damn, you caught me in a typo. David is the opposite of decent. His lies and contortions in support of von Schitzinpantz in positively indecent.
DeleteI am interested in knowing and understanding reality as best as i can. So, try to listen to all sides, including Trump, even tough he lies a lot. I appreciate commenters on this blog because they show me a liberal POV. I also appreciate that they correct me when I'm factually wrong.
DeleteEven when I disagree with you I respect you, David.
DeleteDemocrats got a conviction but you will see it cost them the black vote.
DeleteWhat did he lie to you about?
DeleteI am interested in knowing and understanding reality as best as i can.
DeleteYou're full of shit, DiC. You come here to troll and spread your bullshit and when people engage and correct you, you disappear. When people repeatedly show you that you are factually wrong, it has no influence on your opinion. And you're a two-faced hypocrite. There is no bottom for you.
Kevin sees and understands:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/conservatives-like-trump-because-of-his-character/
Drum mistakenly implies that the only reasons to support Trump are either policy or character. Trump has been associated with various controversial actions but his supporters may have many different reasons for their support. Eg. his unorthodox style and willingness to challenge political norms, his outsider status and perceived independence from the political establishment.
DeleteTrump has an appeal to some people simply because supporting him owns the libs, supporting him is a middle finger to people that inaccurately call them deplorable racists. That's how politics works.
Kevin's post is simpleton garbage for his audience of simpletons.
5:47: You are describing Trump’s character, one of the two possible reasons people support Trump, according to Drum.
Deletehis unorthodox style
Deletewillingness to challenge political norms,
his outsider status and
perceived independence from the political establishment.
You think that describes his character? Why do you think that?
I don’t know why anonymices always get so bent out of shape over Drum making that sort of remark.
DeleteDrum sees it and knows it is the case. He thinks it’s occasionally worth a mention when his commenters get a bit too exorcised toward conservatives for his comfort level. Despite any chiding on his part, the level of partisan rancor is not a.terribly serious issue to Drum.
Instead of halfheartedly judging anonymouse militancy via their responses to their political opponents, Drum ought to take serious heed to his reader’s overwrought reactions to any deviation of opinion that comes from him.
Now Cecelia thinks she can mindread Drum.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:27pm, you can’t eyeread.
DeleteThat’s right, Drum can speak for himself without your interpretation of what he meant.
DeleteI think Drum is right that we conservatives could get similar policies from other Republicans. In fact, Trump is not my favorite. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and De Blasio are smarter and more in line with my conservative views (except that all 3 are pro-life.).
DeleteWhat Kevin misses is Trump's incredible persuasion talents. He's a far better persuader than, say, De Blasio, even though De Blasio might be a better President. It's his persuasive ability that allowed him to win over most Republicans in 2016, and to defeat Hillary Clinton, and to win this year's nomination. He's running a exceptional race right now that might conceivably allow him to be elected despite being convicted of 34 felonies.
Anonymouse10:43pm, are you talking to me or anonymouse5:47pm?
DeleteTrump makes no sense to me. How can he persuade?
DeletePeople project onto Trump & hear what they want to hear. That isn’t persuasion.
DeleteTrump was able to persuade Republican voters to crave his bigotry, and the mainstream media assured me they were just "economically anxious".
DeleteHis persuasion ability? Word has it that Ted Cruz now thinks his dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
DeleteDIC is an equal opportunity fascist lover.
DeleteSomerby blames Rubin and other journalists for the law itself, which was correctly explained in the excerpts Somerby presents today.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to like or agree with laws like this one, but we do have to abide by them. Trump doesn't follow any of the rules, from day one of his presidency. For example, he never divested from his business and he outright owned a DC hotel that foreigners bought rooms in, as bribes to the new president (breaking the emoluments clause).
Why would Somerby or anyone else expect Trump to follow campaign laws? His campaign reports were late and incomplete because he is a scofflaw. But the scale of cheating during his campaign has not been made clear to the public, nor has he been held accountable for it until now. There were all sorts of sketchy activities going on in his campaign, including Russian interference, Wikileaks hacking and posting of opposition emails, sharing of internal poll data with Russians, collusion between PACs and the campaign, hiring of spys like Manafort for $0 in order to coordinate with his Russian oligarchs, and so on.
We will eventually find out about all of this stuff, because historians are inexorable. But this catch-and-kill operation with Pecker's National Enquirer is a big deal and not OK, whether he was hiding Stormy or Karen McDougal or merely smearing Hillary. That is not how campaigns are permitted to operate, and no this is not simple trying to win or concealing negatives, as occurs in all campaigns. This stuff is cheating, otherwise known as campaign fraud and election interference.
Trump's speech today showed that he has no remorse for his crimes.
ReplyDeleteDigby explores the idea that Trump chose to run for president again because of his legal problems, to be able to blame those trials on political persecution instead of his own wrongdoing. Many of the prosecutions began after (or as a result of) his last term in office. It is hard to claim they were motivated by partisanship when he wasn't running for office at the time those trials began. On the other hand, running for office offers Trump an excuse to claim that the trials are baseless and political persecution, meritless.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of president could someone be if their only reason for running for the presidency is to avoid going to jail for actual crimes?
https://digbysblog.net/2024/05/31/a-legal-genius-he-is-not/
" Many of the prosecutions began after (or as a result of) his last term in office." They all began in 2023.
Delete"It is hard to claim they were motivated by partisanship when he wasn't running for office at the time those trials began"
DeleteNot sure what you mean by trials but Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election in November 2022.
Afterwards, all four of the prosecutions against him were started. (after they couldn't figure out how to prosecute him for something Jan 6th related.)
Digby is complete moron.
Not the investigations.
DeleteThese are for acts in 2016-2020 not 2023.
DeleteThe impeachments were while he was president, no delay.
DeleteWhy is it hard to claim they were motivated by partisanship??
DeleteYou don't see how utterly stupid this premise is?
DeleteThey've been investigating him from day one. But he decided to run for president in late 2022 because ... because they were investigating him? Man - Digby feeds you shit.
DeleteIt's wild man. The shit they feed you.
DeleteIt's not utterly stupid, but it does give Trump credit for having a lot of method to his malignant narcissism. Bob reacts indignantly to the notion that MAGA people are a cult of mean, stupid people. But that's what they are, and what we have to hope we can get around.
Deleteread the essay, or not, but don’t argue against what isn’t there
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/us/politics/merrick-garland-biden-trump.html
DeleteThis was the article that came from a Biden leak tot he NYT that served as an indirect message to Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump for something related to January 6th.
Garland couldn't find anything so that's when they moved on to the 4 obviously political prosecutions from 2023.
Trump’s crimes are not hard to find and they are plentiful. This conviction is one of many to come.
DeleteJoyce Vance says:
Delete“ Hunter Biden, the President’s son, goes on trial Monday. Keep that in mind as Donald Trump claims the system has been politicized against him.”
It's unfair that Trump wasn't choked out by a cop for over ten minutes. I hope his lawyers appeal that.
DeleteAnd the point of this post is?
ReplyDeleteThe dangers of consuming news from biased sources and the lack of agreement on facts and frameworks. It's a criticism of tribalism and lack of critical discussion in cable news.
DeleteThe point of this post, which is unintended, is to show that a person who can be so confused about a simple court proceeding has absolutely no business trying to understand Einstein.
DeleteThe news industry is biased in favor of corporate tax breaks.
DeleteI don’t think Somerby is confused about the court case. He has deliberately misrepresented it.
DeleteAnd the point of these comments is?
ReplyDeleteTrolls are compulsively confused about the points of the posts or deliberately misrepresented them.
DeleteAnd the point of trolling is?
ReplyDeleteLoneliness.
DeleteYou said that before and it has never left me. It’s made me try to be a tad kinder.
Delete👍🏽 Piper
Delete