The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[Res Ipsa]

Congress has no legitimate constitutional role in a current criminal prosecution.

MAGAs do not care about the Constitution, they want retribution.

They are afraid and are doing things humans tend to do when they live in fear.

[Gadianton]

I didn't go with that conclusion because, as I say above in response to Some Schmo, Trump did what he does all the time. I don't know that there was any calculation in his actions. He is the brand guy doing what he can to protect his brand. He was that same guy when he got into this mess in the first place. He just doubles and triples down on the same approach ad nauseam.

Oh, I totally agree. I don't even think the more competent lawyers he's had who give in, give in because they see the advantage of messaging either; I think they give in reluctantly because he's the client, he's got deep pockets, and they bank on being the one lawyer who gets paid.

I'm saying look at it from 20,000 feet above. I'm thinking what's rational in terms of evolution vs. what's rational in terms of -- what actually makes sense. Have you ever watched those cop bodycam videos where they ticket or arrest "Sovereign Citizens"? these are mini-Trump's, or better, the folks who are prime target for demagoguery of the Trump brand. The main difference between these folks as individuals, and Trump, is that when I look at Trump I see the payoff down the road if he wins. For the Sovereigns, there is no benefit. It's foot shooting of the worst kind. Some of these people go to jail over and over again, licenses suspended, get their cars impounded, rack up criminal records which hurt employment opportunities, and there is no possible endgame that makes sense. If they win then what? They save a couple hundred bucks a year on car registration?

But here's the thing, as an evolutionist, there has to be a reason for it. It has to make sense at some level. The best I can come up with, is that on the individual level, there is some kind of a weird psychological payoff when taking on this roll. A fanatics mindset, even if self-destructive, simplifies the world. And no, though likely practiced, I don't think it's something they could just "turn off" if they wanted to, anymore than I think Ajax is capable of fully understanding an political or economic reality even if he really wants to, and that's not because of intelligence. As a group, the power seems to be in the ability to exhaust the system. As more people take on the role, resources are used up and there is the temptation to "let them have their way" because the cost of dealing with it becomes too high.

Squatting is an in-between case, there is a similar power to exhaust the system (yes Ajax, you're very much like a squatter if you think about it), but the material stimulus is stronger than the ideological stimulus. The ideological stimulus I imagine increases over time, however, as most people, even if driven significantly by material need, don't want to see themselves as doing something wrong. And so if a squatter (somebody on the level of Ajax psychologically) has taken over your house, by the time the cops can drag them out (or a third party contractor), they will really believe that they are the one being wronged.

Trump's version might go something like this: "He is a loser's idea of what a winner looks like.

Oh 100%. A brilliant obs.

[Some Schmo]

I completely agree with both you and Kishkumen. Competence is not all that Trump lacks. He completely lacks compassion and any sense of fairness for anyone other than himself. He also lacks basic knowledge of science, human history and how things really work. Nor does he care about any of those things. He couldn't care less whether or not anything he says is true or supported by credible evidence -- only whether or not it appeals to him and his stupidest and most gullible subjects. He determinedly appeals to people's most selfish, bigoted and hateful impulses.

Yeah, these are excellent points germane to his unfitness to have any kind of power.

[ajax18]

The Relief Society whipped up the MAGA thugs, who threatened the prosecutor and his family. He testified about them. Being that, Congressional interference in a pending case by calling the prosecutor on the carpet in a public hearing is an attempt at pure intimidation. Congress has no legitimate constitutional role in a current criminal prosecution.

It's only intimidation if you have something to hide. Congress had no problem grilling Don Jr. in an attempt to perjury trap him and declare him a traitor to the US and a Russian operative.

[Res Ipsa]

That's an interesting fact. Thanks for sharing it.

We knew back during the OJ Simpson trial how well this pillar of the Anglo-Saxon legal system works in getting justice. I'm hoping and praying for the day that Jesus Christ is made king of this world and it's either the Lord's way or the highway. That's the only time this world will ever see justice or a functioning legal system.

Let me explain something important. The main reason we have juries is to ensure that nobody is punished for a crime if there is any reasonable doubt that they actually did what they are accused of doing. In other words, it prioritises ensuring that no innocent person shall be condemned, and to achieve that it accepts that some guilty people will escape punishment. OJ Simpson's lawyers evidently succeeded in convincing the jury that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. So even if they all thought he probably did commit the murder, it was their duty, under the oath they swore, to acquit him.

The great 18th C. English jurist William Blackstone stated the principle clearly in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

And I submit that if all we have is human justice, that is the right principle to follow. Don't you agree? Of course, if you believe in an all powerful all knowing deity, as you do, he will sort out things in the end. Till then, don't you think we need to play safe?

Of course, when later on Simpson was sued by the victim's family in a civil case, the decision went against him. That is because in a civil case there is no 'reasonable doubt' rule. Instead, the decision goes in favour of the side whose case is judged to be favoured by the balance of probability. That is acceptable, because nobody's life or liberty is at stake in a civil trial.

I think yours is a critical point. I Just got done watching the Chad Daybell trial. His defense was that corrupt LEOs had framed him for murders he did not commit. We could call it the Trump defense. But part of the beauty of the system is that he was able to make that argument and several others to try and interject that reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury.

That jury, like juries do, took its job seriously and weighed a huge amount of evidence, including some that was horrific, to decide whether the case was proved beyond reasonable doubts, including sentencing him to death. Citizens perform this duty every day and, unlike Ajax, do their best to make the right decision. To attack jurors as superficial, partisan hacks is, in my opinion, inexcusable. Jurors are the largely unsung heroes of our legal system. Some of the Daybell Jurors will need therapy, as some of the jurors in last years trial of Lori did.

Who’d have thought that so many Boomers would have ended up at “My Way or I’ll burn it all down.”

[ajax18]

MAGAs do not care about the Constitution, they want retribution.

They are afraid and are doing things humans tend to do when they live in fear.

There you go again with the projection. It is the Democrats who fear losing power. Gaslighting can't win you elections forever. I honestly have no fear of anyone getting away with it or me being cheated. If I follow the Lord's way, He'll surely make me whole in this life or the next. No human court or physician has the power to do that.

[ajax18]

To attack jurors as superficial, partisan hacks is, in my opinion, inexcusable.

Unless it's a southern jury that convicts a black man. Than it's perfectly fine to call them racist without any idea nor concern for what the facts of the case were.

[Res Ipsa]

The Relief Society whipped up the MAGA thugs, who threatened the prosecutor and his family. He testified about them. Being that, Congressional interference in a pending case by calling the prosecutor on the carpet in a public hearing is an attempt at pure intimidation. Congress has no legitimate constitutional role in a current criminal prosecution.

It's only intimidation if you have something to hide. Congress had no problem grilling Don Jr. in an attempt to perjury trap him and declare him a traitor to the US and a Russian operative.

Uhh. That’s literally not how intimidation works.

Did Congress try to interfere in a criminal prosecution of Don Jr.? Do you understand what a perjury trap is? (Hint: it doesn’t mean asking questions of a Maga. Can you link me to this declaration of Congress? Or is this more lunatic ranting?

[Res Ipsa]

They are afraid and are doing things humans tend to do when they live in fear.

There you go again with the projection. It is the Democrats who fear losing power. Gaslighting can't win you elections forever. I honestly have no fear of anyone getting away with it or me being cheated. If I follow the Lord's way, He'll surely make me whole in this life or the next. No human court or physician has the power to do that.

LOL. The master of projection cries projection. The right wing media echo chamber has made you afraid.

Jesus was very clear: your reward is in the next life. He said not to worry about this life. You seem pretty damn worried about what Jesus told you not to worry about.

[Res Ipsa]

To attack jurors as superficial, partisan hacks is, in my opinion, inexcusable.

Unless it's a southern jury that convicts a black man. Than it's perfectly fine to call them racist without any idea nor concern for what the facts of the case were.

Really. Don’t southern juries convict lots of people every day? Can you show me a single example of me calling a southern jury racist for convicting a black defendant. Or have you “squirreled” off to lost cause territory?