The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[ajax18]

The verdict of a jury in a Republican dominated state on an accused known to be a Democratic supporter can similarly be dismissed as no more than an expression of the political color of the state, with no moral significance as expressing the honest view of 12 ordinary Americans.

That's already been happening for quite some time now. The same people who say we must not criticize the justice system lest we lead others to lose trust in it, are the same people insisting that our justice system is systemically racist and needs to be torn down and redone, especially if it was concocted by a bunch of Anglo Saxons 500 years ago.

In Hunter’s case, the prosecution offered a plea deal, which was negotiated and agreed to. After Relief Society in Congress carried out a campaign of intimidation and threats, the prosecutor reneged and then tried to use the contents of the plea deal to prosecute Hunter.

Oh really, what threats were those? You don't believe that the judge had some serious questions about the Hunter Biden plea deal?

[Some Schmo]

Trump shares his viewers' blindness. He believes his own BS, for the most part. This is why I don't buy into Gad's argument that Trump calculated his approach to the NY trial. Trump was just doing what he does. He is the hammer for whom everything is a nail. The effectiveness of his approach resides in the fact that his fans see the world in exactly the same way.

I completely agree with this. Trump isn't some brilliant strategist who knows exactly what to say to sway his followers. He has the advantage of speaking fluent moron. He says the idiot things that enter his addled excuse for a mind and his followers either aren't smart enough to discern the BS, like it because it's simple for them to understand, or they lap up the nonsense he's spouting out of simple desire. It's likely all three.

[Res Ipsa]

The verdict of a jury in a Republican dominated state on an accused known to be a Democratic supporter can similarly be dismissed as no more than an expression of the political color of the state, with no moral significance as expressing the honest view of 12 ordinary Americans.

That's already been happening for quite some time now. The same people who say we must not criticize the justice system lest we lead others to lose trust in it, are the same people insisting that our justice system is systemically racist and needs to be torn down and redone, especially if it was concocted by a bunch of Anglo Saxons 500 years ago.

In Hunter’s case, the prosecution offered a plea deal, which was negotiated and agreed to. After Relief Society in Congress carried out a campaign of intimidation and threats, the prosecutor reneged and then tried to use the contents of the plea deal to prosecute Hunter.

Oh really, what threats were those? You don't believe that the judge had some serious questions about the Hunter Biden plea deal?

I’ve read the damn transcript, Ajax, which I’m sure you haven’t. The judge’s only concern was the way the prosecution had drafted the paperwork. The judge expressed zero concern with the substance of the deal.

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.

[Chap]

Apart from the horrific consequences of such a blow at one of the most ancient and respected pillars of the Anglo-Saxon legal system - it goes right back to Magna Carta

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.

[Kishkumen]

I completely agree with this. Trump isn't some brilliant strategist who knows exactly what to say to sway his followers. He has the advantage of speaking fluent moron. He says the idiot things that enter his addled excuse for a mind and his followers either aren't smart enough to discern the BS, like it because it's simple for them to understand, or they lap up the nonsense he's spouting out of simple desire. It's likely all three.

Yeah, the guy blathers and says things that sound pseudo-sophisticated to those who lack brains. I love how his impersonator on SNL uses the phrases "in terms of" and "in regards to." You load your language with the right bamboozling hogwash, and the dullards confuse you with someone who has brains. The truly qualifying virtue of Trump in their minds is that he is a "successful businessman" and a "billionaire." The blather is just icing on the cake for them. If recent history has taught us anything, it should be that being a billionaire is not proof of genius.

[Gunnar]

Trump shares his viewers' blindness. He believes his own BS, for the most part. This is why I don't buy into Gad's argument that Trump calculated his approach to the NY trial. Trump was just doing what he does. He is the hammer for whom everything is a nail. The effectiveness of his approach resides in the fact that his fans see the world in exactly the same way.

I completely agree with this. Trump isn't some brilliant strategist who knows exactly what to say to sway his followers. He has the advantage of speaking fluent moron. He says the idiot things that enter his addled excuse for a mind and his followers either aren't smart enough to discern the BS, like it because it's simple for them to understand, or they lap up the nonsense he's spouting out of simple desire. It's likely all three.

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.

[Gunnar]

Yeah, the guy blathers and says things that sound pseudo-sophisticated to those who lack brains. I love how his impersonator on SNL uses the phrases "in terms of" and "in regards to." You load your language with the right bamboozling hogwash, and the dullards confuse you with someone who has brains. The truly qualifying virtue of Trump in their minds is that he is a "successful businessman" and a "billionaire." The blather is just icing on the cake for them. If recent history has taught us anything, it should be that being a billionaire is not proof of genius.

Amen! In fact, the mere aspiration to become a billionaire relentlessly pursuing ever increasing wealth without limit is arguably a contra-indication of real genius.

[Moksha]

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

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

[Moksha]

Republicans were easily corruptable and now they have irreparably been drawn to the dark side.

[Doctor Steuss]

I completely agree with this. Trump isn't some brilliant strategist who knows exactly what to say to sway his followers. He has the advantage of speaking fluent moron. He says the idiot things that enter his addled excuse for a mind and his followers either aren't smart enough to discern the BS, like it because it's simple for them to understand, or they lap up the nonsense he's spouting out of simple desire. It's likely all three.

Yeah, the guy blathers and says things that sound pseudo-sophisticated to those who lack brains. I love how his impersonator on SNL uses the phrases "in terms of" and "in regards to." You load your language with the right bamboozling hogwash, and the dullards confuse you with someone who has brains. The truly qualifying virtue of Trump in their minds is that he is a "successful businessman" and a "billionaire." The blather is just icing on the cake for them. If recent history has taught us anything, it should be that being a billionaire is not proof of genius.

I think sometimes people have difficulty differentiating between someone who is smart/savvy, and someone who simply has no ethics. Refusing to pay people isn't "smart/savvy," it's dishonest and unethical. Yet, it results in the same (if not greater) net benefit that being smart/savvy would in negotiations and planning. Helping your son steal from a kid's cancer charity and funnel the money into your own business, or stealing from your own charity to buy yourself presents, isn't' "smart/savvy," but it results in a kind of net financial benefit that being smart/savvy would in tax planning and social marketing.

Being a scumbag has helped Trump bypass the necessity to be smart, and all his cultists see is the end product, and assume that it's from being smart like the normal functional adults who have achieved the same or greater.