Congratulations, America. We now have our first political prisoner. This case cries out for a reversal, which sadly, will not come before the election. I hope if elected, he will not pardon himself rather await the reversal that is sure to come.
I am not a lawyer, just a veteran of almost 30 years of law enforcement experience with all the courtroom experience that goes with it. This is not the justice system that I used to know. This is sad day, not just for Trump, but even more so for American justice.
Correction: Trump cannot pardon himself for this conviction as it is a state case as opposed to a federal case.
5 comments:
You're in a cult.
There probably isn't any point in me saying that. Maybe it's just to make myself feel better. But this post is exactly how people in cults behave. And I realize that me saying so isn't going to provide you with the moment of clarity that you so desperately need.
The fact that you give no specifics and literally parrot the cult talking points ("political prisoner" - give me a break) is evidence of the cult mindset.
Nowhere in that brain of yours are you even willing to entertain the notion that a guy who cheats on all of his wives and has a history of lawsuits and fraud might have actually broken the law. Him being indicted didn't do it. A jury convicting him on all 34 counts doesn't do it. God Himself could come down and tell you that Trump is guilty, and you'd accuse The Lord of a left-wing bias.
You're absolutely unhinged and brainwashed by right-wing media.
Again, it probably does no good to tell you this. Then again, maybe your moment will come like it has with so many other conservatives. (I hesitate to call you that. You're a regressive authoritarian is what you really are.) Perhaps you're just going to take a little longer.
I may be in a cult but it’s a pretty large cult and getting bigger. I could write here for hours why this trial was a farce and a travesty but to you it’s just a phrase I used when I said political prisoner.
Cult members do not criticize the leader of the cult , which I have often done.
But if you are comfortable with the actions of the prosecutor in formulating these charges in an unprecedented manner, the way the judge conducted the trial, the credibility of Michael Cohen, the way the judge instructed the jury and all the rest, there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. Your own language suggests you are also part of a cult.
Even if Trump has as many flaws as you ascribe to him, he is entitled to due process. I am not a lawyer but I have almost 30 years of law enforcement experience with all the courtroom experience that goes with it. I am appalled by the way this man has been treated by the justice system. I put plenty of drug traffickers in prison and I regret none of them . But they all got a fair trial.
"I may be in a cult but it’s a pretty large cult and getting bigger."
Size is irrelevant, but "it's getting bigger" is another MAGA talking point. What is the evidence that it's getting bigger? I call BS.
"Cult members do not criticize the leader of the cult , which I have often done."
If that helps you sleep better, sweetie. I don't think that you're in with the lot who build gold statues of Trump, but you do repeat a lot of their talking points. As a point of comparison, it's not like you're a member of the Taliban, but you're like somebody who is fine with them taking power and would even defend them. And really, isn't that just as bad?
"I could write here for hours..."
I don't need or want hours. How about just giving one specific detail about how he somehow was treated unfairly? You followed up with a bunch of vague generalizations that I heard while listening to Sean Hannity earlier. (A man who we know for a fact doesn't even believe a lot of what he says himself.)
Or is this going to be like when you said that there was "evidence" to incriminate Joe Biden yet couldn't name a specific thing (or even name a specific crime, for that matter)?
"Your own language suggests you are also part of a cult."
The old, "I know you are but what am I?" defense. I could be a member of the Manson family and that doesn't change the point. I can tell you that I can't think of a single person whom I'd defend like this if the same thing happened to them. Not Biden, not Sanders, not even my own dad.
"he is entitled to due process"
And he got just that.
"I am not a lawyer..."
You're also not a judge nor is this type of case your field of experience. I say you have a cult-like mindset because I doubt it even occurs to you that maybe you've got this one wrong. Maybe there are people who understand this better. And maybe while you figure out your opinion, you should factor in his past behaviors and legal problems. Because any rational person would have to concede that it's at least a very good possibility that the justice system got this one right.
Oh, and I think it's hilarious when you call Cohen's character into question. There was no problem with him when he was doing Trump's dirty work and still on his side, right? You know why he went to jail in the first place, don't you?
What's it going to take for you to wake the hell up, man?
"How about just giving one specific detail about how he somehow was treated unfairly?"
Just one?
1 Alvin Bragg, the DA, campaigned on a promise to get Trump.
2- He took a case of alleged false business records ("legal expenses") dating back to 2017 and falling under the statute of limitations and turned them magically into felonies by linking them to the "underlying crime", (to affect the presidential campaign). Previously, the DOJ had looked at it and declined to file charges. Bragg's own office was not interested in filing charges until Trump declared he was going to run for president. By the way, any charges relating to the presidential campaign would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Govt not the NY City DA's Office.
3 Matthew Colangelo was the number 3 official in the Biden DOJ. He left to join Bragg's office, specifically the Trump case. He participated in the trial itself. Was that all a coincidence?
4 The judge refused to allow the former head of the FEC to testify for the defense on campaign law.
5 The instructions the judge gave to the jury were bizarre to say the least. He instructed the jury that to convict on each of the 34 counts, they must find that they were connected to one of three "underlying charges". Incredibly, he told them that even if they did not agree unanimously on any of the three charges, if there were a total of 12, that would be considered "unanimous". Wow. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I believe the 6th Amendment requires jury votes (in criminal trials) to be unanimous on all issues. In addition, the three choices were first disclosed in the judge's jury instructions-after the defense had made their final argument. A defendant is entitled to know the charges against him prior to the start of the trial. The defense has the right to properly prepare their case and their arguments.
6 The press conference by DeNiro and DNC officials in front of the courthouse while the trial was still in progress can certainly be interpreted as an attempt to influence the jury to convict. It was inappropriate to say the least.
No matter how despicable Trump may be, he is entitled to a fair trial, and I don't think he got one. I see several reversible errors in this case, and I predict at some point, it will be overturned.
"if there were a total of 12, that would be considered "unanimous".
I am a little unclear on this and I may have been quoting the words of numerous commentators because I can't find this exact language in Marchan's instructions. It would be more accurate to say that the instructions were that the jury had to be unanimous that the charged offense was committed and connected to one of three underlying crimes. The jury need not be unanimous on what the underlying offense was. I still feel that this point is problematic.
Post a Comment