Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Political discussions
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

If you slice and dice one payoff into 34 misdemeanors with the intent to claim each action intended to cover up a serious crime … shouldn’t you name that crime? Alvin Bragg still hasn’t done so, despite going through with an arraignment on what appears to be a secret charge of some sort.

Presumably, Bragg will argue that Donald Trump violated federal campaign-finance laws and falsified business records to cover it up. That isn’t the only possibility, as we’ll see in a moment, but that has been the leading theory. That theory of the crime has two big problems, however. First off, the Federal Election Commission and Department of Justice have jurisdiction over federal campaign-finance regulation, not a county DA. And second, as one FEC commissioner explained yesterday afternoon to Paul Bedard, the FEC already investigated it — and concluded no crime had been committed by Trump, as did the DoJ .
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.

“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor. …

“I don’t know how you get around the evidence that both the Department of Justice in their investigation of the federal campaign finance issues and the Federal Election Commission in their ultimate jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, neither of them found there to be any violations whatsoever, and I think the jury is going to see that and they’re going to have to rely upon the fact that both the law enforcement experts and the civil enforcement experts, as far as campaign finance are concerned, didn’t find any violation of the law here,” said Trainor.
...
It is not illegal for a married politician to have affairs with porn stars and Playboy models. It is certainly unethical to do do, but prosecutors don’t enforce ethics; voters get to make that decision when it comes to politicians. It is not illegal to offer financial remuneration in exchange for an agreement to keep such matters private, either. Again, we can debate the ethics of NDAs, but also again, that’s a matter for voters to weigh, not prosecutors. It is also not a fraud for politicians to keep potentially derogatory non-criminal information from voters before an election. If it were, every politician who ever ran for office would be in prison, likely including Bragg himself.
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/04 ... al-n542077
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

Winterborn wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:13 pm
If you slice and dice one payoff into 34 misdemeanors with the intent to claim each action intended to cover up a serious crime … shouldn’t you name that crime? Alvin Bragg still hasn’t done so, despite going through with an arraignment on what appears to be a secret charge of some sort.

Presumably, Bragg will argue that Donald Trump violated federal campaign-finance laws and falsified business records to cover it up. That isn’t the only possibility, as we’ll see in a moment, but that has been the leading theory. That theory of the crime has two big problems, however. First off, the Federal Election Commission and Department of Justice have jurisdiction over federal campaign-finance regulation, not a county DA. And second, as one FEC commissioner explained yesterday afternoon to Paul Bedard, the FEC already investigated it — and concluded no crime had been committed by Trump, as did the DoJ .


...
It is not illegal for a married politician to have affairs with porn stars and Playboy models. It is certainly unethical to do do, but prosecutors don’t enforce ethics; voters get to make that decision when it comes to politicians. It is not illegal to offer financial remuneration in exchange for an agreement to keep such matters private, either. Again, we can debate the ethics of NDAs, but also again, that’s a matter for voters to weigh, not prosecutors. It is also not a fraud for politicians to keep potentially derogatory non-criminal information from voters before an election. If it were, every politician who ever ran for office would be in prison, likely including Bragg himself.
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/04 ... al-n542077
Which DOJ and when?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20061
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:15 pm
Which DOJ and when?
How many DoJ's do we have?

Why does it matter when?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:18 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:15 pm

Which DOJ and when?
How many DoJ's do we have?

Why does it matter when?
1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20061
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:53 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:18 pm
How many DoJ's do we have?

Why does it matter when?
1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
If you're questioning or insinuating that bias might have been a factor in DoJ decisions not to investigate or prosecute trump under trump then MAGAts are equally justified to question or insinuate that bias might be a factor in DoJ decisions to investigate or prosecute trump under Biden.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:27 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:53 pm

1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
If you're questioning or insinuating that bias might have been a factor in DoJ decisions not to investigate or prosecute trump under trump then MAGAts are equally justified to question or insinuate that bias might be a factor in DoJ decisions to investigate or prosecute trump under Biden.
True which has little to do with the truth in either instance.

At least in the latter case we actually get to see if it has merit.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18048
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:53 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:18 pm

How many DoJ's do we have?

Why does it matter when?
1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:44 am
kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:53 pm

1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
I don’t disagree with any of this. All of these investigations are odd for various reasons. The lack of connecting the dots leaves too much room for speculation but I’m guessing the prosecution is well aware of this. It’s not like this investigation was rushed which leads me to suspect there’s an explanation. If there isn’t, it’s quite the fail and damages the reputation and career track of those involved.

It takes months because that’s our legal system and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing.
Last edited by kalm on Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:44 am
kalm wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:53 pm

1). If decisions not to investigate or prosecute were made under Trump is one reason it matters.

2). Cy Vance has recently admitted there was significant evidence of a crime but he was asked to stand down by the DOJ and ran out of time.

It will likely be months before we get the full scoop on this and there’s likely more to the story than just what crime has he even committed?
Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:
In the first place, prosecutors are generally not allowed to withhold charges in an arraignment. An arraignment is supposed to formally satisfy the constitutional requirement that defendants get fully apprised of the charges against them. It’s not unusual to add counts to indictments after arraignments as investigations proceed, but it’s unheard-of to predicate misdemeanors into felonies on the basis of covering up another felony without naming the felony on which the other felony charges are predicated. We do not allow prosecutors to use secret charges in American courtrooms, or at least we didn’t until now. That defect is front and center in Bragg’s presentation in court even before a judge tackles jurisdiction

...

But what if the predicate felony isn’t a federal campaign-finance violation? Bragg hinted at the presser after the arraignment that the underlying felony was a state crime, even though his statement of facts attached to the indictment hinted at a federal campaign-finance violation. Another theory floating since the arraignment is that Bragg will charge Trump with conducting a fraud on voters in New York County through paying off Stormy Daniels (and presumably Karen McDougal) to keep them from talking about his extramarital affairs. That theory has any number of problems, starting the John Edwards precedent in which it became impossible to prove that Edwards paid off Rielle Hunter to protect the campaign, as opposed to just keeping the tryst from his terminally-ill wife. Trainor doesn’t cite US v Edwards, but points out that the FEC had the same impossible burden of proof in the Trump-Cohen case:
Third, it is not obvious that the reason for the payment and the reimbursement to Cohen was to influence the election, thus failing the “objective standard” of law. “It has to be something that anybody on the street can look at and say the only reason you did that was to influence the campaign,” said Trainor. “There’s a lot of reasons that he could have done it that aren’t related to him being a candidate for president, and so therefore, it wouldn’t have met the standard as campaign expenditure under federal law,” he added.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 7:12 am
GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:44 am

Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
I don’t disagree with any of this. All of these investigations are odd for various reasons. The lack of connecting the dots leaves too much room for speculation but I’m guessing the prosecution is well aware of this. It’s not like this investigation was rushed which leads me to suspect theirs an explanation. If there isn’t, it’s quite the fail and damages the reputation and career track of those involved.

It takes months because that’s our legal system and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing.
The system works slow for a reason. It is not because charging former Presidents is a new thing. :tothehand:
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:06 am
kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 7:12 am

I don’t disagree with any of this. All of these investigations are odd for various reasons. The lack of connecting the dots leaves too much room for speculation but I’m guessing the prosecution is well aware of this. It’s not like this investigation was rushed which leads me to suspect theirs an explanation. If there isn’t, it’s quite the fail and damages the reputation and career track of those involved.

It takes months because that’s our legal system and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing.
The system works slow for a reason. It is not because charging former Presidents is a new thing. :tothehand:
I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:17 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:06 am

The system works slow for a reason. It is not because charging former Presidents is a new thing. :tothehand:
I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
It is a fair question and I agree that the politics behind it truly suck (IMHO, this is pure political by Bragg and Pelosi's comments notwithstanding in American you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around (My reasoning I am happy to explain)).

What I disagree with is the second half of your statement "and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing". It does not matter if you are plumber or a President, the law is intended to work the same and is written to work the same. Implying that just because it is a former President being charged and that necessitates something different is false.

Now I agree that he does warrant more care (due to the optics but that is it) but based on your past posts questioning reservations brought up by others on the merits of the case, I took it as the opposite. Now maybe you are just trolling or maybe I am reading too much into it and if that is the case, I apologize. I came to this site because I like the discussion but lately it has become a news feed and snip contest and that wears on ones patience, which is in short supply these days unfortunately.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:52 am
kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:17 am

I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
It is a fair question and I agree that the politics behind it truly suck (IMHO, this is pure political by Bragg and Pelosi's comments notwithstanding in American you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around (My reasoning I am happy to explain)).

What I disagree with is the second half of your statement "and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing". It does not matter if you are plumber or a President, the law is intended to work the same and is written to work the same. Implying that just because it is a former President being charged and that necessitates something different is false.

Now I agree that he does warrant more care (due to the optics but that is it) but based on your past posts questioning reservations brought up by others on the merits of the case, I took it as the opposite. Now maybe you are just trolling or maybe I am reading too much into it and if that is the case, I apologize. I came to this site because I like the discussion but lately it has become a news feed and snip contest and that wears on ones patience, which is in short supply these days unfortunately.
Of course your second paragraph is how it SHOULD be but that’s far from the reality. In our current system, nothing is illegal if you have the money or unless you get caught. Doing the wrong thing is often rewarded.

I’ll tone down the trolling for you from now on but most of my posts on this topic are sincere. The problem is there’s just a hell of a lot of speculation out there. You and I may just be a matter of seeing it through different lenses. In fact, I agree almost every time with UNI88 regarding Trump. Not to mention a significant number of conservative former Republicans…both in the public and personal friends.

The duopolistic nature of our system creates much of the division.

(None of this trolling btw)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18048
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:17 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:06 am

The system works slow for a reason. It is not because charging former Presidents is a new thing. :tothehand:
I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
I'd argue exactly the opposite. In this era of division and partisanship, getting it right almost doesn't even matter. Heck, it's actually a hinderance to labelling your opponent in whichever way you want to label them. You can say forever now that Trump was indicted. He may be guilty, he may be innocent, but who cares? He's now an indicted felon, that can be put into headlines and news bits forever now. In this era of division and partisanship, that absolutely works no matter how this thing ends up.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59407
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:13 am
kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:17 am

I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
I'd argue exactly the opposite. In this era of division and partisanship, getting it right almost doesn't even matter. Heck, it's actually a hinderance to labelling your opponent in whichever way you want to label them. You can say forever now that Trump was indicted. He may be guilty, he may be innocent, but who cares? He's now an indicted felon, that can be put into headlines and news bits forever now. In this era of division and partisanship, that absolutely works no matter how this thing ends up.
Interesting take.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20061
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by UNI88 »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:05 am
GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:44 am

Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:
In the first place, prosecutors are generally not allowed to withhold charges in an arraignment. An arraignment is supposed to formally satisfy the constitutional requirement that defendants get fully apprised of the charges against them. It’s not unusual to add counts to indictments after arraignments as investigations proceed, but it’s unheard-of to predicate misdemeanors into felonies on the basis of covering up another felony without naming the felony on which the other felony charges are predicated. We do not allow prosecutors to use secret charges in American courtrooms, or at least we didn’t until now. That defect is front and center in Bragg’s presentation in court even before a judge tackles jurisdiction

...

But what if the predicate felony isn’t a federal campaign-finance violation? Bragg hinted at the presser after the arraignment that the underlying felony was a state crime, even though his statement of facts attached to the indictment hinted at a federal campaign-finance violation. Another theory floating since the arraignment is that Bragg will charge Trump with conducting a fraud on voters in New York County through paying off Stormy Daniels (and presumably Karen McDougal) to keep them from talking about his extramarital affairs. That theory has any number of problems, starting the John Edwards precedent in which it became impossible to prove that Edwards paid off Rielle Hunter to protect the campaign, as opposed to just keeping the tryst from his terminally-ill wife. Trainor doesn’t cite US v Edwards, but points out that the FEC had the same impossible burden of proof in the Trump-Cohen case:
:nod:

I read an article a couple of days ago about Bragg withholding the details as a strategic move and it left me scratching my head because that isn't how our legal system works. The prosecution has to provide the defense with it's evidence and list of witnesses so the defense can review it and interview them and prepare their defense. If the prosecution surprises the defense then the defense gets time to review the new information. I'm not an attorney and my knowledge could be flawed but I don't think it's that far off.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18048
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by GannonFan »

UNI88 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:23 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:05 am

I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:

:nod:

I read an article a couple of days ago about Bragg withholding the details as a strategic move and it left me scratching my head because that isn't how our legal system works. The prosecution has to provide the defense with it's evidence and list of witnesses so the defense can review it and interview them and prepare their defense. If the prosecution surprises the defense then the defense gets time to review the new information. I'm not an attorney and my knowledge could be flawed but I don't think it's that far off.
Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23254
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by houndawg »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:05 am
GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:44 am

Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.
I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:
In the first place, prosecutors are generally not allowed to withhold charges in an arraignment. An arraignment is supposed to formally satisfy the constitutional requirement that defendants get fully apprised of the charges against them. It’s not unusual to add counts to indictments after arraignments as investigations proceed, but it’s unheard-of to predicate misdemeanors into felonies on the basis of covering up another felony without naming the felony on which the other felony charges are predicated. We do not allow prosecutors to use secret charges in American courtrooms, or at least we didn’t until now. That defect is front and center in Bragg’s presentation in court even before a judge tackles jurisdiction

...

But what if the predicate felony isn’t a federal campaign-finance violation? Bragg hinted at the presser after the arraignment that the underlying felony was a state crime, even though his statement of facts attached to the indictment hinted at a federal campaign-finance violation. Another theory floating since the arraignment is that Bragg will charge Trump with conducting a fraud on voters in New York County through paying off Stormy Daniels (and presumably Karen McDougal) to keep them from talking about his extramarital affairs. That theory has any number of problems, starting the John Edwards precedent in which it became impossible to prove that Edwards paid off Rielle Hunter to protect the campaign, as opposed to just keeping the tryst from his terminally-ill wife. Trainor doesn’t cite US v Edwards, but points out that the FEC had the same impossible burden of proof in the Trump-Cohen case:


]

Not sure what it could be but it feels like the prosecution is head-faking with their reasoning in order to keep something a surprise
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20061
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by UNI88 »

houndawg wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:06 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:05 am
I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:
]

Not sure what it could be but it feels like the prosecution is head-faking with their reasoning in order to keep something a surprise
If they do that the defense will justifiably ask for a continuance to review whatever the surprise is and adjust their defense.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:08 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:52 am

It is a fair question and I agree that the politics behind it truly suck (IMHO, this is pure political by Bragg and Pelosi's comments notwithstanding in American you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around (My reasoning I am happy to explain)).

What I disagree with is the second half of your statement "and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing". It does not matter if you are plumber or a President, the law is intended to work the same and is written to work the same. Implying that just because it is a former President being charged and that necessitates something different is false.

Now I agree that he does warrant more care (due to the optics but that is it) but based on your past posts questioning reservations brought up by others on the merits of the case, I took it as the opposite. Now maybe you are just trolling or maybe I am reading too much into it and if that is the case, I apologize. I came to this site because I like the discussion but lately it has become a news feed and snip contest and that wears on ones patience, which is in short supply these days unfortunately.
Of course your second paragraph is how it SHOULD be but that’s far from the reality. In our current system, nothing is illegal if you have the money or unless you get caught. Doing the wrong thing is often rewarded.

I’ll tone down the trolling for you from now on but most of my posts on this topic are sincere. The problem is there’s just a hell of a lot of speculation out there. You and I may just be a matter of seeing it through different lenses. In fact, I agree almost every time with UNI88 regarding Trump. Not to mention a significant number of conservative former Republicans…both in the public and personal friends.

The duopolistic nature of our system creates much of the division.

(None of this trolling btw)
No need to tone it down. :thumb: I will grow a thicker skin and just assume that you are mostly trolling. It would help if you occasionally put a note: "Not trolling", every now and then for a basis of discussion. ;)

I agree the system isn't perfect, but it works far better than you are making it. Sure people get off of charges that they shouldn't, but is that because of the system or because of the people in charge of the system? There is a distinction. We only hear about the big stuff that is deemed "newsworthy", but what about the millions of cases that are done correctly?

Due to my work roll I have experience with the Judicial system here in the US, Canada, multiple European, and Asian/Pacific countries. If you think are system is corrupt, I have some stories for you. I think we can reform a few things but all in all, our system works very well.

Your point about "Doing the wrong thing is often rewarded" is interesting because it gets down into some very philosophical topics on the interaction of government/society and human nature. It sure seems that way because of the way things are amplified and our memory works. Our brains are wired to store more memories more vividly when they are tied to an emotion and negative emotions (like somebody getting away with something) are most often some of the strongest we have.

It is why it is important to have "positive thoughts" as it trains our brain to a better default state. We all know somebody that is a grumpy person and most often the words they speak are negative vs somebody that always seems cheerful and has something positive to say. Which one do we like to hang out with the most?
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:49 am
UNI88 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:23 am

:nod:

I read an article a couple of days ago about Bragg withholding the details as a strategic move and it left me scratching my head because that isn't how our legal system works. The prosecution has to provide the defense with it's evidence and list of witnesses so the defense can review it and interview them and prepare their defense. If the prosecution surprises the defense then the defense gets time to review the new information. I'm not an attorney and my knowledge could be flawed but I don't think it's that far off.
Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.
They also need time to review it. How much time is the question and the defense usually claims they needed more time, the plaintiff says I gave you enough time and the judge gets to find the middle ground.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:13 am
kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:17 am

I wasn’t necessarily correlating the two. Ganny’s question of “why months” has also been asked repeatedly by the left, discouraged at how long investigations are taking and, for example, why Garland was waiting so long on federal charges.

One likely answer is that prosecuting a former president is a new thing, full of potential road blocks….not the least of which is you better get this right in an era of division and partisanship.

The politics behind everything truly sucks. I hope you’d at least agree with me on that?
I'd argue exactly the opposite. In this era of division and partisanship, getting it right almost doesn't even matter. Heck, it's actually a hinderance to labelling your opponent in whichever way you want to label them. You can say forever now that Trump was indicted. He may be guilty, he may be innocent, but who cares? He's now an indicted felon, that can be put into headlines and news bits forever now. In this era of division and partisanship, that absolutely works no matter how this thing ends up.
I think you hit the nail on the head here and based on what we know of the case, this is the primary objective. It is just a bonus if they can convict Trump. The other thing this case does is keep it in the news which drowns out Joes's classified document troubles, Hunter's laptop issues, the Biden family's connection to the CCP and Ukraine and the money that flowed between them all.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23254
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by houndawg »

UNI88 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:10 am
houndawg wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:06 am ]

Not sure what it could be but it feels like the prosecution is head-faking with their reasoning in order to keep something a surprise
If they do that the defense will justifiably ask for a continuance to review whatever the surprise is and adjust their defense.
I guess :?
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23254
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by houndawg »

kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:08 am
Winterborn wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:52 am

It is a fair question and I agree that the politics behind it truly suck (IMHO, this is pure political by Bragg and Pelosi's comments notwithstanding in American you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around (My reasoning I am happy to explain)).

What I disagree with is the second half of your statement "and prosecuting former presidents is a new thing". It does not matter if you are plumber or a President, the law is intended to work the same and is written to work the same. Implying that just because it is a former President being charged and that necessitates something different is false.

Now I agree that he does warrant more care (due to the optics but that is it) but based on your past posts questioning reservations brought up by others on the merits of the case, I took it as the opposite. Now maybe you are just trolling or maybe I am reading too much into it and if that is the case, I apologize. I came to this site because I like the discussion but lately it has become a news feed and snip contest and that wears on ones patience, which is in short supply these days unfortunately.
Of course your second paragraph is how it SHOULD be but that’s far from the reality. In our current system, nothing is illegal if you have the money or unless you get caught. Doing the wrong thing is often rewarded.

I’ll tone down the trolling for you from now on but most of my posts on this topic are sincere. The problem is there’s just a hell of a lot of speculation out there. You and I may just be a matter of seeing it through different lenses. In fact, I agree almost every time with UNI88 regarding Trump. Not to mention a significant number of conservative former Republicans…both in the public and personal friends.

The duopolistic nature of our system creates much of the division.

(None of this trolling btw)
.... thats why this place isn't great anymore.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

Post by Winterborn »

houndawg wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:41 pm
kalm wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:08 am

Of course your second paragraph is how it SHOULD be but that’s far from the reality. In our current system, nothing is illegal if you have the money or unless you get caught. Doing the wrong thing is often rewarded.

I’ll tone down the trolling for you from now on but most of my posts on this topic are sincere. The problem is there’s just a hell of a lot of speculation out there. You and I may just be a matter of seeing it through different lenses. In fact, I agree almost every time with UNI88 regarding Trump. Not to mention a significant number of conservative former Republicans…both in the public and personal friends.

The duopolistic nature of our system creates much of the division.

(None of this trolling btw)
.... thats why this place isn't great anymore.
Message boards are like society. It takes a wide range of interests, people, and thoughts to stay healthy. Too much of any one thing/belief/mentality leads to a downhill swing and the end of that society/board.

Good trolling is an art form and fun to watch. :thumb: But so is a good debate. :twocents:
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
Post Reply