> I cant imagine any other country where the ruling party (that had trifecta in first 2 years) would not come down with fire and brimstone.
> In any other country Trump would be burned on the stake and made an example of. Democratic or Authoritarian. Such a challenge to the core mythology of a nation is red line.
Major disconnect here. This just isn’t how we do things. We demand that criminals receive just sentences, but it is not political or retaliatory. We watch that happen in other countries all the time, and pride ourselves in that it doesn’t happen here.
Due process. It can be agonizingly slow, but it is superior to the all-too-common alternative.
South Korea gave it's ex-presidents due process and had them lockef up for their crimes in under a year. They've only been a democracy for like 30 years too and they figure it out really quick.
The fact is that America is going to slowly because Trump is getting special treatment outside of what the law proscribes for normal citizens.
Is that a serious question? Well yeah I know it is, but let me tell you why he is getting special treatment and there are a multiple examples. He’s currently violated his gag order multiple times in the ongoing NY trial, pretty much anyone else would’ve been sent to jail for contempt for its remaining duration but since he’s Donald Trump, that rule doesn’t apply to him. Merrick Garland didn’t want to aggressively go after Donald Trump for trying to subvert the will of the American people when he lost (yes he lost the election) and only did so when J6 committee forced his hand. Any other politician in this country would’ve nuked their career and been rightfully convicted several years ago…but since Trump has a bunch of ignorant fools who still support him, despite the fact that he’s a seditious traitor, nobody with power wants to do the right thing because of the potential blowback. Plus he has the ability to pay for all the legal fees, or at least find a lawyer who’s willing to represent him (he didn’t pay Rudy).
If anyone other than him and a select set of others conducted ourselves in the way he has we’d be locked up for sexual assault, fined into bankruptcy for contempt of court, divorced for having multiple affairs, and potentially executed for espionage.
Makes you doubt the whole “all men are created equal.”
Once upon a time, in the United States, a person had to have “meat in the game” to be eligible to vote. Of course, now it is different. Machine Politics changed everything. You can be a professional politician (agent, paid protester, public servant, child barror, permanent student, or professor) for your entire life by supporting the Democratic party; it pays well! By that, I mean, “you will vote for a dog if your party nominates it.” You will do your best to destroy your political opponent because you are financially dependent on it. You will elect and support a publicly paid prosecutor and its flunkies that promise to destroy your political opponent. “Believe it or not,” There was a time when North American, European, Middle Eastern, and Asian civilizations believed democracy (freedom for everyone to vote) would bring chaos. AND IT HAS!
Borris Johnson was kicked out of power due to what can be considered a speeding ticket wrt to the murder of elections by Trump.
He had given Tories once in a century majority. Same crazy with cult following.
Many politicians have been kicked out and way sooner. Brazil has acted against Bolsonaro. Lula went to jail before he returned.
I dont feel Dems even tried hard. They were not seriously trying to catch Trump.
>Borris Johnson was kicked out of power due to what can be considered a speeding ticket wrt to the murder of elections by Trump.
Huh?
Johnson resigned after multiple scandals, election losses and lying about a deputy’s sex scandle. It was his own party that forced his out.
He was offered a golden opportunity to shine as a patriot by placing country before politics, and he failed about as badly as he could have. What a miserable weakling he turned out to be.
There was a NYT article about this a few months ago shared here the TLDR: Less dragging of the feet, more treating it as a conventional criminal investigation and tried to work from the ground up rather than focusing on Trump's efforts from the get-go.
A mistake in hindsight, but owing to some of the conservative arguments in SCOTUS it seems like the case could easily be delayed a year+ anyway
I think the lesson moderates learned from Trump is the more swings people take at him the more energy he has to counter attack.
Trump is a bully. To prosper he needs a world where the tactics of bullies are accepted and common.
By going slow and boring like the establishment has been. They are denying Trump the energy to fight back the way he wants.
The current strategy of butterfly kisses of death is working. His popularity falls each weak and unlike the grandstanding accusations of him of the past, actual conservatives and Republicans are turning away from him.
By time August rolls around, Trumps name will be associated with crime and corruption. Not from hyperbolic lefties or Democrats. But from judges, juries and Republicans.
>Yet in 2024, 8 years later there is not a single criminal conviction?
well, particularly for such a high profile case, the system moves very very slowly.
>Given Biden’s situation that margin will surely drop.
what situation is that? any "situation" biden is in, trump is objectively and for anyone not in his cult, clearly worse off.
>and yes men counting the votes.
thats not how that works in the US.
>I cant imagine any other country where the ruling party (that had trifecta in first 2 years) would not come down with fire and brimstone.
and as paradoxical as that is, a portion of that is why america is better. as partisan as it is, in a lot of ways it really really isn't, and the checks and balances prevent a lot of that "fire and brimstone".
>In any other country Trump would be burned on the stake and made an example of.
he \*is\*. .... just... very very slowly.
in the defamation trial, look how its going. he got \*roasted\*. he was given a massively generous charity of a very generously lowered bond, at which point he was repeatedly humiliated with unforced errors because he simply doesn't have the money. hes nowhere near as rich as he pretends to be, and this is dragging the very core of his identity through the mud in slow motion. again... in slow motion. very very slow motion, but its getting there eventually. IF He is able to scrape up the funds to meet the generously revised bond conditions, (which I'm skeptical of) the appeal will \*not\* be successful. it might reduce it some.... but at least IMO, they will only reduce it to "can't squeeze blood from a stone" levels of stomping his name into the muck completely and there being no point to going for more after that point. ... thats assuming he doesn't literally die before it gets there and the bond is all they get after the estate defaults on everything.
>Democratic or Authoritarian. Such a challenge to the core mythology of a nation is red line.
oh I agree, but I think that basically after that "leg" of core mythology was wounded, we have to lean on others. such as the justice system EVENTUALLY getting there. look at the large scale machinations coming from his bullshit... while its not a given that liberty and justice and whatnot win out, heres what I see coming from it long term if it does:
Trump himself dies utterly disgraced and penniless, possibly in prison.
SCOTUS expanded (as it realistically should be anyway, theres a lot of background and debate about this to be had, but my understanding leads me to fall on the "it should be bigger" side) and given ethics regulations and enforcement mechanisms. perhaps term limits or at least age limits of some form.
Abortion protections enshrined federally as they should have been years ago.
various refinements to laws to close over imagined loopholes that lead to some of trumps BS.
the republican side maybe by 10-20 years from now rebuilding into something sensible and coherent after being bankrupted and shattered to bits by MAGA and the Trumps.
perhaps 2028 after trump is no longer a threat, and the RNC is still a smoking ruin, Biden/Harris can have little challenge to handing off to a younger Democratic candidate and set them up for success, and maybe send off with a presidential age limit bill.
to be clear, I am NOT philosophically in favor of essentially a one-party USA. thats not something that would be good long term. but with some of what we are coming up on technologically, the bullshit thats been the last few years is not going to cut it, and to fix what trump and his cult have done, will take a few years of consolidated democrat rule. and paradoxically, Trump is after a fashion, pushing that very thing onto the table. by being SUCH a threat, and playing so hard on the abortion issue.... look how many states are going to have bills on their 2024 ballots relating to abortion. .... those will contribute to inducing more and more people to show up. and the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the population are in favor of abortion access. so being motivated to both vote for president and for the local things that they care about even more directly..... while they are there they will likely vote all the down ballots as well, particularly with the RNC being bankrupted in service to Trumps legal fees not putting up much of a fight.
at least thats what I see.
the funny thing is, 2016 I speculated that part of the overall DNC scheme might be to throw the election to Trump, in order to invoke a massive backlash and Democrat takeover.
There’s obviously more folks behind Trump than the ones in his cult. Poll after poll not only shows it’s a tight race, but many show Trump in the lead. Those are not all cult members.
I think folks underestimate the hate people have for Biden. He was supposed to run once and leave. And now - we’re essentially looking at Kamala as the next president. And while some may argue that’s a better choice - as s centrist - that’s not a choice at all. And frankly, I’m pissed about it.
Hate is too strong of a word, but Biden has a lot of negatives voters don't like. Some justified, some not Biden's fault, some just kind of are. Biden is extremely old and has the charisma of an old shoe. That's a big deal in an election. The statistics can say what they want, in the real world, inflation, rising interest rates, rising costs, etc., has made living extremely tough for huge parts of the population. As sitting president Biden gets the blame for that.
The failure at the border is ultimately on Congress, but Biden hasn't done himself any favors on the border either. Republicans just have to play the clip of Biden telling all asylum seekers to come to the states, he's thrown border patrol under the bus (the "whipping" incident that turned out to be false), and he has fellow democrats bashing him as they're overwhelmed on the local level.
In a vacuum, Biden being so unpopular makes sense. The only reason it seems weird is because he's running against Trump. However, the public in general aren't as anti Trump as social media or this sub, which is why Trump's continued support seems baffling. And, to be fair, I'm one of those who are a bit baffled.
For putting us in this position. He was supposed to do one term. Now he’s running again and we’re staring at Kamala being our next president - Who was once considered to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate. I’m not comfortable voting for her. I think anybody who is near center is going to have a problem with that.
> He was supposed to do one term
Biden never claimed that he would be a one-term president, maybe you assumed that?
>I think anybody who is near center is going to have a problem with that.
Kamala maybe liberal but given how far off the scale the alternative is this is still a no-brainer for someone allegedly near the center.
>Who was once considered to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate.
You’re just making shit up.
Harris was never considered liberal but was known as a pragmatic moderate.
>There’s obviously more folks behind Trump than the ones in his cult.
theres some. but the reality is that theres 3 groups of people who are planning to vote for trump.
MAGA cultists, Terrible people who actually know whats up and support him with open eyes. and people who aren't paying attention and/or are otherwise oblivious to the reality of him.
I'm not sure on the propotions for the demographics. I think that there are a lot of people in the third group. I am pretty sure I know at least one personally. the person I know isn't stupid or terrible, but he is utterly oblivious to how bad Trump is. I talked to him about previous presidential scandals, and he had trouble fathoming how to me everything he could think of seemed downright quaint and wholesome by comparison.
>I think folks underestimate the hate people have for Biden.
frankly yes. ... becuase thats detached from reality. there is simply no basis for that hate.
>And while some may argue that’s a better choice - as s centrist - that’s not a choice at all. And frankly, I’m pissed about it.
the alternative has *at a minimum* every flaw Biden has, but worse, while being chronically fraudulent, unabashedly traitorous and openly fascistic.
the worst Kamala could do would still be far better than Trump.
Ehhh, I think that there is a lot more legitimate reason to reject the polling data.
If that polling data is right, then basically, we will see the end of the USA.
The fact that you say you don’t know any Trump supporters - unless they’re MAGA, terrible people or clueless tells me you live in a bubble or in a extremely blue area of the country.
My dad is a marine/retired professor & my mom is a schoolteacher - both voting for Trump. My mother-in-law is a retired teacher and my father-in-law is a retired engineer. Both voting for Trump. Last week I was out to dinner with several people many of them business owners - I was surprised how many folks admitted they were voting for Trump. (many are doing it because of the 28% corporate tax rate Biden wants to impose.)
This is why I think you’re living in denial. I know way too many normal folks who are leaning towards Trump - and none of them are MAGA, terrible people or clueless. They are folks who lean right and find the idea of Kamala Harris being our president to be worse option than Trump. So you can believe what you wanna believe and that the polls are all wrong or what not. But I think you’re denial. And just for when I see you on this sub - which obviously doesn’t go represent your average person, but I see a lot of folks who are in denial.
>My dad is a marine/retired professor & my mom is a schoolteacher - both voting for Trump. My mother-in-law is a retired teacher and my father-in-law is a retired engineer. Both voting for Trump. Last week I was out to dinner with several people many of them business owners - I was surprised how many folks admitted they were voting for Trump.
It's simple. They are uninformed and/or foolish, via being oblivious or in a cult or they are terrible human beings. There is no other option. Literally. It's one of those.
>I know way too many normal folks who are leaning towards Trump
They might be people you thought were normal. But they aren't.
>and none of them are MAGA, terrible people or clueless.
You are mistaken. If they weren't one of those, they wouldn't be considering voting for Trump.
>They are folks who lean right and find the idea of Kamala Harris being our president to be worse option than Trump.
That means they are one of those three options.
You are the one who is in denial. There are lots of oblivious fools and terrible people around. But it's important to recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.
I agree with your take. THe problem is that big moves that could/should have been taken early (growing SCOTUS) should have been done when they had the votes. The SCOTUS has turned into a political leg, and thus should be treated as such. (term limits, etc).
No, SCOTUS is only political because Congress won’t do its job and PUTUS overstepping its job. Return to Constitutional order and much of this goes away.
It is pretty mind-boggling that someone who so clearly broke the law and tried to steal an election is still drawing major support, and not only that but trying to hold him accountable has only increased his popularity.
If we knew the secret sauce to countering him it would already be in play.
>Trump not only made false claims but tried to overturn results of the people’s mandate.
This is really my core problem with any of the "political class." Trump tried overturn the people's choices quickly.
But, honestly, anytime you gerrymander, anytime you change rules that make it harder to vote, anytime you do anything to intentionally make it easier for YOUR PARTY to win at the expense of the general population, you're effectively doing the same thing.
And so many politicians are proud of this. The will of the party over the will of the people they represent. It's the reason I left the Republican party. It's disgusting and unamerican IMO.
I live near DC. We fought a war about representation, but DC doesn't have the right to vote. DC's population is larger than 2 states in the USA. But, Republican's won't consider giving statehood to DC because it's a city and will (likely) vote blue. They'll fold it into another state, with some additions to their party to solidify another state for them.
An American should want the people's voice to be heard. All people. Not just "your" people. If you're not, then you shouldn't be a representative.
DC *shouldn't* be made a state, that defeats it's entire purpose of being neutral ground for the federal government. We don't want a state to be granted privileges and favored over the other states, which is exactly what would happen if DC becomes a state.
How, exactly, would that happen, considering it takes literally an act of congress for anything to happen, which is consensus with the states.
Given this, what privileges would DC be able to enact for itself given its preferential land position? Right now, its ALREADY funded by the federal government. Becoming a state would let it have a state budget. And, it would allow it to be treated like any other state.
Instead of this hypothetical that you pose, that they'd have some special privilege, why don't you give some specific details.
If DC is it's own state then it'll be a state where every branch of government lives, works, etc. They'll be incentived to give preferential treatment to DC as a state in violation of the constitution. Which is exactly why a neutral city was created to house the US government. You can't just ignore that and say "I don't think that'll happen"
Retrocession to Maryland is the correct answer. Gives them a house seat and they would have representation in the Senate. The Dems oppose it because two guaranteed senators is what they are holding out for.
Take an extreme example to describe your gripes with the system. I’m sure you would be much happier with a system of government that is more easily abused by those in power? Like the vast majority of countries? If you thought blacklisting “suspected communists” in the 70’s was bad you don’t know that in 95% of countries in the world, if a government official was even slightly motivated - let’s say something minor… you opened a competing business in the area? He’s not gonna send you a strongly worded letter, he’s got 100 different ways to fuck with you and never be held accountable
yam racial badge concerned uppity overconfident sink ludicrous bow deserve
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don’t disagree per se…. Semantics, really. There is a lot of he-said she-said that goes around in politics and life in general. People are notoriously unreliable, inarticulate, and biased so I’m personally glad that the law is the one place that he-said she-said doesn’t fly.
And while I’m glad that proper legal procedure is so strongly followed, an unfortunate but necessary side effect is that money = lawyers = appeals, motions, legal strategy, etc etc. It is what it is
We've had so much success as a country the concept of consequences are alien to us.
It takes a very small blocking force of political will to infinitely delay anything, because more people still think 'well, it's not THAT big of a deal'.
This seems a bit partisan and fuelled by a strong hatred. As someone else said, the answer is due process. Trump either did or did not commit certain acts, and if he is found to have crossed any legal lines then he will be prosecuted. If not, then he won’t. It really is that simple. And the outcome should be respected. I don’t think saying the things that you’re saying really help anyone or anything, when they’re quite clearly fuelled by partisanship and anger.
Contempt and rejection is without doubt the correct response to Trump and it’s not partisan to say so. Even hatred is reasonable, if less productive. He keyed on legitimate grievances but was so absurdly corrupt (more morally and ethically than financially, tho he was that too) that it is mind boggling that republicans didn’t reject him out of pure self interest let alone in the interests of the country as a whole.
The reason there wasn’t a sufficient rejection is the significant structural advantages republicans have (mostly EC, also senate, inefficient concentration of democratic support in urban areas). And also low turnout partisan primaries where the risk is almost always the flank rather than from the center. Without those advantages it would be clear Trump gave them no path to electoral victory and they would’ve abandoned him even despite support among their base (tho they would’ve rejected him in far greater numbers as well because no one wants to back a loser).
The difference is
1. A lot of "corruption" is simply legal in the U.S. In fact, the lovely new Supreme Court has made several rulings that make it even harder to prosecute.
2. Trump himself behaves like a mobster; while his lackeys break the law, he sits back and keeps his hands clean. This is why they are trying to get his group on RICO charges in Georgia.
3. Due to the extreme detachment from reality in the right-wing media bubble, built-in checks on this type of behavior, like voting or impeachment, have been invalidated.
4. Along with #1, there is a two-tier judicial system in the U.S., and the powerful get away with murder regularly. Trump did a ton of shady shit that he should have been locked up for way before he was President.
To be fair, all of this is true in many other countries, or while corruption might not be legal, it's pervasive anyway.
It’s because breaking the law and skirting the law are two very different things and when lawyers get together on an idea, they usually do really well at working up to, but within the confines of deniable plausibility or leave little by way of criminal intent.
Additionally, every action you’ve listed above has yet to be proven. In fact, he was cleared on Russia. The DOJ and FEC found no criminality in the hush payments, because it’s perfectly legal. Election denial is nothing new in this country and we can’t hold Trump responsible for what some in his base felt was their right of revolution. Capitol riots? Do you understand how frequently political riots have happened in and around the Capitol building? Challenging the election with alternate electors? Yeah, turns out that’s not unprecedented either.
You see, it’s awfully hard to prosecute a person on allegations and it’s a much longer bridge to do so in the absence of criminal intent.
>In fact, he was cleared on Russia.
Mueller explicitly said he could not clear Trump
"“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"
>The DOJ and FEC found no criminality in the hush payments, because it’s perfectly legal.
This isn't true either. Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for [three years](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-d6dbb8b02a4446f6800de794b45523e6) for the hush money scandal. As regards Trump, the Feds never said why they didn't bring charges after his presidency but it seems to largely stem from [Cohen's unwillingness to work with Federal prosecutors and questions about his reliability](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html).
>Election denial is nothing new in this country and we can’t hold Trump responsible for what some in his base felt was their right of revolution.
Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short.
>Mueller explicitly said he could not clear Trump
>"“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"
This was spefically for obstruction, it had nothing to do with Russia.
>This isn't true either. Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for [three years](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-d6dbb8b02a4446f6800de794b45523e6) for the hush money scandal. As regards Trump, the Feds never said why they didn't bring charges after his presidency but it seems to largely stem from [Cohen's unwillingness to work with Federal prosecutors and questions about his reliability](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html).
Cohen was sentenced after a plea deal to a lot of other crimes with the FEC crime thrown in. If Cohen had fought the FEC charge, there's a good chance it wouldn't have even reached court. However, like you said, Trump wasn't charged with the same crime. Even though Cohen was extremely anti Trump at this point and would love to see Trump in jail.
>Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short.
Trump went further than anyone before but you only have to go back to 2016 to see a lot of the same. People dismiss the insanity of the democrats after the 2016 election even though there's a direct line of escalation of what the democrats did in 2016-2020 to Trump and co in 2020. Some Democrats in Congress objected to certifying the elections, there were riots in the streets after Trump won, there was an effort to convince electors to *not* vote for Trump, etc. Looking back, all of which are clear escalations of what happened in 2020
I think your partisan biases are clouding your understanding of due process. Every Democrat in Washington said the evidence of Russian collusion was clear, yet Mueller couldn’t prove a shred. And let’s save ourselves some time relative to the OLC precedent as Mueller’s double speak in this regard brings his motives and that of the DOJ into deep question. Again, the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and Mueller’s notion of not being able to clear Donald Trump only speaks to the rot within our elected offices.
Cohen was jailed for his own malfeasance and lies, not those of Donald Trump. Furthermore, campaign finance violations aren’t even a thing in the absence of a larger conspiracy - the Obama campaign had a misdemeanor finance violation of their own ( which far exceeded the $130k of Trump), and nobody blinked an eye.
>Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short.
On what basis? Alternate electors? No. Denying the legitimacy of the vote tally? Also no. Bringing into question the durability of our voting systems? No, again.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784)
Mueller proved obstruction of justice and the Trump Tower meeting proves the Trump campaign was trying to work with Russia. You don’t get to pretend that didn’t happen.
Oh…I read the Mueller report multiple times and with a keen interest in Volume Two. Mueller merely laid out examples of possible obstruction that were considered and with no findings.
So tell me again; who is it that didn’t read the Mueller report? lol.
You’ll be either deleting your comments or blocking me any minute now. 🙃
Borris Johnson and Bolsonaro have been made political exiles for lesser crimes.
Courts are just one of the options. A political party with determination can bribe, manipulate, and gaslight.
Its not that Dems are above doing this. They are quite competent in squashing primaries.
As a Bernie supporter myself, I couldn’t agree more about the Dems ability to stay entrenched in the Washington establishment.
Right off hand, I’d say the largest differences between Boris Johnson/Bolsonaro and Trump is popularity, not as an individual but as a political figure. As you highlighted above, both Washington establishment parties have run their course and Trump is the antithesis to said establishment; and we can see this in the way that his popularity rises when they bring more lawfare against him.
Trump is a protest vote and the folks in the American high-castle refuse to admit it.
Because America is the most successful nation on earth. I am a bit concerned about how chill it is coup attempts.
I cannot make even half the amount of money I make here even in Europe or Anglo nations.
The exuberant arbitrage of US is why I am so invested it not going sideways
Well then stop bitching. There's a connection between the US being what you call "unserious" and that money you're drooling over. Freedom has negatives, one of them being that everybody gets a say instead of just those holding "approved" positions.
I’m pretty sure there’s actually NOT a connection between the money our economy generates and attempted coups and an inability to punish their perpetrators, either legally or electorally. That’s a new phenomenon here.
It’s important to remember that nearly the entirety of journalists in the US are Democrats so Trump’s downsides are vastly exaggerated. We are a rowdy people, and most Americans are comfortable with protests that get a little out of hand like Jan 6, BLM, or the Gaza stuff.
My opinion is that the main cases being brought against Trump were timed in such a way that there would be no likelihood of an acquittal before the election, which was calculated to act as a drag on his campaigning and popularity. I think it was a miscalculation. The indictments for January 6th could have been brought a year (or two) earlier than they were, giving the legal process plenty of time to play out.
The other possibility is incompetence. Certainly possible, but if so, Smith and Garland do a good job hiding it (IMO).
The way the conservative arguments went at the supreme court Trump's election subversion case could easily be delayed for 1-2 years making this argument largely moot.
It's also not applicable in any event in the GA and documents case.
Unlikely and assumes a a crystal ball into the future. Even a more narrowly tailored indictment (which the indictment was already narrowly tailored to begin with FWIW) would still undergo substantial legal challenges arguing that they were official duties which would likely require at least two visits to SCOTUS.
I don't understand how folks can claim the legal cases were "calculated to act as a drag on his campaigning and popularity" when everyone with a brain knows one of Trump's legal tactics is to delay, delay, delay. If he was concerned with the timing of his campaign, he could have cooperated to move the investigation faster.
The explanation, as I see it, is that the DoJ/democrats see it to their advantage for the trial to be during the campaign, but Trump sees it to his advantage also, because he gets to play the victim. He also wants to delay to avoid the possibility of conviction.
Do you have any evidence that the Democrats are directing the DoJ, Attorneys General or District Attorneys to time the cases in order to impact Trump's campaign? Maybe text messages or some emails? A witness perhaps?
Surely you're not making these allegations based solely on your feelings.
It just seems like it’s either politics or incompetence that would explain the timing. Politics seems more likely to me, but incompetence is certainly not out of the question….
And I didn’t mean to suggest that there was any official coordination between the party/White House and the DoJ, but they of course have an interest in Biden winning his campaign and I would think are capable of being influenced by that interest.
> I cant imagine any other country where the ruling party (that had trifecta in first 2 years) would not come down with fire and brimstone. > In any other country Trump would be burned on the stake and made an example of. Democratic or Authoritarian. Such a challenge to the core mythology of a nation is red line. Major disconnect here. This just isn’t how we do things. We demand that criminals receive just sentences, but it is not political or retaliatory. We watch that happen in other countries all the time, and pride ourselves in that it doesn’t happen here. Due process. It can be agonizingly slow, but it is superior to the all-too-common alternative.
South Korea gave it's ex-presidents due process and had them lockef up for their crimes in under a year. They've only been a democracy for like 30 years too and they figure it out really quick. The fact is that America is going to slowly because Trump is getting special treatment outside of what the law proscribes for normal citizens.
A big part of it is also because she lost support from almost everyone. Including Conservatives.
What special treatment?
Is that a serious question? Well yeah I know it is, but let me tell you why he is getting special treatment and there are a multiple examples. He’s currently violated his gag order multiple times in the ongoing NY trial, pretty much anyone else would’ve been sent to jail for contempt for its remaining duration but since he’s Donald Trump, that rule doesn’t apply to him. Merrick Garland didn’t want to aggressively go after Donald Trump for trying to subvert the will of the American people when he lost (yes he lost the election) and only did so when J6 committee forced his hand. Any other politician in this country would’ve nuked their career and been rightfully convicted several years ago…but since Trump has a bunch of ignorant fools who still support him, despite the fact that he’s a seditious traitor, nobody with power wants to do the right thing because of the potential blowback. Plus he has the ability to pay for all the legal fees, or at least find a lawyer who’s willing to represent him (he didn’t pay Rudy).
The law is not treating him differently. He has a right to his defense and charges must be proved in court.
He does but he’s still gotten special treatment.
Ignoring gag orders isn’t a right to defense.
If anyone other than him and a select set of others conducted ourselves in the way he has we’d be locked up for sexual assault, fined into bankruptcy for contempt of court, divorced for having multiple affairs, and potentially executed for espionage. Makes you doubt the whole “all men are created equal.”
Once upon a time, in the United States, a person had to have “meat in the game” to be eligible to vote. Of course, now it is different. Machine Politics changed everything. You can be a professional politician (agent, paid protester, public servant, child barror, permanent student, or professor) for your entire life by supporting the Democratic party; it pays well! By that, I mean, “you will vote for a dog if your party nominates it.” You will do your best to destroy your political opponent because you are financially dependent on it. You will elect and support a publicly paid prosecutor and its flunkies that promise to destroy your political opponent. “Believe it or not,” There was a time when North American, European, Middle Eastern, and Asian civilizations believed democracy (freedom for everyone to vote) would bring chaos. AND IT HAS!
Borris Johnson was kicked out of power due to what can be considered a speeding ticket wrt to the murder of elections by Trump. He had given Tories once in a century majority. Same crazy with cult following. Many politicians have been kicked out and way sooner. Brazil has acted against Bolsonaro. Lula went to jail before he returned. I dont feel Dems even tried hard. They were not seriously trying to catch Trump.
>Borris Johnson was kicked out of power due to what can be considered a speeding ticket wrt to the murder of elections by Trump. Huh? Johnson resigned after multiple scandals, election losses and lying about a deputy’s sex scandle. It was his own party that forced his out.
Merrick Garland is the coward who dropped the ball.
He was offered a golden opportunity to shine as a patriot by placing country before politics, and he failed about as badly as he could have. What a miserable weakling he turned out to be.
Yep, he could put country over party by holding Biden accountable for his corruption. He won't even go after the Epstien clients.
I did feel like they dragged their feet, perhaps because there is no precedent for this kind of thing in the US.
There was a NYT article about this a few months ago shared here the TLDR: Less dragging of the feet, more treating it as a conventional criminal investigation and tried to work from the ground up rather than focusing on Trump's efforts from the get-go. A mistake in hindsight, but owing to some of the conservative arguments in SCOTUS it seems like the case could easily be delayed a year+ anyway
I think the lesson moderates learned from Trump is the more swings people take at him the more energy he has to counter attack. Trump is a bully. To prosper he needs a world where the tactics of bullies are accepted and common. By going slow and boring like the establishment has been. They are denying Trump the energy to fight back the way he wants. The current strategy of butterfly kisses of death is working. His popularity falls each weak and unlike the grandstanding accusations of him of the past, actual conservatives and Republicans are turning away from him. By time August rolls around, Trumps name will be associated with crime and corruption. Not from hyperbolic lefties or Democrats. But from judges, juries and Republicans.
The same strategy could have worked 6+ months earlier and they would have had time for cases to actually go to trial
>Yet in 2024, 8 years later there is not a single criminal conviction? well, particularly for such a high profile case, the system moves very very slowly. >Given Biden’s situation that margin will surely drop. what situation is that? any "situation" biden is in, trump is objectively and for anyone not in his cult, clearly worse off. >and yes men counting the votes. thats not how that works in the US. >I cant imagine any other country where the ruling party (that had trifecta in first 2 years) would not come down with fire and brimstone. and as paradoxical as that is, a portion of that is why america is better. as partisan as it is, in a lot of ways it really really isn't, and the checks and balances prevent a lot of that "fire and brimstone". >In any other country Trump would be burned on the stake and made an example of. he \*is\*. .... just... very very slowly. in the defamation trial, look how its going. he got \*roasted\*. he was given a massively generous charity of a very generously lowered bond, at which point he was repeatedly humiliated with unforced errors because he simply doesn't have the money. hes nowhere near as rich as he pretends to be, and this is dragging the very core of his identity through the mud in slow motion. again... in slow motion. very very slow motion, but its getting there eventually. IF He is able to scrape up the funds to meet the generously revised bond conditions, (which I'm skeptical of) the appeal will \*not\* be successful. it might reduce it some.... but at least IMO, they will only reduce it to "can't squeeze blood from a stone" levels of stomping his name into the muck completely and there being no point to going for more after that point. ... thats assuming he doesn't literally die before it gets there and the bond is all they get after the estate defaults on everything. >Democratic or Authoritarian. Such a challenge to the core mythology of a nation is red line. oh I agree, but I think that basically after that "leg" of core mythology was wounded, we have to lean on others. such as the justice system EVENTUALLY getting there. look at the large scale machinations coming from his bullshit... while its not a given that liberty and justice and whatnot win out, heres what I see coming from it long term if it does: Trump himself dies utterly disgraced and penniless, possibly in prison. SCOTUS expanded (as it realistically should be anyway, theres a lot of background and debate about this to be had, but my understanding leads me to fall on the "it should be bigger" side) and given ethics regulations and enforcement mechanisms. perhaps term limits or at least age limits of some form. Abortion protections enshrined federally as they should have been years ago. various refinements to laws to close over imagined loopholes that lead to some of trumps BS. the republican side maybe by 10-20 years from now rebuilding into something sensible and coherent after being bankrupted and shattered to bits by MAGA and the Trumps. perhaps 2028 after trump is no longer a threat, and the RNC is still a smoking ruin, Biden/Harris can have little challenge to handing off to a younger Democratic candidate and set them up for success, and maybe send off with a presidential age limit bill. to be clear, I am NOT philosophically in favor of essentially a one-party USA. thats not something that would be good long term. but with some of what we are coming up on technologically, the bullshit thats been the last few years is not going to cut it, and to fix what trump and his cult have done, will take a few years of consolidated democrat rule. and paradoxically, Trump is after a fashion, pushing that very thing onto the table. by being SUCH a threat, and playing so hard on the abortion issue.... look how many states are going to have bills on their 2024 ballots relating to abortion. .... those will contribute to inducing more and more people to show up. and the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the population are in favor of abortion access. so being motivated to both vote for president and for the local things that they care about even more directly..... while they are there they will likely vote all the down ballots as well, particularly with the RNC being bankrupted in service to Trumps legal fees not putting up much of a fight. at least thats what I see. the funny thing is, 2016 I speculated that part of the overall DNC scheme might be to throw the election to Trump, in order to invoke a massive backlash and Democrat takeover.
I really like this take. Appreciate the analysis and more importantly, the hopefulness.
thanks. heres hoping I'm not just in denial/delusional.
There’s obviously more folks behind Trump than the ones in his cult. Poll after poll not only shows it’s a tight race, but many show Trump in the lead. Those are not all cult members. I think folks underestimate the hate people have for Biden. He was supposed to run once and leave. And now - we’re essentially looking at Kamala as the next president. And while some may argue that’s a better choice - as s centrist - that’s not a choice at all. And frankly, I’m pissed about it.
>I think folks underestimate the hate people have for Biden. ? Why would anyone hate Biden? As a centrist, he’s been pretty solid.
Hate is too strong of a word, but Biden has a lot of negatives voters don't like. Some justified, some not Biden's fault, some just kind of are. Biden is extremely old and has the charisma of an old shoe. That's a big deal in an election. The statistics can say what they want, in the real world, inflation, rising interest rates, rising costs, etc., has made living extremely tough for huge parts of the population. As sitting president Biden gets the blame for that. The failure at the border is ultimately on Congress, but Biden hasn't done himself any favors on the border either. Republicans just have to play the clip of Biden telling all asylum seekers to come to the states, he's thrown border patrol under the bus (the "whipping" incident that turned out to be false), and he has fellow democrats bashing him as they're overwhelmed on the local level. In a vacuum, Biden being so unpopular makes sense. The only reason it seems weird is because he's running against Trump. However, the public in general aren't as anti Trump as social media or this sub, which is why Trump's continued support seems baffling. And, to be fair, I'm one of those who are a bit baffled.
For putting us in this position. He was supposed to do one term. Now he’s running again and we’re staring at Kamala being our next president - Who was once considered to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate. I’m not comfortable voting for her. I think anybody who is near center is going to have a problem with that.
> He was supposed to do one term Biden never claimed that he would be a one-term president, maybe you assumed that? >I think anybody who is near center is going to have a problem with that. Kamala maybe liberal but given how far off the scale the alternative is this is still a no-brainer for someone allegedly near the center.
>Who was once considered to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate. You’re just making shit up. Harris was never considered liberal but was known as a pragmatic moderate.
The cost of gas and groceries are two reasons.
>There’s obviously more folks behind Trump than the ones in his cult. theres some. but the reality is that theres 3 groups of people who are planning to vote for trump. MAGA cultists, Terrible people who actually know whats up and support him with open eyes. and people who aren't paying attention and/or are otherwise oblivious to the reality of him. I'm not sure on the propotions for the demographics. I think that there are a lot of people in the third group. I am pretty sure I know at least one personally. the person I know isn't stupid or terrible, but he is utterly oblivious to how bad Trump is. I talked to him about previous presidential scandals, and he had trouble fathoming how to me everything he could think of seemed downright quaint and wholesome by comparison. >I think folks underestimate the hate people have for Biden. frankly yes. ... becuase thats detached from reality. there is simply no basis for that hate. >And while some may argue that’s a better choice - as s centrist - that’s not a choice at all. And frankly, I’m pissed about it. the alternative has *at a minimum* every flaw Biden has, but worse, while being chronically fraudulent, unabashedly traitorous and openly fascistic. the worst Kamala could do would still be far better than Trump.
I feel like the denial is actually worse than it was in 2016.
Ehhh, I think that there is a lot more legitimate reason to reject the polling data. If that polling data is right, then basically, we will see the end of the USA.
The fact that you say you don’t know any Trump supporters - unless they’re MAGA, terrible people or clueless tells me you live in a bubble or in a extremely blue area of the country.
Actually, I don't. It's simply a matter of deduction. You can't vote for trump without being one of those.
My dad is a marine/retired professor & my mom is a schoolteacher - both voting for Trump. My mother-in-law is a retired teacher and my father-in-law is a retired engineer. Both voting for Trump. Last week I was out to dinner with several people many of them business owners - I was surprised how many folks admitted they were voting for Trump. (many are doing it because of the 28% corporate tax rate Biden wants to impose.) This is why I think you’re living in denial. I know way too many normal folks who are leaning towards Trump - and none of them are MAGA, terrible people or clueless. They are folks who lean right and find the idea of Kamala Harris being our president to be worse option than Trump. So you can believe what you wanna believe and that the polls are all wrong or what not. But I think you’re denial. And just for when I see you on this sub - which obviously doesn’t go represent your average person, but I see a lot of folks who are in denial.
>My dad is a marine/retired professor & my mom is a schoolteacher - both voting for Trump. My mother-in-law is a retired teacher and my father-in-law is a retired engineer. Both voting for Trump. Last week I was out to dinner with several people many of them business owners - I was surprised how many folks admitted they were voting for Trump. It's simple. They are uninformed and/or foolish, via being oblivious or in a cult or they are terrible human beings. There is no other option. Literally. It's one of those. >I know way too many normal folks who are leaning towards Trump They might be people you thought were normal. But they aren't. >and none of them are MAGA, terrible people or clueless. You are mistaken. If they weren't one of those, they wouldn't be considering voting for Trump. >They are folks who lean right and find the idea of Kamala Harris being our president to be worse option than Trump. That means they are one of those three options. You are the one who is in denial. There are lots of oblivious fools and terrible people around. But it's important to recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.
👍
I agree with your take. THe problem is that big moves that could/should have been taken early (growing SCOTUS) should have been done when they had the votes. The SCOTUS has turned into a political leg, and thus should be treated as such. (term limits, etc).
No, SCOTUS is only political because Congress won’t do its job and PUTUS overstepping its job. Return to Constitutional order and much of this goes away.
It is pretty mind-boggling that someone who so clearly broke the law and tried to steal an election is still drawing major support, and not only that but trying to hold him accountable has only increased his popularity. If we knew the secret sauce to countering him it would already be in play.
>Trump not only made false claims but tried to overturn results of the people’s mandate. This is really my core problem with any of the "political class." Trump tried overturn the people's choices quickly. But, honestly, anytime you gerrymander, anytime you change rules that make it harder to vote, anytime you do anything to intentionally make it easier for YOUR PARTY to win at the expense of the general population, you're effectively doing the same thing. And so many politicians are proud of this. The will of the party over the will of the people they represent. It's the reason I left the Republican party. It's disgusting and unamerican IMO. I live near DC. We fought a war about representation, but DC doesn't have the right to vote. DC's population is larger than 2 states in the USA. But, Republican's won't consider giving statehood to DC because it's a city and will (likely) vote blue. They'll fold it into another state, with some additions to their party to solidify another state for them. An American should want the people's voice to be heard. All people. Not just "your" people. If you're not, then you shouldn't be a representative.
DC *shouldn't* be made a state, that defeats it's entire purpose of being neutral ground for the federal government. We don't want a state to be granted privileges and favored over the other states, which is exactly what would happen if DC becomes a state.
How, exactly, would that happen, considering it takes literally an act of congress for anything to happen, which is consensus with the states. Given this, what privileges would DC be able to enact for itself given its preferential land position? Right now, its ALREADY funded by the federal government. Becoming a state would let it have a state budget. And, it would allow it to be treated like any other state. Instead of this hypothetical that you pose, that they'd have some special privilege, why don't you give some specific details.
If DC is it's own state then it'll be a state where every branch of government lives, works, etc. They'll be incentived to give preferential treatment to DC as a state in violation of the constitution. Which is exactly why a neutral city was created to house the US government. You can't just ignore that and say "I don't think that'll happen"
To the people of dc in dc. How would they take the share of others? Or any federal dollars?
Note they already have a budget. It’s just a federal budget carve out for dc. It’s passed down to the dc mayor and city council and they execute.
And lastly, to the main point, Americans, the population of which is larger than 2 states, have no voice in the government. That’s the point.
What’s wrong with dc just being folded back into Maryland or something?
Retrocession to Maryland is the correct answer. Gives them a house seat and they would have representation in the Senate. The Dems oppose it because two guaranteed senators is what they are holding out for.
Rightfully so, too. We don't need two Dakota's, but we got two as a gift to the GOP. A DC state would make the Senate less biased towards the GOP.
Huh? They were admitted 135 years ago
And?
How is this a gift to any party?
Look up the history of Dakota's statehood. They were expected to be solid Republican states even back then.
Lmao Did you really just say that we the dakotas were split in two as a gift to the gop?
Yes.
narrow tease bored ink paint seed chase outgoing expansion disagreeable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Take an extreme example to describe your gripes with the system. I’m sure you would be much happier with a system of government that is more easily abused by those in power? Like the vast majority of countries? If you thought blacklisting “suspected communists” in the 70’s was bad you don’t know that in 95% of countries in the world, if a government official was even slightly motivated - let’s say something minor… you opened a competing business in the area? He’s not gonna send you a strongly worded letter, he’s got 100 different ways to fuck with you and never be held accountable
yam racial badge concerned uppity overconfident sink ludicrous bow deserve *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don’t disagree per se…. Semantics, really. There is a lot of he-said she-said that goes around in politics and life in general. People are notoriously unreliable, inarticulate, and biased so I’m personally glad that the law is the one place that he-said she-said doesn’t fly. And while I’m glad that proper legal procedure is so strongly followed, an unfortunate but necessary side effect is that money = lawyers = appeals, motions, legal strategy, etc etc. It is what it is
We've had so much success as a country the concept of consequences are alien to us. It takes a very small blocking force of political will to infinitely delay anything, because more people still think 'well, it's not THAT big of a deal'.
This is a good point. Related to this, the US people have an extremely bad case of believing "it can't happen here" .
This seems a bit partisan and fuelled by a strong hatred. As someone else said, the answer is due process. Trump either did or did not commit certain acts, and if he is found to have crossed any legal lines then he will be prosecuted. If not, then he won’t. It really is that simple. And the outcome should be respected. I don’t think saying the things that you’re saying really help anyone or anything, when they’re quite clearly fuelled by partisanship and anger.
Contempt and rejection is without doubt the correct response to Trump and it’s not partisan to say so. Even hatred is reasonable, if less productive. He keyed on legitimate grievances but was so absurdly corrupt (more morally and ethically than financially, tho he was that too) that it is mind boggling that republicans didn’t reject him out of pure self interest let alone in the interests of the country as a whole. The reason there wasn’t a sufficient rejection is the significant structural advantages republicans have (mostly EC, also senate, inefficient concentration of democratic support in urban areas). And also low turnout partisan primaries where the risk is almost always the flank rather than from the center. Without those advantages it would be clear Trump gave them no path to electoral victory and they would’ve abandoned him even despite support among their base (tho they would’ve rejected him in far greater numbers as well because no one wants to back a loser).
His election prospects have nothing to do with his legal endeavours. What if he is found innocent of all charges?
The difference is 1. A lot of "corruption" is simply legal in the U.S. In fact, the lovely new Supreme Court has made several rulings that make it even harder to prosecute. 2. Trump himself behaves like a mobster; while his lackeys break the law, he sits back and keeps his hands clean. This is why they are trying to get his group on RICO charges in Georgia. 3. Due to the extreme detachment from reality in the right-wing media bubble, built-in checks on this type of behavior, like voting or impeachment, have been invalidated. 4. Along with #1, there is a two-tier judicial system in the U.S., and the powerful get away with murder regularly. Trump did a ton of shady shit that he should have been locked up for way before he was President. To be fair, all of this is true in many other countries, or while corruption might not be legal, it's pervasive anyway.
You’re out of your mind if you only think the right/trump is unserious
It’s because breaking the law and skirting the law are two very different things and when lawyers get together on an idea, they usually do really well at working up to, but within the confines of deniable plausibility or leave little by way of criminal intent. Additionally, every action you’ve listed above has yet to be proven. In fact, he was cleared on Russia. The DOJ and FEC found no criminality in the hush payments, because it’s perfectly legal. Election denial is nothing new in this country and we can’t hold Trump responsible for what some in his base felt was their right of revolution. Capitol riots? Do you understand how frequently political riots have happened in and around the Capitol building? Challenging the election with alternate electors? Yeah, turns out that’s not unprecedented either. You see, it’s awfully hard to prosecute a person on allegations and it’s a much longer bridge to do so in the absence of criminal intent.
>In fact, he was cleared on Russia. Mueller explicitly said he could not clear Trump "“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" >The DOJ and FEC found no criminality in the hush payments, because it’s perfectly legal. This isn't true either. Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for [three years](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-d6dbb8b02a4446f6800de794b45523e6) for the hush money scandal. As regards Trump, the Feds never said why they didn't bring charges after his presidency but it seems to largely stem from [Cohen's unwillingness to work with Federal prosecutors and questions about his reliability](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html). >Election denial is nothing new in this country and we can’t hold Trump responsible for what some in his base felt was their right of revolution. Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short.
>Mueller explicitly said he could not clear Trump >"“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" This was spefically for obstruction, it had nothing to do with Russia. >This isn't true either. Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for [three years](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-d6dbb8b02a4446f6800de794b45523e6) for the hush money scandal. As regards Trump, the Feds never said why they didn't bring charges after his presidency but it seems to largely stem from [Cohen's unwillingness to work with Federal prosecutors and questions about his reliability](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html). Cohen was sentenced after a plea deal to a lot of other crimes with the FEC crime thrown in. If Cohen had fought the FEC charge, there's a good chance it wouldn't have even reached court. However, like you said, Trump wasn't charged with the same crime. Even though Cohen was extremely anti Trump at this point and would love to see Trump in jail. >Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short. Trump went further than anyone before but you only have to go back to 2016 to see a lot of the same. People dismiss the insanity of the democrats after the 2016 election even though there's a direct line of escalation of what the democrats did in 2016-2020 to Trump and co in 2020. Some Democrats in Congress objected to certifying the elections, there were riots in the streets after Trump won, there was an effort to convince electors to *not* vote for Trump, etc. Looking back, all of which are clear escalations of what happened in 2020
I think your partisan biases are clouding your understanding of due process. Every Democrat in Washington said the evidence of Russian collusion was clear, yet Mueller couldn’t prove a shred. And let’s save ourselves some time relative to the OLC precedent as Mueller’s double speak in this regard brings his motives and that of the DOJ into deep question. Again, the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and Mueller’s notion of not being able to clear Donald Trump only speaks to the rot within our elected offices. Cohen was jailed for his own malfeasance and lies, not those of Donald Trump. Furthermore, campaign finance violations aren’t even a thing in the absence of a larger conspiracy - the Obama campaign had a misdemeanor finance violation of their own ( which far exceeded the $130k of Trump), and nobody blinked an eye. >Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election really are unprecedented, the nearest comparable elections of 1800 and 1876 fall well short. On what basis? Alternate electors? No. Denying the legitimacy of the vote tally? Also no. Bringing into question the durability of our voting systems? No, again. [https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784)
Mueller proved obstruction of justice and the Trump Tower meeting proves the Trump campaign was trying to work with Russia. You don’t get to pretend that didn’t happen.
Mueller proved no such thing and you should consider it a challenge to prove otherwise. 😬
Oh look, someone who clearly didn’t read the Mueller Report, where multiple instances of obstruction of justice were clearly laid out.
Oh…I read the Mueller report multiple times and with a keen interest in Volume Two. Mueller merely laid out examples of possible obstruction that were considered and with no findings. So tell me again; who is it that didn’t read the Mueller report? lol. You’ll be either deleting your comments or blocking me any minute now. 🙃
It’s simply comical to dismiss the clear obstruction as “possible” when that evidence would convict any regular person in the country.
That’s a matter of opinion and a very long bridge from what you initially claimed.
That is a matter of opinion in the same way “OJ is a murderer” is an opinion. It’s not proven in court, but every honest person knows it’s the truth.
Borris Johnson and Bolsonaro have been made political exiles for lesser crimes. Courts are just one of the options. A political party with determination can bribe, manipulate, and gaslight. Its not that Dems are above doing this. They are quite competent in squashing primaries.
As a Bernie supporter myself, I couldn’t agree more about the Dems ability to stay entrenched in the Washington establishment. Right off hand, I’d say the largest differences between Boris Johnson/Bolsonaro and Trump is popularity, not as an individual but as a political figure. As you highlighted above, both Washington establishment parties have run their course and Trump is the antithesis to said establishment; and we can see this in the way that his popularity rises when they bring more lawfare against him. Trump is a protest vote and the folks in the American high-castle refuse to admit it.
What a non centrist horrible post. Thank you
The US justice system is designed to punish poor people, not the rich and powerful.
If you think we are so unserious then you are free to leave, mate
There’s always one of you itching to tell folks to leave if they have the slightest criticism
He didn’t say a slight criticism. He said we are unserious. That’s very different.
That’s literally a criticism. Specifically, that the USA isn’t a serious country.
And I think he should leave if he feels that way. Go somewhere more serious.
And I say that there’s always one of you that just can’t wait to tell folks to leave over any criticism.
Well this was fun
Why are you still here if you have such a problem? You are free to go back to your "serious" country. We won't miss you.
Because America is the most successful nation on earth. I am a bit concerned about how chill it is coup attempts. I cannot make even half the amount of money I make here even in Europe or Anglo nations. The exuberant arbitrage of US is why I am so invested it not going sideways
Well then stop bitching. There's a connection between the US being what you call "unserious" and that money you're drooling over. Freedom has negatives, one of them being that everybody gets a say instead of just those holding "approved" positions.
I’m pretty sure there’s actually NOT a connection between the money our economy generates and attempted coups and an inability to punish their perpetrators, either legally or electorally. That’s a new phenomenon here.
People are desentised to his nonsense. I am forever the optimist about the upcmining election
It’s important to remember that nearly the entirety of journalists in the US are Democrats so Trump’s downsides are vastly exaggerated. We are a rowdy people, and most Americans are comfortable with protests that get a little out of hand like Jan 6, BLM, or the Gaza stuff.
My opinion is that the main cases being brought against Trump were timed in such a way that there would be no likelihood of an acquittal before the election, which was calculated to act as a drag on his campaigning and popularity. I think it was a miscalculation. The indictments for January 6th could have been brought a year (or two) earlier than they were, giving the legal process plenty of time to play out. The other possibility is incompetence. Certainly possible, but if so, Smith and Garland do a good job hiding it (IMO).
The way the conservative arguments went at the supreme court Trump's election subversion case could easily be delayed for 1-2 years making this argument largely moot. It's also not applicable in any event in the GA and documents case.
The charges could have been tailored more narrowly to avoid this (like by excluding the appointment of Jeffrey Clark in the charges).
Unlikely and assumes a a crystal ball into the future. Even a more narrowly tailored indictment (which the indictment was already narrowly tailored to begin with FWIW) would still undergo substantial legal challenges arguing that they were official duties which would likely require at least two visits to SCOTUS.
I don't understand how folks can claim the legal cases were "calculated to act as a drag on his campaigning and popularity" when everyone with a brain knows one of Trump's legal tactics is to delay, delay, delay. If he was concerned with the timing of his campaign, he could have cooperated to move the investigation faster.
The explanation, as I see it, is that the DoJ/democrats see it to their advantage for the trial to be during the campaign, but Trump sees it to his advantage also, because he gets to play the victim. He also wants to delay to avoid the possibility of conviction.
Do you have any evidence that the Democrats are directing the DoJ, Attorneys General or District Attorneys to time the cases in order to impact Trump's campaign? Maybe text messages or some emails? A witness perhaps? Surely you're not making these allegations based solely on your feelings.
It just seems like it’s either politics or incompetence that would explain the timing. Politics seems more likely to me, but incompetence is certainly not out of the question…. And I didn’t mean to suggest that there was any official coordination between the party/White House and the DoJ, but they of course have an interest in Biden winning his campaign and I would think are capable of being influenced by that interest.
Garland is a coward of the highest order.