The "law" could end up destroying us, at least temporarily.
Donald Trump has never been convicted of anything, and for all we know may never be convicted. He may even be re-elected president of the United States, even though he is obviously guilty of being a traitor, and guilty of gross dereliction of duty in his role as president of the United States in the period following the 2020 presidential election and on the fateful day of Jan 6 2021.
The evidence of THESE things is overwhelming, and was reinforced by the announcement yesterday that the prosecution has 11 million pages of documents to be used as evidence in his conspiracy trial. Even if 95% of those documents are irrelevant or inconclusive that would still leave 550,000 pages of evidence of his guilt. Let's think about that for a minute.
If we observe polling , and things like tv interviews at the Iowa state fair for example, the base of Trump's political support is unfazed by evidence. These people are either ignorant, not interested in the truth, or down the rabbit hole of right wing conspiracy dogma. When a few people have these cognitive issues the impact might be minimal, but when millions of people have those cognitive issues and there is a presidential election on the horizon the impact is potentially catastrophic.
So why do I say the law may destroy us ? Because the necessary adherence to "law" has so far played into Trump's and trumpism's hands. There will be no "speedy" trial, and even if there was a conviction prior to Nov 2024 the appeals would last for years and Trump would remain a free man , and maybe even be president while the appeals played out. The chance that the law will rescue the country from potential catastrophe seems to be slim right now.
But beyond that, Trump and his lawyers are able to manipulate the judicial system to paint him as the victim in all this. In the media we hear more about Jack Smith being "deranged" than we do about the evidence against Donald Trump. This is because actual evidence that will be used at trial will be kept under wraps until the trial begins. In other words a year or so from now. All the while Trump will be spewing bilge into the American publics ears and minds, and the prosecutors will have to sit there and take it. This is because Trump has "rights" , including the right to lie about virtually everything connected to this case and the government prosecutors. He will be threatened with repercussions if he doesnt stop but we all know no judge is going to put him in jail.
Then there is also the "Hunter Biden" case. A special prosecutor was named yesterday and the political right has used the announcement as an opportunity to advance conspiracy theories and falsehoods about not only the Bidens, but the justice system itself. We are told Garland is corrupt, Weiss is corrupt, they are helping the "Biden crime family". Garland and the prosecutor Weiss will not reply to these allegations because they dont comment on ongoing investigations. In the mean time the right will run wild with falsehoods and the MAGA base will hoover it all up.
What good is "the law" doing the American people in these cases?
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
What good is "the law" doing the American people in these cases?
It's an obstacle, isn't it?
It's that damn Constitution / S
Let's get rid of that and use the power of the federal government. Let us arrest Trump for treason and being a crook and put him in a federal penitentiary. Let us send all those Americans who believe in traditional American values to re-education camps. Them we can confiscate all of their possessions and offer it all as reparations to the oppressed. Then we can censor speech. Then we can tell five-year-olds that they can be any sex they want, and surgical procedures are at the ready. Then we can confiscate all the guns, gas burning cars and stoves and air conditioners. Then there will no longer be a divided country. / S
How did I do?
Your "argument", if we want to call it that, is that you dont like the way things are going , in some aspects, in our society and in the country, so its a good thing that Trump is allowed to misuse and clown on our justice system.
Yes, that would be called an UNDERSTATEMENT.
so its a good thing that Trump is allowed to misuse and clown on our justice system.
You have failed to show how Trump altered the Justice system. That very system that has been weaponized against him.
Trump is clowning on our justice system. He called the prosecutor "deranged" and a "Marxist". The prosecutor has no option to respond until trial, by which time all the damage will be done.
"Clowning our justice system?" Sorry I'm not from the hood. What does that mean? Does that mean he can't criticize it? Can it possibly merit criticism?
We don't know much about Jack Smith's case yet, but was Alvin Bragg's case against Trump worthy of Criticism?
How about any prosecution brought by Alvin Bragg?
How about the trial of J W Milam & Roy Bryant?
Is there any such thing as a miscarriage of Justice?
Now I have to be careful or our wonderful moderators will delete me. Because no one is allowed to confront you.
Trump called Jack Smith "deranged"
Does Jack Smith strike you as someone who is deranged? Or a Marxist?
Jack Smith cant call Trump a clown, but I can.
There is no miscarriage of justice regarding Trump. He committed his crimes related to Jan 6 in plain sight.
Oh yes, very careful.
Because no one is allowed to confront you.
There was a time!
Trump called Jack Smith "deranged"
Oh dear!
Does Jack Smith strike you as someone who is deranged? Or a Marxist?
deranged - NO Marxist - No. I think he is an ideologue that crawled out of a very corrupt DOJ. He has a long record to prove it.
He committed his crimes related to Jan 6 in plain sight.
Prove it!
Your COMMENTS are DERANGED !
The problem is when most leftists on here read this, they were nodding their collective heads in agreement thinking it was written by a marxist.
This is the argument of the majority of Americans.
Your comments are hallucinating.
What do you think Marx advocated? What makes you think that 'leftist' means 'Marxist'?
OK ...explain how without the insults.
And don't use your feelings as your argument.
Marx advocated for socialism.
Leftists do the same.
Surprised in all your "knowledge" you did not know that....
And be warned...I'm not interested in a lecture about Marxism, or why you think I'm wrong, or that I am not answering the way you want me to.
The word 'socialism' on its own is so vague it has no meaning.
Define socialism per Marx.
Define socialism desired by "leftists".
Unsurprising considering mining and factory conditions during the Industrial Revolution.
Are you envious?
Exactly, pre-industrial revolution was utopia in the Garden of Eden.
Marx advocated for an equal financial and social society where everyone...except the elite...have equal belongings, including financial status.
Leftists desire the same, a socially own economy.
Before you ask any more questions...they are the same.
And leftists, or democratic socialists (one in the same) continue to advocate for the same today.
Like "racist"
Were there such a place you would be the Gnome.
The fact that me, an overfed long haired leaping gnome
Should be the star behind a Hollywood movie, hmm
There I was
I was taken to a place
The hall of the mountain kings
I stood high by the mountain tops
Naked to the world
In front of
Every kind of girl
Some do, most do not.
Then you need to get rid of lawmakers in Canada that do, and you also need to tell your American friends to get rid of those in Congress that do.
They are a danger to this country and yours.
I am deaf to the wishes of fearmongers.
You spelled "truth telling" wrong.
And yes, you are deaf to it.
Do not fear these rightwing jingoist indulging in jingoism.
Their beliefs are so simple minded they should be pitied...
One of my earliest Santana favorites:
Marx did not advocate everyone being equal; he advocated equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Marx advocated a society with democratic control of the economy. Specifically, he advocated the abolition of minority ownership and control of the productive resources of the economy (the means of production and distribution). This is anti-capitalism. Note: government is considered minority control too so state control over the economy (state capitalism) is the opposite of Marxism.
There is nothing in Marxism that attempts to make everyone equal (same financial status, same private property, etc.). In simple terms, Marx advocated anti-capitalism, pro-democracy, and pro-economic freedom.
There are very few politicians who would advocate anti-capitalism in the USA. Marxism effectively does not exist here except in a very tiny fringe. Elements (hints) of Marxism, however, do exist in the form of labor unions and cooperative corporations (employee ownership). These are philosophically consistent with Marxism (especially in cooperatives that implement workplace democracy).
This is odd. By 'the same' you equate leftism with "equal belongings and financial status". That is wrong (except in the extreme fringe). But you then state a defining characteristic of Marxism "socially owned economy" (aka anti-capitalism' aka collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution) and in that regard you are correct for both Marxism and 'leftism' in general.
Leftism is a concept that is older, broader, and more abstract than Marxism. The defining characteristics of leftism are freedom, equal opportunity, civil liberties, larger role of government, social justice, globalism, etc.
'Leftists' in the USA predominantly focus more on social issues while favoring capitalism. They would not be seen as Marxists by Karl Marx.
In short, it is incorrect to equate 'the left' with 'Marxism' (by far, not all 'leftists' are 'Marxists') and incorrect to think that Marxism has any real footing in the USA. Rs seem to see Marxists everywhere. This is because they (in general) redefine Marxism to mean "whatever the Ds do". They are fearful of ideas that are not even D objectives (e.g. equal belongings and financial status).
When someone makes a comment that suggests widespread Marxism in the USA, that individual is confused.
No they are not the same. You would be closer to reality if you used the term 'social democracy' because that is a system whereby government provides extensive social programs funded by a regulated capitalist economy. The USA is a weak social democracy. But we are nowhere close to that advocated by democratic socialists.
And 'leftist' is much broader than merely the philosophy of 'democratic socialism'.
No, racist is a rather well defined term. Most people agree with the definition:
This country already has equality of opportunity....for everybody. No exceptions.
Lefists want equality in results.
The tiny fringe of Marxists you speak of are very loud and many are in Congress the squad as a prime example. The problem is that they are able to get their agenda out through a left wing media, and many mushy young minds lap it up, along with many delusional adults. Bernie Sanders always comes to mind as evidenced by the popularity he had just a few short years ago.
BTW...maybe many decades ago, leftist characteristics included freedom, but certainly not today. Most leftists believe the government should be in control of everything...health care, wages, ownership of property, etc...exactly what Marx advocated for.
My post stands. There is no difference between leftism/liberalism and Marxists today.
Racist USED to have meaning but left wingers/liberals have used the term to demean, insult and silence anyone that does not toe their radical agenda.
It has been done so often, the original definition has no meaning, and most people just laugh at leftists when they try and apply the term to just about everything.
Now that is beyond naïve.
Cite an example of what you think is a 'Marxist agenda'.
You think Bernie Sanders is a Marxist? Explain why. Explain the elements of Marxism that Sanders supports. In particular, show where Sanders seeks to destroy capitalism in the USA.
One of the defining factors of the left is the philosophy of a benevolent government. Their views range over a spectrum and some of the more extreme do indeed want the government to have more control than it should have. Most of the USA left are far more moderate than what you paint. They do support national healthcare but do not support government control over the economy (wages, prices, property ownership, etc.).
You clearly have no understanding of Marxism. Marx sought collective democratic control over the economy. That means putting the power in the hands of the people. His ideal world was one where there was no state and that people had learned how to function democratically without the need of a formal state. (Silly, IMO, but that was his view.) You really think that Marx wanted to end minority control over the people by capitalists only to empower another minority (government) over the people? Marx was after majority control by the people. Attempt to comprehend majority control distinct from minority control.
What a surprise. You learn nothing and just stubbornly stick to what you want to believe. Confirmation bias.
Yes 'racist' is used very freely by 'the left'; one can be labeled a 'racist' on a whim. But the word still has clear meaning even though it is misapplied.
In contrast, the word 'socialism' has many contradictory meanings. It is impossible to know what a person means by 'socialism' unless they define the term as they perceive it.
Yup, that is where their hearts are.
You do realize that your entire conversation is an exercise futility, don't you? It went in one eyeball and out the back of his head
Certainly, there is no reasoning with my interlocutor. But my posts are never intended to persuade an interlocutor who has no interest in learning but rather to illustrate to readers why the interlocutor's position is wrong.
Weiss wanted the special counsel designation because he wants the option of filing charges against Hunter Biden outside of Delaware. Hunter Biden's alleged criminal liabilities occurred outside Delaware and must be filed where they occurred. In other words, the special counsel designation, rather than signaling a "coverup" of Hunter Biden's wrong doing, is actually a means of holding Hunter Biden to account.
Of course, we wont hear a fricking word of this in the right wing media megaphones.
That was a problem for Weiss early on, but a lot happened in his less than productive investigation since then. For one thing serious crimes were never prosecuted because the statute of limitations was allowed to run out. For another, Weiss worked with Hunter's lawyers to arrange the mother of sweetheart deals.
So Weiss and Garland were lying when they've publicly stated that he already had that authority? Here's Merrick Garland testifying to Congress in March, 2023:
. Garland replies: “The US Attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority to make those kind[s] of referrals that you are talking about, or bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary and I will assure that if he does, he will be able to do that…I have promised to ensure that he is able to carry out his investigation and that he be able to run it and if needs to bring it in another jurisdiction he will have full authority to do that.”
So you agree Garland should be impeached for lying to Congress? And do you still wonder why people don't trust the Garland DOJ? They've obviously misled you.
He carried out his investigation and reached a plea deal agreement with Hunter Biden, which fell through. Now plan b.
The unreasonableness of the right, not to mention derangement is off the charts.
You literally just ignored that Garland publicly testified that Weiss already had the authority to file cases in different districts. Special counsel status is not necessary for that.
As for the attempt to give Biden a sweetheart deal that even Weiss's deputies had to admit to the Judge was "unprecedented" in its nature, that alone should disqualify him from handling anything with regards to Hunter Biden. Of course, so should his choice to allow the SOL to run against Hunter Biden's most serious tax charges for no reason.
According to him.....or not....he had that right already.
Why all of a sudden for the special prosecutor designation if he already had that right.
Possibly he was lying when he said he had to go through other channels to bring charges in other jurisdictions?
People are unfazed by evidence because Donald Trump is still a better choice than Joe Biden.
The Presidency has become a surrogate for special interests. And the special interests don't really care who occupies the White House as long as the occupant is compliant. The most important quality for a President is 'to be on our side'; nothing else is relevant.
Thats not really a legitimate reason to be unfazed by evidence.
The evidence of Trump's wrong doing is not the least bit overwhelming or he would have been tried and convicted by now.
Everyone, including Trump, is entitled by the Constitution and the Law to mount a vigorous defense when accused of a crime.
I mean, after all, isn't the Biden/Hunter defense team pulling every trick in the left wing book to make their legal troubles go away?
Fair is far, right?
Your comments are a waste of time.
Why do you think so , John...be specific in your "reasoning".
What is the equation that computes the trial and conviction dates based on the volume of evidence against a defendant?
Don't be naïve. Indictment and trial dates are not based solely on the acquisition of evidence ... especially when dealing with a former PotUS.