A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

You're more patient here than I could be. I would have just kept saying over and over

 "the system was set up by the rich for the rich to shield themselves from their criminal acts"

Trump was skating on financial crimes for decades before he ever called out Obama's birth certificate and entered politics. Now he's upped his crimes to the level of an American traitor, but as a rich guy and now former President he's protected. They're all protected. They all have been protected. Just until now none of them were so outwardly stupid enough to completely remove all doubt in front of the masses. 

There is no such thing as justice in the manner we were all taught (brainwashed) as kids. Certain people are above the law, and if you feel you were wronged by one of them then it's up to you to decide whether you want to risk the consequences of enacting justice on them yourself. Because the legal system will not. 

 

Well, I have said that Trump, pre-Presidency, is little different from a buncha guys living on the southern end of an island in NY.  And a lot of other places, as well.

I don't think it's inherent to the system created.  Pretty much any judicial or other quasi-political institution can be dominated by the ruling class, or a segment thereof, if society permits it to be.

[YGIFS 19449]

^

This.  Trump's decades of over-leveraging, availing himself to bankruptcy courts, fraudulent financials, and screwing over partners was no different than 1000 other guys on that island.  What made him stick out was how flashy and loud he was about it while all the others preferred discretion.  First difference.  

Second difference is when those guys get backed into corners, they go into workout strategy mode.  Recapitalize, restructure debt, and reboot.  Trump's workout strategy is the most complex one I've ever seen, maybe that the world has ever seen; and I've seen some doozies.  His workout strategy with his lenders was to win the Presidency of the United States.  And it fucking worked. 

Even with all the Mueller shit swirling around him the first two years, I thought this is just a conman doing the best workout game I've ever seen.  He tapped into some stupid people's notion of what it felt like to be politically engaged and heard for once, little propaganda from friends overseas peppered throughout, and good to go on his part.  I detested him, but thought he'd be relatively harmless.  A conman too dumb to see he was also being conned by the party to retain power, stack some courts, cut some taxes and regulations, and move on---something any Republican on that 16-person debate stage could have easily done without all the baggage.  It wasn't until the second two years when I saw not just a cornered rat, but someone who would put millions of lives in jeopardy.  I didn't appreciate the power of his narcissism and how scared he truly was.  There's something else out there looming over him that we can't see.  It's not the Deep State or the FBI.  All the grifts, all the bankrupted foundations and PAC's he's milked dry, all the assets sold off, all the horse-trading.  He doesn't care about bankruptcy or being punished by a civil lawsuit.  And he doesn't care about anybody but himself.  But he can delay this thing and never see the inside of a jail-cell and die of natural causes.  He's safe physically.  There's something else they have on him, that's why this is gonna take awhile.  Either Jack Smith or the Russians can do something else to him.  should be fun to see unfold...

[Neonmoon 38127]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I have said that Trump, pre-Presidency, is little different from a buncha guys living on the southern end of an island in NY.  And a lot of other places, as well.

I don't think it's inherent to the system created.  Pretty much any judicial or other quasi-political institution can be dominated by the ruling class, or a segment thereof, if society permits it to be.

I think it depends on not only one’s position in society, but also one’s interpretation of the system. To state the system isn’t inherently flawed when a thief goes to prison for robbing a convenience store while someone who gets 21 million in tax deductions based on fraudulent information may not get a receptive audience in the minimum wage neighborhood for that argument. But, I get it. I know there’s a lot more nuance involved when it comes to who filled out what, can it be proven, intent, etc., and it’s the reason Trump is shielded from most prosecution, but that doesn’t make it right. 

You are correct, it is up to society to permit it or not. Will society eventually change the system to make it more judiciously equitable? Especially considering the arduous task when the sole way to change it is controlled by the wealthy. I’m not hopeful. In fact, Brisket raised a good point. Sometimes the only way for the poor to hold the rich accountable when the law and the enforcers of law are controlled by the wealthy, is to pick up the old pitchfork 

[Old Freak Nasty 818]

Is there any good investigative report, old or new, that explains why banks opt to enter into loans with Trump and precisely how profitable those deals are for the banks?

[Brisketexan 104628]

I think it depends on not only one’s position in society, but also one’s interpretation of the system. To state the system isn’t inherently flawed when a thief goes to prison for robbing a convenience store while someone who gets 21 million in tax deductions based on fraudulent information may not get a receptive audience in the minimum wage neighborhood for that argument. But, I get it. I know there’s a lot more nuance involved when it comes to who filled out what, can it be proven, intent, etc., and it’s the reason Trump is shielded from most prosecution, but that doesn’t make it right. 
You are correct, it is up to society to permit it or not. Will society eventually change the system to make it more judiciously equitable? Especially considering the arduous task when the sole way to change it is controlled by the wealthy. I’m not hopeful. In fact, Brisket raised a good point. Sometimes the only way for the poor to hold the rich accountable when the law and the enforcers of law are controlled by the wealthy, is to pick up the old pitchfork 

Which is why I strongly recommend all elements of society opting into “the rule of law.” Opt out of it, and you won’t like what eventually fills its void.

[Beau Vine 54003]

 

[YGIFS 19449]

9 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

Is there any good investigative report, old or new, that explains why banks opt to enter into loans with Trump and precisely how profitable those deals are for the banks?

There was a run of decent articles around 2019 about him and Deutsche Bank but ultimately it didn't go anywhere.  Although they are part of AG James' case supposedly.  

most national banks in New York quit lending to him 20 years ago.  I have asked Sol to see any of the pitch decks or PPM's he's gotten from Trump Org. over the years but he's under NDA, can't even show me the summary page.  But he said it's lending platforms from overseas via private credit for the most part.  And apparently now, a celebrity/former U.S. President's bank of choice is some shady "online" bank from San Diego which apparently Michael Dell, of all people, helped launch.  Weirdest fucking timeline.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Take, for example, the most heinous thing written into our Constitution, the 3/5 compromise.  That was undone relatively rapidly by the 14th Amendment.  Of course, it took another roughly 100 years for that to take real effect, but that was more a societal problem than a constitutional or governmental problem.

Except for the part where "real effect" is marginal to non-existent. Crystal Mason's original felony and imprisonment was for, of all coincidences, tax fraud. The crime law firms advertise and sell their services for on sports talk radio- "Don't let the IRS trick you!"

Prison.

That was parlayed into another 5 year sentence in prison for a crime, again coincidentally and totally not systemic (and as evidenced by The Villages convicts' sentences, had nothing to do with his presidency) that Trump, based on the standard that Crystal Mason is currently in a cell, is able to commit easily without ever having to have a worry he'll see the inside of a jail cell. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/19/judge-trump-signed-court-document-that-knowingly-included-false-voter-fraud-stats-00062577

It's systemic. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

Can I introduce you to the Houston Texans?

[Chewbacca 7730]

Does not require one to be an expert to know those things and that prosecuting trump is not as simple as the simple Jacks on the thread seem so desperate to believe. 
For one thing, Trump didn't personally apply for any of these loans.  He may have made personal guarantees that required disclosures, but we don't really know we just have to guess. 
It's certainly not a residential mortgage case with a cooked appraisal or falsified income docs. 

So we all need to take your word on the legal side, but we should listen to you on other subjects? Nah.

I'm the IRS, GAAP and commercial lending expert as far as you are concerned. I am a CPA and have closed several hundred million dollars in commercial real estate loans. Fuck off.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

Is there any good investigative report, old or new, that explains why banks opt to enter into loans with Trump and precisely how profitable those deals are for the banks?

I might guess that it's the problem of "lender liability" that the Hunt brother invented in the 80s, rat chere in Texas.  Under that theory, banks/lenders were aware of the distress their borrowers were in and deliberately made them loans in order to protect their own interests.  The usual case is that if a big loan goes into default and results in foreclosure of the collateral, the lender will be hurt far more with real losses than by continuing to "string out" loans and give new ones in the course of workouts and such, even if the borrower is a bad risk.  Sometimes, the lender is just angling for more favorable conditions for foreclosure of collateral moreso than any thought the loan would actually be paid off.

Nowadays, the term "lender liability" tends to encompass only overbearing collection and enforcement tactics by lenders.  But back in the day, it was "you fuckers knew I couldn't pay these loans, why did you give them to me."

And, a more insidious explanation is that Trump's lenders were laundering money for Russians

[Tuco 5076]

I'm the IRS, GAAP and commercial lending expert as far as you are concerned. I am a CPA and have closed several hundred million dollars in commercial real estate loans. Fuck off.

Oh.
Maybe that explains why you are a bit high strung.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

[Chewbacca 7730]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Oh.
Maybe that explains why you are a bit high strung.

Maybe.  Probably.

[tx 3 putt 76399]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

I know he still has tons of debt compared to normal people, because of course he does, but has he even done any big time deals since the Plaza Hotel / Atlantic City Taj Mahal days?  Losing his and his lenders’ asses on things like that are why he’s been doing reality tv, fake universities, and pretending buying random golf clubs are like buying the Wynn for the last 30 years.  Any property that actually seems like a big deal and was acquired after 1993 or thereabouts is usually just some licensing deal where they put his name on it and he didn’t actually finance shit.

So, all of that is to say, the banks probably haven’t been doing anything too risky with him for quite a while.  He does still have some real assets that can support a lot of borrowing as long as he’s not doing mega deals.  

 

great margins ....

[TwiceHorn 31283]

28 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

So we all need to take your word on the legal side, but we should listen to you on other subjects? Nah.

I'm the IRS, GAAP and commercial lending expert as far as you are concerned. I am a CPA and have closed several hundred million dollars in commercial real estate loans. Fuck off.

I didn't say anything in depth about any of that.  I just pointed out that disagreement between tax returns and corporate or personal financial statements, and unaudited ones at that, are not in themselves evidence of fraud.  For one thing, we really do not know whether any of the clearly bullshit personal statements was submitted to a lender.

And, as Lobo points out, the fraudulent or false statements we have seen are Trump's personal statements and he has a wild nest of LPs, LLCs, and corporations who are the borrowers on these loans, not Trump personally.  So, it's kind of hard to say Donald Trump committed bank fraud when we don't even know, and it's extremely unlikely, that he was the borrower in any of these transactions.

He may have submitted some of these bullshit financial statements in connection with personal guarantees, some of his various entities may have submitted them in connection with loans.  We really don't know.

And, finally, you should know that there's a shitload of financial documentation submitted in the course of a commercial loan of any magnitude.  To prove bank fraud, the false information must be material.

Almost anything submitted by a borrower in a residential mortgage application is material to the lender, because there's so comparatively little of it.  So, if there's a cooked up appraisal or false income or asset information, boom, it's a simple case.  It's not that simple in the commercial context.

So, the answer to all this speculation about Trump and his financial statements is:

d) not enough information given.

It's really the answer to all of this.  We don't have enough information to know whether he committed a crime that can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.  On some stuff, like 1/6, it does look like the evidence is shaping up nicely, but we still don't know exactly what it is.  The obstruction case on the Mar-A-Lago docs should be pretty straightforward, but a lot of it is going to depend on the testimony of witnesses to the grand jury. The guy's a congenital liar, though, and self-interested beyond all comprehension, so the odds seem high that he did, but odds don't get you a conviction.

[Sawbonz 27436]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

Which is why I think that he should be attacked asymmetrically, and without regard for the law. Every business he has an interest in should be targeted by hackers, fraudsters, and rip-off artists. People should infiltrate his businesses and embezzle, waste funds and resources, etc. Drain the oil from the engine of every Trump vehicle, so they seize up at once. Leave the oven on overnight at Mar A Lago, with flammable shit in there. Harass him and all associated with him relentlessly, completely, and without mercy.
The law doesn’t protect us from him. It also can’t fully protect him from us. Use it. Crush him.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't say anything in depth about any of that.  I just pointed out that disagreement between tax returns and corporate or personal financial statements, and unaudited ones at that, are not in themselves evidence of fraud.  For one thing, we really do not know whether any of the clearly bullshit personal statements was submitted to a lender.

And, as Lobo points out, the fraudulent or false statements we have seen are Trump's personal statements and he has a wild nest of LPs, LLCs, and corporations who are the borrowers on these loans, not Trump personally.  So, it's kind of hard to say Donald Trump committed bank fraud when we don't even know, and it's extremely unlikely, that he was the borrower in any of these transactions.

He may have submitted some of these bullshit financial statements in connection with personal guarantees, some of his various entities may have submitted them in connection with loans.  We really don't know.

And, finally, you should know that there's a shitload of financial documentation submitted in the course of a commercial loan of any magnitude.  To prove bank fraud, the false information must be material.

Almost anything submitted by a borrower in a residential mortgage application is material to the lender, because there's so comparatively little of it.  So, if there's a cooked up appraisal or false income or asset information, boom, it's a simple case.  It's not that simple in the commercial context.

So, the answer to all this speculation about Trump and his financial statements is:

d) not enough information given.

It's really the answer to all of this.  We don't have enough information to know whether he committed a crime that can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.  On some stuff, like 1/6, it does look like the evidence is shaping up nicely, but we still don't know exactly what it is.  The obstruction case on the Mar-A-Lago docs should be pretty straightforward, but a lot of it is going to depend on the testimony of witnesses to the grand jury. The guy's a congenital liar, though, and self-interested beyond all comprehension, so the odds seem high that he did, but odds don't get you a conviction.

Final note on this.  I'm not an expert criminal trial attorney, or even a trial attorney.

You don't have to be an expert in this to point out the difficulties inherent in preparing and presenting a criminal case against Donald Trump that's likely to result in conviction and hold up on appeal.

An expert criminal litigator could bring to the discussion a whole slew of difficulties that we haven't even considered yet.

The moral of the story is it isn't a simple easy thing, despite the apparent "evidence" of Donald Trump's criminality.  What most of us know or think we know isn't of evidentiary quality and even if it was, may not suffice to prove the offense.

[Gatorubet 30115]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So you think he eventually gets convicted on something?  I bet more attorneys would bet he walks than gets convicted.

Quote

Your new theory is that the fix is in when YOU sue Trump - but the fix is NOT in when Trump sues you. OK

Reading comprehension. The above is the Nutter take comment, it said nothing about the possibilities of him being convicted.

Since I’m sure you will follow up with a question again I’m happy to answer.  I think he will ultimately be convicted of obstruction.  Of what I do not know.  I’ve said this here for years.  Why? He is a pathological liar and stupid.   That is not a good combo when dealing with any prosecution.  

That means that even if Justice cannot pin the thing they are investigating on a defendant,  that defendant can still go down for lying to them and hiding evidence during the investigation - even though they ultimately might not have be able to prove the original charge.  

Nobody could’ve forseen that the pos attorney general Barr would cover for Trump and lie to the nation about the findings of the Mueller report.   Or that the GOP would happily abandon its constitutional responsibilities to not piss off the Trump voters they privately abhorred and refuse to allow witnesses or exhibits in impeachment trials, even saying how they’d vote before the trial. 

I was a poli-sci major during the Watergate hearings. Unlike the turtle and other GOP Senators, in the Nixon investigation they did their constitutional duty.   I watched the GOP Senator from Tennessee (Howard Baker) grill the shit out of witnesses to the detriment of President Nixon.  

That’s why I get a little pissed off reading about how our country always allowed the rich and powerful to skate.  Nixon had to resign.  22 people were convicted, many of them rich and powerful.   Granted, POTUS was not convicted because he was pardoned by Gerry Ford. But even that was a courageous act, although I disagreed with it at the time.  Ford thought it was in the best interest of the country to heal, even though he knew it would totally screw his chance in the upcoming election. And he was right, and Carter was elected.

I’m happy to bet a drink with anyone who wants to wager payable at the next time you come to New Orleans or LSU - or I get to Austin after y’all swallow the SEC,SEC,SEC pill

tl,dr.  Orange fecal matter will be convicted of something - I think obstruction. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Reading comprehension. The above is the Nutter take comment, it said nothing about the possibilities of him being convicted.

Since I’m sure you will follow up with a question again I’m happy to answer.  I think he will ultimately be convicted of obstruction.  Of what I do not know.  I’ve said this here for years.  Why? He is a pathological liar and stupid.   That is not a good combo when dealing with any prosecution.  

That means that even if Justice cannot pin the thing they are investigating on a defendant,  that defendant can still go down for lying to them and hiding evidence during the investigation - even though they ultimately might not have be able to prove the original charge.  

Nobody could’ve forseen that the pos attorney general Barr would cover for Trump and lie to the nation about the findings of the Mueller report.   Or that the GOP would happily abandon its constitutional responsibilities to not piss off the Trump voters they privately abhorred and refuse to allow witnesses or exhibits in impeachment trials, even saying how they’d vote before the trial. 

I was a poli-sci major during the Watergate hearings. Unlike the turtle and other GOP Senators, in the Nixon investigation they did their constitutional duty.   I watched the GOP Senator from Tennessee (Howard Baker) grill the shit out of witnesses to the detriment of President Nixon.  

That’s why I get a little pissed off reading about how our country always allowed the rich and powerful to skate.  Nixon had to resign.  22 people were convicted, many of them rich and powerful.   Granted, POTUS was not convicted because he was pardoned by Gerry Ford. But even that was a courageous act, although I disagreed with it at the time.  Ford thought it was in the best interest of the country to heal, even though he knew it would totally screw his chance in the upcoming election. And he was right, and Carter was elected.

I’m happy to bet a drink with anyone who wants to wager payable at the next time you come to New Orleans or LSU - or I get to Austin after y’all swallow the SEC,SEC,SEC pill

tl,dr.  Orange fecal matter will be convicted of something - I think obstruction. 

Solid take, I think.

Also, it seems like the most likely conviction for 1/6 is an obstruction crime, as well, but different from the usual.

But there could be other obstruction charged related to that in the form of witness tampering and the like.

There's a shit ton of smoke, but not a lot of fire yet.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

May be preferable to the current implosion

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

11 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

💥🎉🍻💥🥂🎂🎊🎺💫💥

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

12 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

I’m not so sure, because I think a decent chunk of his supporters will refuse to believe he is dead. 

[Captainant 27465]

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Nobody could’ve forseen that the pos attorney general Barr would cover for Trump and lie to the nation about the findings of the Mueller report.   Or that the GOP would happily abandon its constitutional responsibilities to not piss off the Trump voters they privately abhorred and refuse to allow witnesses or exhibits in impeachment trials, even saying how they’d vote before the trial. 

Are you fucking kidding me? After what we'd been seeing since 2015 out of the republicans, THAT was unforseeable? Give me a fucking break lol. It was a shock that the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal would help trump cover up his attempt to blackmail Ukraine??

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

That’s why I get a little pissed off reading about how our country always allowed the rich and powerful to skate.  Nixon had to resign.  22 people were convicted, many of them rich and powerful.   Granted, POTUS was not convicted because he was pardoned by Gerry Ford. But even that was a courageous act, although I disagreed with it at the time.  Ford thought it was in the best interest of the country to heal, even though he knew it would totally screw his chance in the upcoming election. And he was right, and Carter was elected.

And you're leaving out (or ignorant of the fact) that fox news was created as a direct response to what happened to nixon in the watergate hearings, as a way to prevent public sentiment from ever coalescing like that again.

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I’m happy to bet a drink with anyone who wants to wager payable at the next time you come to New Orleans or LSU - or I get to Austin after y’all swallow the SEC,SEC,SEC pill

tl,dr.  Orange fecal matter will be convicted of something - I think obstruction. 

I'll bet ya a drink on it. You're still operating under the false pretense that the republicans and trumpco are operating under good faith and not merely seeking to retain power through any means necessary. 

[safe sex 11684]

What Ford's Pardon of Nixon Means (and Doesn't Mean) for Trump

Quote

The release on Thursday of parts of a report from a grand jury in Georgia that investigated election interference by Donald Trump and his allies offers the most recent evidence of his growing legal exposure.

 

At least three teams of prosecutors — two state, one federal — are considering charges against him. In Georgia, the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is reviewing the grand jury report and said recently that a decision on whether to bring charges was “imminent.”

 

At the Justice Department, the special counsel Jack Smith is examining Mr. Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and attempts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as his handling and retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. And in New York, Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is reported to be presenting evidence to a grand jury about Mr. Trump’s role in paying hush money to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign.

 

All three teams may face what the special prosecutor Leon Jaworski encountered after Watergate: Who determines the fate of a former president if he is credibly accused of a crime?

Gerald Ford settled the issue for Jaworski, with his pardon of Richard Nixon. We have been living with the consequences of that decision ever since — and it has taken shape as an instinctual move to shy from holding presidents to account. It has also made our democracy look weaker than that of other peer countries. The United States appears uncomfortable with applying the most basic of legal principles: No man is above the law.

 

Now we may be on the verge of a president’s being held accountable for abuses against the country. Such accountability is long overdue. As we have been exposed to the fragility of democracy, we should also warn future presidents and others that our democracy has tools to defend itself from those who seek to do it harm — and it is not afraid to use them.

 

In 1974, Jaworski was hardly certain he wanted to be the first to prosecute a president. After Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, movie posters went up in his office — the work of the prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, they advertised “King Kong,” a reference to what people in the office called “the monkey problem.” Who was going to decide whether Richard Nixon faced criminal charges for his actions amid Watergate? They all felt they had a monkey on their back — the special prosecutor, the grand jury, the attorney general, the president, Congress.

 

Earlier that year, Jaworski had stopped the Watergate grand jury members from indicting President Nixon, despite their clear desire to do so. As one of Jaworski’s staff members recalled later, “every inclination and instinct in Leon’s bones” favored leaving Nixon alone. As the summer ended, he contemplated asking the grand jury to issue a report making the case that although Nixon could have been indicted, prosecuting him wasn’t in the public interest.

It wasn’t necessary: The new President Ford pardoned Nixon in early September. He made the move because he feared that the country couldn’t stomach a prolonged trial and the possible imprisonment of a former chief executive and head of state. He also believed that he would be unable to govern, heal the country or move forward as long as Nixon’s fate twisted in the national wind.

 

It was a brave political move and one that almost certainly cost Ford the presidency in 1976, when he narrowly lost to Jimmy Carter.

 

But what if Ford made the wrong calculus?

 

The precedent Ford set seems to have paralyzed a half-century of prosecutors. That precedent and Justice Department policy have left the United States with what seems an untenable situation — presidents are immune from prosecution in office and politically untouchable after leaving office.

 

There’s clear evidence that the monkey of Jaworski’s day is alive and well: A new book from the legal pundit and former prosecutor Elie Honig reports that federal prosecutors in New York considered bringing charges against Mr. Trump after he left office regarding his role in the Stormy Daniels cover-up. The draft indictment for Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Mr. Honig writes, left no doubt: “Trump wasn’t merely a bystander or an unwitting beneficiary of the campaign finance crime. He was the driving force behind the scheme, and likely criminally liable for it.”

But those prosecutors ultimately demurred, feeling that prosecuting the former president was best left for more serious charges than campaign finance violations. (Perhaps now Mr. Bragg will pick up where they left off.)

 

Similarly, the special counsel Robert Mueller documented and collected evidence around possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump while in office, and the Mueller report states that this evidence prevented investigators “from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.” Yet no prosecutor has sought to pursue this material now that he is out of office. Everyone seems afraid to be the first to make the first move and break the Nixon precedent. Yet other democracies have been willing to bring current and former leaders to justice, including France, Israel and South Korea. In January, the British police fined Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for not wearing a seatbelt, and his predecessor Boris Johnson was fined for hosting parties that violated the country’s Covid lockdown rules. What better way to make clear the fundamental principle that laws apply to everyone than to bring a minor charge against a powerful figure?

 

We’re able to prosecute state governors. Since 2000, Connecticut, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio have all seen governors brought up on state or federal criminal charges; in Illinois and Alabama, it’s happened twice. More than a dozen members of Congress have faced criminal charges in the last decade, including the former House speaker Dennis Hastert. Democracy chugs along just fine.

 

The commander in chief is undoubtedly a unique case, and the bar and evidence necessary to prosecute a former president should be high. But in the Stormy Daniels case, Mr. Trump was clearly implicated in court papers. If he’d been anyone else, he almost certainly would have faced felony charges. How is it better for our democracy for him to escape a charge that prosecutors would levy against anyone else?

 

America seems to have reached a point where a presidential prosecution, as explosive as it would be politically, would do more to restore national confidence in the judicial system than to diminish it.

 

In the Nixon case, a majority of Americans felt that he should face charges. Polls supported it, and the American Bar Association unanimously passed a resolution that said America must have “fair, just and impartial application and enforcement of the law, regardless of the position or status of any individual alleged to have violated the law.” On the Jaworski team, according to the memoir by Mr. Ben-Veniste and his fellow prosecutor George Frampton Jr., all but one of the prosecutors supported indicting Nixon.

 

“The offenses he had committed were major ones,” they wrote. “They involved high costs to the nation by undermining confidence in public, democratic institutions.”

 

It’s a fascinating “what if?” to imagine how putting Nixon on trial would and should have had a chilling effect on future chief executives.

 

How different would the presidencies of Ronald Reagan (Iran-contra) and Bill Clinton (Monica Lewinsky) look if those chief executives had known that one of their predecessors had done a five-year term at a minimum-security federal prison? How much of the turmoil of the Trump years — his alleged obstruction of the Mueller investigation, his stoking of election denial and more — would have been avoided if aides had been able to point out a possible presidential room at a federal prison like the one in Otisville, N.Y., where Mr. Cohen ended up for his role in the Daniels cover-up?

 

Today, as Ms. Willis, Mr. Bragg and Mr. Smith weigh whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump, they’d be well served to think of Mr. Ben-Veniste and Mr. Frampton’s arguments. The decision to charge dozens of Nixon aides, and not the former president himself “while he lived in remote splendor with his ex-president’s perquisites intact,” they wrote, “was morally repugnant; it reeked of the most basic unfairness.”

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

just catching up on this thread.  i think the disconnect here is that a lot of us are saying, "trump committed all these crimes, wtf?"  the response we're getting is, "well, we don't know he necessarily committed all these crimes, so that's why it's not so easy."  the response we want is, "you know what, he most likely did commit a bunch of these crimes, but that doesn't mean he's gonna be easy to prosecute."

12 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

[lemonlime 5503]

The powers that be are treating trump like a white collar criminal and not like someone who committed a violent crime and is a danger to society every minute he remains free.  That's the disconnect.

[RDCanecutter 26282]

13 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Were Trump to die in some sort of odd circumstance this country would probably explode.

I see him molting and mutating into his next Surinam-Toadlike form, and one night quietly swimming out to sea as future offspring grow under the skin of his back.

Edited February 20, 2023 by RDCanecutter

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Are you fucking kidding me? After what we'd been seeing since 2015 out of the republicans, THAT was unforseeable? Give me a fucking break lol. It was a shock that the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal would help trump cover up his attempt to blackmail Ukraine??

Right. Barr sent an unsolicited memo to Rod Rosenstein that was critical of the Mueller investigation and argued against obstruction of justice. He was campaigning for the Atty. General job. His defense of Trump was as predictable as the sunrise. That shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone. 

[Gatorubet 30115]

51 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Are you fucking kidding me? After what we'd been seeing since 2015 out of the republicans, THAT was unforseeable? Give me a fucking break lol. It was a shock that the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal would help trump cover up his attempt to blackmail Ukraine?

There were tons of stories at the time quoting colleagues of Barr’s expressing shock at his going so far as to lie and create a completely false opinion on what the Mueller report said.  This is people who were aware of his past.   I specifically remember some quotes talking about while they had some reservations about Barr - nobody dreaming he would go that far.  The AG is a presidential appointment, but Justice has almost always never gone in the tank in so partisan a fashion on IMPEACHMENT.  That is history making stuff.    Barr flat lied about the report.   Many people did not dream of the extent of his abuse of office - people who knew him personally.  ( Also, a lol does not make your point stronger.  Example:  “What - you thought mustard bottles were yellow and not red?? lol “ )

Also

And you're leaving out (or ignorant of the fact) that fox news was created as a direct response to what happened to nixon in the watergate hearings, as a way to prevent public sentiment from ever coalescing like that again.

Since my point was refuting that the US system had never brought powerful and wealthy people to justice (see Watergate) there was no need to include that.  Thanks for backing my point and reminding us that a direct effort to prevent that type of fairness happened.  FWIW, I think Murdock saw an opportunity in Newt Gingrich’s scorched earth “don’t say your opponent is wrong on policy - say they are bad people” leadership model, but none of that negates my point. 

I'll bet ya a drink on it. You're still operating under the false pretense that the republicans and trumpco are operating under good faith and not merely seeking to retain power through any means necessary. 

I think you missed a thousand of my posts.  I look forward to drinks. 

My response in quoted post above

Edited February 20, 2023 by Gatorubet

[TwiceHorn 31283]

The article above posted by safe sex raises an interesting and I think valid issue.

I don't think we're at the point, though, where those considerations have come into play, except in a very abstract way.

Investigations are proceeding apace, with what seems to be the goal of making a "convictable" criminal case against Trump and whoever else they can nail.

To my mind it's too early to fret about the political decision to indict/prosecute. Garland has certainly dedicated himself to the idea that no man is above the law, at least publicly.

[Gatorubet 30115]

28 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I see him molting and mutating into his next Surinam-Toadlike form, and one night quietly swimming out to see as future offspring grow under the skin of his back.

I thought Hellboy eventually got rid of all of those.

[henrygandorf 29177]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The article above posted by safe sex raises an interesting and I think valid issue.

I don't think we're at the point, though, where those considerations have come into play, except in a very abstract way.

Investigations are proceeding apace, with what seems to be the goal of making a "convictable" criminal case against Trump and whoever else they can nail.

To my mind it's too early to fret about the political decision to indict/prosecute. Garland has certainly dedicated himself to the idea that no man is above the law, at least publicly.

what i personally find annoying, and i'm sure i'm not alone, is the timing of it.

trump declared early so that he could call any investigations/indictments/whatever political.  we knew he was going to paint everything with that brush regardless of whether he declared or not, but he did, so here we are.

but what is concerning is that the process is taking so long that eventually, when (god willing) charges are finally brought, it actually will look politically charged, because we'll be in the heat of the republican primary season/potential general election cycle.

it's like the self-fulfilling prophecy trump was looking for is happening and i just hate when he gets what he wants.

[Gatorubet 30115]

32 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Right. Barr sent an unsolicited memo to Rod Rosenstein that was critical of the Mueller investigation and argued against obstruction of justice. He was campaigning for the Atty. General job. His defense of Trump was as predictable as the sunrise. That shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone. 

To more Surly my response: while lots of people thought Barr was a whore (see your correct facts of his audition) - fewer people actually thought he would stoop so low as to allow his legacy to be publicly accepting anal from an elephant.   

Twenty-twenty hindsight is great, but I think many lawyers on here were surprised - not that he would carry Trump’s water some - but that he would out-whore our wildest Trump whoring expectations exponentially.

Maybe it was just me and I was too naive.   

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

To more Surly my response: while lots of people thought Barr was a whore (see your correct facts of his audition) - fewer people actually thought he would stoop so low as to allow his legacy to be publicly accepting anal from an elephant.   

Twenty-twenty hindsight is great, but I think many lawyers on here were surprised - not that he would carry Trump’s water some - but that he would out-whore our wildest Trump whoring expectations exponentially.

Maybe it was just me and I was too naive. 

i think we discovered the true depth of awfulness from a lot of americans over the past 6-7 years.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

17 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

what i personally find annoying, and i'm sure i'm not alone, is the timing of it.

trump declared early so that he could call any investigations/indictments/whatever political.  we knew he was going to paint everything with that brush regardless of whether he declared or not, but he did, so here we are.

but what is concerning is that the process is taking so long that eventually, when (god willing) charges are finally brought, it actually will look politically charged, because we'll be in the heat of the republican primary season/potential general election cycle.

it's like the self-fulfilling prophecy trump was looking for is happening and i just hate when he gets what he wants.

Yeah the timing is unfortunate.  I, of course, maintain that the preparation of the criminal cases can't be rushed without sacrificing the integrity of the cases.

It is telling that the motherfucker announces earlier than any other candidate, by months.  And, of course, the purpose of that was to make prosecutions look more political than they are.

[wildcat09 29258]

13 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Nobody could’ve forseen that the pos attorney general Barr would cover for Trump and lie to the nation about the findings of the Mueller report.   Or that the GOP would happily abandon its constitutional responsibilities to not piss off the Trump voters they privately abhorred and refuse to allow witnesses or exhibits in impeachment trials, even saying how they’d vote before the trial. 

Man, tons of us right here foresaw that.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

To more Surly my response: while lots of people thought Barr was a whore (see your correct facts of his audition) - fewer people actually thought he would stoop so low as to allow his legacy to be publicly accepting anal from an elephant.   

Twenty-twenty hindsight is great, but I think many lawyers on here were surprised - not that he would carry Trump’s water some - but that he would out-whore our wildest Trump whoring expectations exponentially.

Maybe it was just me and I was too naive.   

I wasn’t the only one who predicted on this board that Barr would do exactly what he did. 

[Gatorubet 30115]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I wasn’t the only one who predicted on this board that Barr would do exactly what he did. 

You predicted he would go on TV before Mueller could explain his findings and completely misrepresent what he said in a way that no lawyer with any competency or ethics could?

[Blotto 23434]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m not so sure, because I think a decent chunk of his supporters will refuse to believe he is dead. 

Lulz. The Trump/JFK Jr write-in vote would probably eclipse the GOP nominee

Edited February 20, 2023 by Blotto

[wildcat09 29258]

13 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You predicted he would go on TV before Mueller could explain his findings and completely misrepresent what he said in a way that no lawyer with any competency or ethics could?

It was pretty obvious when he was hired that that's exactly what he was hired to do. If you thought the Iran-Contra coverup guy gave a shit about ethics, you were definitely naïve. 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

32 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You predicted he would go on TV before Mueller could explain his findings and completely misrepresent what he said in a way that no lawyer with any competency or ethics could?

I predicted that he would protect the President. His job was to serve the president. Not the truth, not the law, not the Constitution, not the American people, but Donald Trump. That’s exactly what he did. 

[Gatorubet 30115]

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, tons of us right here foresaw that.

All respect, no, you didn’t.  Jesus, I’m not saying he was not always gonna shill for Trump and use his position in Trump’s favor.   I’m talking about the extent - the unprecedented extent to which all prior norms would be violated and pushed so far in the face of literally traitorous actions by a President.   That he would be protected by the AJ and Justice and Senators in a novel way.  

The Turtle not just playing games and voting on partisan lines, but literally obstructing evidence and disallowing witness testimony.  It was the total abandonment of any pretense of fairness norms that was a shock.   Had they allowed documents and witnesses he would still NOT have been convicted with most GOP Senators voting party lines.  Everyone knew they were selfish hacks and politicians who did shit to get reelected.   We all knew that the GOP would back Trump.  But their response to the gutting of the conviction hearing was unprecedented, despite the well known political reality of no way to get to 2/3rds as the partisan political fix was in.  We knew that was the result. Two. Different. Points. 

It’s like saying we all knew January 6 WOULD happen because MAGATs are stupid and Trump is trying to hang on to power.   We knew all that, we knew that his fans were delusional and potentially violent.   We knew what was POSSIBLE…but it was still surreal when it happened the way it happened.   Our resident seer and ledge sitter was not surprised that J6 happened.  Hell, if anyone predicted it Brisket has the premier claim.  But I don’t think even he woke up and made popcorn and sat down knowing J6 would happen the day and way it did. 

All I’m saying is the envelope was pushed until it disintegrated. THAT I did not see.   

Just take my drink bet. 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

There's plenty of hope after the last elections for congress showed that candidates on the far right are not viable for the most part.  Of course, it's quite disturbing this dumb fuck has 30% that aren't going anywhere and then another 15% that hold their nose but still vote for him.  Just have to keep working against the machine and educating voters, getting the vote out - actually getting the vote out is probably more important and many who would vote against the radicals just don't bother showing up.  Anyways, fuck trump...

[tx 3 putt 76399]

If a crime was committed, he needs to be charged 

[wildcat09 29258]

24 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

All respect, no, you didn’t.  Jesus, I’m not saying he was not always gonna shill for Trump and use his position in Trump’s favor.   I’m talking about the extent - the unprecedented extent to which all prior norms would be violated and pushed so far in the face of literally traitorous actions by a President.   That he would be protected by the AJ and Justice and Senators in a novel way.  

The Turtle not just playing games and voting on partisan lines, but literally obstructing evidence and disallowing witness testimony.  It was the total abandonment of any pretense of fairness norms that was a shock.   Had they allowed documents and witnesses he would still NOT have been convicted with most GOP Senators voting party lines.  Everyone knew they were selfish hacks and politicians who did shit to get reelected.   We all knew that the GOP would back Trump.  But their response to the gutting of the conviction hearing was unprecedented, despite the well known political reality of no way to get to 2/3rds as the partisan political fix was in.  We knew that was the result. Two. Different. Points. 

It’s like saying we all knew January 6 WOULD happen because MAGATs are stupid and Trump is trying to hang on to power.   We knew all that, we knew that his fans were delusional and potentially violent.   We knew what was POSSIBLE…but it was still surreal when it happened the way it happened.   Our resident seer and ledge sitter was not surprised that J6 happened.  Hell, if anyone predicted it Brisket has the premier claim.  But I don’t think even he woke up and made popcorn and sat down knowing J6 would happen the day and way it did. 

All I’m saying is the envelope was pushed until it disintegrated. THAT I did not see.   

Just take my drink bet. 

 

I mean, there's fucking hundreds if not thousands of posts by me and dozens of others here accurately predicting pretty much everything the GOP would go on to do. The fact that you thought we were being overly dramatic at the time doesn't mean we weren't serious, it means you were naïve.  

[Gatorubet 30115]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I mean, there's fucking hundreds if not thousands of posts by me and dozens of others here accurately predicting pretty much everything the GOP would go on to do. The fact that you thought we were being overly dramatic at the time doesn't mean we weren't serious, it means you were naïve.  

Well then, you must be right. 

[YChang 3431]

Interesting article: Feeling ‘overwhelmed’ and ‘fatigue,’ some GOP voters look beyond Trump

Also freaking ridiculous how many people will give him a pass for how "he was treated."

 

[Satchel 6908]

On 2/19/2023 at 1:28 AM, Hookah Horns said:

This is why people delude themselves that the afterlife or reincarnation is real. We need to believe Donnie loses in the end, because if Jesus loved us he would. 

While true in many instances, a more sober reading of the Hebrew texts reveals that some will die before having their beliefs justified. Just sayin…

[safe sex 11684]

Imagine feeling embarrassment on behalf of Donald Trump. Jesus we are doomed