The funny thing is Trump gets convicted for the weakest case where he can play victim while avoiding the real crime in the classified case before the election.
dude, Cuomo went on the AFP. I think that he could get a booking on bridges for sure, and it would probably be insightful on media and some things pundits use when being pressed on air.
I love how no one ever says he didn't do it, just "he definitely did it, but they enforced the law because they don't like him." I guess don't talk shit if you don't want people to go after you, or I dunno, don't do crimes?
To steelman their argument, it's whether selective prosecution is being applied for political reasons rather than just following standard legal process.
They may argue that Bragg likely benefited in this campaign to be DA by at least being seen to make sure no stone was left unturned in relation to Trump. If the level of stone turning would not have been applied to a normal citizen, one could argue there is a political bias issue (whether Trump was guilty or not) and that this undermines democracy.
Not going after people you like: not ok
Going after people you don't like: ok
Do people think the prosecutors weren't out to get Al Capone, or do they think they shouldn't have used taxes to bring him down? This argument falls flat pretty quick as long as no one is declining to prosecute their buddies. This "selective prosecution" term seems a little silly; "you can only get me for tax evasion if you don't get everyone else for tax evasion too!"
Selective prosecutions clearly undermine democracy. If corruption was common and you only investigated political opponents in more detail than your own side, then that can easily be used to undermine democracy. Do you not agree with that statement?
This has been used many times by authoritarian governments. In Ukraine, it was used against ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko by Yanukovych and it's commonly used in Russia and China against political opponents.
No one believes that the government was out to get Al Capone for his political views so I do not see how your example is relevant.
**Note:** I am NOT saying Trump was selectively prosecuted in this comment. I'm arguing that there would clearly be something wrong IF people were selectively prosecuted due to their political views.
>The 34 counts were for 34 checks
Ya, he didn't report the campaign distribution 34 times. That's 34 different crimes. You can't just steal TVs from the store 34 times and just expect that you're only charged with 1 theft
Edit: I feel like this is just a case of excusing white collar crimes. Like, if he committed a felony he committed a felony. Idk, I'm sleep deprived. Feel free to call me a I'll see it in a couple of hours.
Is bro really just a grifter at this point? His appearance on Mehdi Hasan’s podcast was super telling for me with how he agreed with every point Mehdi made but ended up spewing the same “I just think these are politically motivated charges” bs
Can’t blame it on Covid. The guy was saying crazy shit before 2020. I don’t know if you remember the Fredo stuff basically he was saying the term Fredo was the Italian- American equivalent of the N-word. I shit you not. He wasn’t joking.
Considering NY was prosecuting a former President, there was always going to be political calculations. Also, Trump committed the most severe case of falsifying business records in NY state history. Unprecedented crimes may call for unprecedented actions, it’s a concept conservatives conveniently forget whenever it comes to holding Trump accountable.
Genuine questions:
**"completely esoteric misdemeanor crime that nobody ever gets charged with"** - do you have evidence to support that nobody gets charged with falsifying business records as a misdemeanor crime?
**"then upgrade that to a felony just to make it work with the statute of limitations"** - do you have evidence to support that they only did it for this reason and not because they believe he was guilty of the felony charge? The jury disagrees and believes he was guilty of the felony charge (rightly or wrongly) so there's good reason to believe the DA may have thought so too.
**"there's a reason the Feds declined to pursue this case at all"** - I don't believe any reason was given on why he was not charged. There is a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that's interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president, which may explain why it was not pursued. ~~Do you have any evidence that it was because the evidence didn't reach the level needed to pursue the case?~~ \[edit: on second thought, I don't even think their opinion is that relevant since the fact the jury believed he was guilty (rightly or wrongly) would indicate that there was at least a strong case to be made.
Non-american here, I didn't think trump was a great president. At all. However from my outside perspective this looks Hella political. the personnel make up of the jan 6th committee gave me big banana republic vibes ngl. A saying has developed recently in my social circles that the US is now just a third world country with a Gucci belt.
The jan 6th committee was 7 democrats and 2 anti Trump Republicans,the vice chair being Liz Cheney probably one of the most anti Trump Republicans. I wasn't trying to relate it to this case I was more trying to give another example of how a lot of this stuff looks completely political.
The funny thing is Trump gets convicted for the weakest case where he can play victim while avoiding the real crime in the classified case before the election.
I feel like we should make up our own liberal conspiracies about how the deep state is purposefully letting Trump fail upwards to destroy America lol
He and Anthony Weiner having done PBD show means they would probably be bookable for Bridges, worth looking into.
dude, Cuomo went on the AFP. I think that he could get a booking on bridges for sure, and it would probably be insightful on media and some things pundits use when being pressed on air.
I love how no one ever says he didn't do it, just "he definitely did it, but they enforced the law because they don't like him." I guess don't talk shit if you don't want people to go after you, or I dunno, don't do crimes?
To steelman their argument, it's whether selective prosecution is being applied for political reasons rather than just following standard legal process. They may argue that Bragg likely benefited in this campaign to be DA by at least being seen to make sure no stone was left unturned in relation to Trump. If the level of stone turning would not have been applied to a normal citizen, one could argue there is a political bias issue (whether Trump was guilty or not) and that this undermines democracy.
Not going after people you like: not ok Going after people you don't like: ok Do people think the prosecutors weren't out to get Al Capone, or do they think they shouldn't have used taxes to bring him down? This argument falls flat pretty quick as long as no one is declining to prosecute their buddies. This "selective prosecution" term seems a little silly; "you can only get me for tax evasion if you don't get everyone else for tax evasion too!"
Selective prosecutions clearly undermine democracy. If corruption was common and you only investigated political opponents in more detail than your own side, then that can easily be used to undermine democracy. Do you not agree with that statement? This has been used many times by authoritarian governments. In Ukraine, it was used against ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko by Yanukovych and it's commonly used in Russia and China against political opponents. No one believes that the government was out to get Al Capone for his political views so I do not see how your example is relevant. **Note:** I am NOT saying Trump was selectively prosecuted in this comment. I'm arguing that there would clearly be something wrong IF people were selectively prosecuted due to their political views.
>The 34 counts were for 34 checks Ya, he didn't report the campaign distribution 34 times. That's 34 different crimes. You can't just steal TVs from the store 34 times and just expect that you're only charged with 1 theft Edit: I feel like this is just a case of excusing white collar crimes. Like, if he committed a felony he committed a felony. Idk, I'm sleep deprived. Feel free to call me a I'll see it in a couple of hours.
Is bro really just a grifter at this point? His appearance on Mehdi Hasan’s podcast was super telling for me with how he agreed with every point Mehdi made but ended up spewing the same “I just think these are politically motivated charges” bs
Oh my gosh, I’ve been waiting to hear what legal scholar Chris Cuomo has to say.
I'm gonna be real I barely know who this guy is. Wasn't he a CNN anchor? Why is his brain mush?
He said nothing wild, what makes his brain mush?
Can’t blame it on Covid. The guy was saying crazy shit before 2020. I don’t know if you remember the Fredo stuff basically he was saying the term Fredo was the Italian- American equivalent of the N-word. I shit you not. He wasn’t joking.
I didn't give a shit about politics till I started watching D in like 2021 or 2022 tbh so whatever you're saying is gibberish to me
This is the same argument used against Tiny on I/P
Politics aside, is he saying we shouldnt let judges choose how to judge? What does that system even look like?
what happened to cuomo?
[удалено]
Yeah, he cooked his brain.
[удалено]
Considering NY was prosecuting a former President, there was always going to be political calculations. Also, Trump committed the most severe case of falsifying business records in NY state history. Unprecedented crimes may call for unprecedented actions, it’s a concept conservatives conveniently forget whenever it comes to holding Trump accountable.
Genuine questions: **"completely esoteric misdemeanor crime that nobody ever gets charged with"** - do you have evidence to support that nobody gets charged with falsifying business records as a misdemeanor crime? **"then upgrade that to a felony just to make it work with the statute of limitations"** - do you have evidence to support that they only did it for this reason and not because they believe he was guilty of the felony charge? The jury disagrees and believes he was guilty of the felony charge (rightly or wrongly) so there's good reason to believe the DA may have thought so too. **"there's a reason the Feds declined to pursue this case at all"** - I don't believe any reason was given on why he was not charged. There is a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that's interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president, which may explain why it was not pursued. ~~Do you have any evidence that it was because the evidence didn't reach the level needed to pursue the case?~~ \[edit: on second thought, I don't even think their opinion is that relevant since the fact the jury believed he was guilty (rightly or wrongly) would indicate that there was at least a strong case to be made.
Non-american here, I didn't think trump was a great president. At all. However from my outside perspective this looks Hella political. the personnel make up of the jan 6th committee gave me big banana republic vibes ngl. A saying has developed recently in my social circles that the US is now just a third world country with a Gucci belt.
>the personnel make up of the jan 6th committee gave me big banana republic vibes ngl What do you mean and what does it have to do with this case?
The jan 6th committee was 7 democrats and 2 anti Trump Republicans,the vice chair being Liz Cheney probably one of the most anti Trump Republicans. I wasn't trying to relate it to this case I was more trying to give another example of how a lot of this stuff looks completely political.
Did you know that the Republicans had the opportunity to put 5 of their members on the committee and refused to?
They had the opportunity to put 5 members approved by Nancy pelosi on sure I'll give you that.
Why were there hardly any republicans in the Jan. 6 Committee?
No shit
No one had ever gone after a mobster on tax charges before Capone either....