The Grand Illusion
Recent comments (and I won’t say “the latest,” because there’s always something else) from Donald Trump include the discredited statements that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Ohio, a comment later changed to eating geese from the parks, and that Kamala Harris had tiny receivers in her earrings at the debate. Both claims are preposterous, for differing reasons, but they illustrate Trump’s mentality.
In his mind, he’s the greatest, no one greater, and what he says is the “gospel truth,” even if actual facts refute his words. If he doesn’t come out on top, whether in crowd size, funds raised, poll results, or actual ballots cast, that’s because someone else played unfair or cheated. And of course, when he wins, it’s a legitimate result.
Corporations and corporate types have spent millions on his behalf, perfectly legally, as a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but now that Harris has raised more money, her fundraising is “dirty money,” obviously because Trump believes that no one else could honestly raise that kind of funding, and that must be because his opponents are somehow cheating.
He’s been found guilty of business fraud in a state court, one that has no legal ties to the federal judiciary, yet he claims that the present Administration in Washington, D.C., “weaponized” the state legal system against him, despite the total lack of evidence, because he couldn’t possibly be guilty, and the fact that he was found guilty proves the state was doing something illegal.
He been found guilty of sexual assault and defamation – twice – again by a state court, and he claims that he never knew the woman. And then he has the nerve to say that the women he assaulted weren’t his type, that they couldn’t be the “chosen one” (his words, not mine), as if being chosen to be sexually assaulted by Donald Trump was some great honor, like Zeus defiling Leda. Not that honor has ever been reliably associated with Trump.
“He’s been found guilty of business fraud in a state court, one that has no legal ties to the federal judiciary, yet he claims that the present Administration in Washington, D.C., “weaponized” the state legal system against him, despite the total lack of evidence, because he couldn’t possibly be guilty, and the fact that he was found guilty proves the state was doing something illegal.”
No formal collaboration between the Administration and New York state courts was needed, since the New York (elected) DA may have already run on a promise to go after Trump (claimed by many, I haven’t spent the time to absolutely verify that), and a DA-friendly judge for such a case could readily be found in Manhattan. And the theory that an underlying crime turning misdemeanor records counts in felonies (not subject to statute of limitations) need never have been convicted (indeed, the feds declined to charge it) was novel to say the least; there are those who find Trump objectionable and perhaps guilty of various things that still question the soundness of that theory.
Your statement above was factual, esp. compared to Trump’s claims. But it fails to convey the reality, which if not in fact, yet in effect is not that far from what Trump claimed, namely that outcome rather than reasonably unbiased law enforcement was the objective.
There are ways to invite inaccurate conclusions (I’m avoiding saying “deceive”, since motive isn’t the point) while sticking to the truth. Trump is perhaps not sophisticated* and indirect enough to deal with that, so he sticks with the simple idea that if something goes more against him than expected, it must be rigged. He’s perhaps not always wrong about that, even if he’s wrong about HOW it’s rigged. Not to say he doesn’t view reality as something that really should conform to him, and so lies with a clear conscience. Sometimes I have a problem with that, and sometimes I _like_ that he expects to be able to modify reality to his expectations, even if he fails to express that in an honest manner.
There seem to be enough people in various places, whether federal or state, that think that preventing Trump from being re-elected justifies unprecedented legal theories and other extreme measures. Sounds a bit like “weaponization” to me. That’s absurd. We survived one Trump term, we survived one Biden term. We can probably survive another Trump term, or even a Harris term, even if about half the country either way might not like where one or the other takes us. Frustratingly enough for them, under either there will remain limits on presidential power.
* in 2016, he apparently didn’t know that Trump Tower computers were under surveillance via circular reporting (purportedly two sources i.e. press and Steele dossier, when it was really one source via both channels) based FISA warrant until then DIRNSA Adm. Rogers tipped Trump off at risk to his own career. It may have later been said by him to some that Trump and many of his team were naive at the time and didn’t know how rough the game was played, or words to that effect.
Feel free to provide actual sources and details. Vague statement of “unprecedented legal theories and extreme measures” Is just a nicer way of implying he’s right and to ignore reality.
NY law says a business record misdemeanor becomes a felony IF there’s an underlying crime. It is simply absurd to make that escalation when there has been no conviction or even charge on the underlying crime, merely an allegation of intent.
And the jury was told they didn’t have to be unanimous on certain factors as long as they believed one or more factors applied. While that is possible under NY law and precedent, there’s some question of its constitutionality.
There were other irregularities. He could easily win on appeal.
And there’s the DA. From a Newsweek article (definitely not right-wing!):
While campaigning, Bragg said: “I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable.”
He also said that he would continue with Vance’s investigation and hold Trump “accountable by following the facts where they go.”
Bragg continued to make frequent reference to his legal experience with the Trump family throughout the campaign.
The underlying crime is that it’s falsifying a document to cheat in an election, it’s point blank and obvious.
If it’s NY law and precedent, that’s not extreme or weird…
The DA has addressed over 100 cases, because there’s been that many individual cases. Again, not weird.
Saying they will follow the facts is not weird or extreme.
None of these are valid points towards your claim. Did you maybe mean to share other details?
None of the things you cited show Bragg campaigned on further prosecuting Donald Trump. The statement about following the facts where they go is what every prosecutor says and that’s what they’re supposed to do.
You are also forgetting that the first thing Bragg did with the Trump fraud case was to stop working on it or slow-walk it, to the point where “Two top prosecutors leading the criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump and his business resigned after the Manhattan district attorney said he was not prepared to authorize an indictment against the former President…”[1] Plainly the actions of someone bent on a politically motivated prosecution. (I look forward to your response explaining how this was part of a secret plot to give himself political cover before moving forward with it.)
You don’t need to waste your time reading more of Twitter’s best New York criminal law experts though, as justice Roberts’ new convoluted rules of evidence in the presidential immunity decision were bespoke creation to torpedo this conviction, assuring it will eventually be thrown out and need to be retried.
1. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-investigation
According to New York law, a computer randomly assigns judges to cases, which would rule out a D.A. seeking a particular judge.
Extreme theories? Like convicted felons, sex offenders, and multiple bankrupts maybe shouldn’t be President?
Even if one can’t judge-shop, the district or jurisdiction can make a huge difference.
That is the benefit of Democracy as compared to Autocracy and its feeders, libertarianism or anarchy.
Con man? Sure. Crybaby? Always.
Not to mention convicted felon. Insurrection inciter. Incompetent. And maybe idiot.
We can consider a host of others. Delusional? Demented? Destructive?
The man has no virtues that I have seen.
He wants to secure the border and go after criminals and not shut down fossil fuels when their successors are not yet technologically mature and economically viable. That’s virtuous compared to Democrats. Per the Constitution, a clean record is not a requirement.
Insurrection is in the eye of the beholder. Also BS; he said to keep it peaceful, even if he didn’t repeat himself often enough to please his opponents.
I like a crazy egomaniac, they’re just right to face down our adversaries, who are much like Trump in that regard, so they understand he’s serious. Better crazy than weakness (botched Afghanistan withdrawal, negligible and ineffective early opposition to Ukraine invasion, etc).
He’s not a crazy egomaniac – that implies that his mentation has reached adulthood.
He is good at identifying and retorting (not even really reacting since there seems to be no plan other than name calling). Any 4 year old can act in a first order method: identfy a problem and come up with a fix.
We need him to look beyond the basic problem to begin considering antecedents, confounders, and consequences – second order thinking. So far, there is very little evidence that he can do such. The Trump of 25 years ago…. a very qualified maybe. Definitely not the Trump of the 2000’s.
And if insurrection is in the eye of the beholder… what exactly do you think those people were doing when they climbed the walls, broken in the windows, and doors, and ransacked various rooms with in the Capitol building? He didn’t start calling for ‘Peace’ and such deaths ahd and the insurrectionists were either arrested or on their wau out. Day late and a dollar short doesn’t count here.
“Insurrection is in the eye of the beholder.”
Tell it to the dead Capitol Police officers.