Wrong Case, Right Verdict
By: David Frum (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump will not be held accountable before the 2024 presidential election for his violent attempt to overturn the previous election, but he is now a convicted felon all the same.
The wrong case for the wrong offense just reached the right verdict.
Donald Trump will not be held accountable before the 2024 presidential election for his violent attempt to overturn the previous election. He will not be held accountable before the election for absconding with classified government documents and showing them off at his pay-for-access vacation club. He will not be held accountable before the election for his elaborate conspiracy to manipulate state governments to install fake electors. But he is now a convicted felon all the same.
It says something dark about the American legal system that it cannot deal promptly and effectively with a coup d'etat. But it says something bright and hopeful that even an ex-president must face justice for ordinary crimes under the laws of the state in which he chose to live and operate his business.
Over his long career as the most disreputable name in New York real estate, Trump committed many wrongs and frauds. Those wrongs and frauds are beginning to catch up with him, including his sexual assault upon the writer E. Jean Carroll, and then his defamation of her for reporting the assault. Today, the catch-up leaped the barrier from the civil justice system to the criminal justice system.
The verdict should come as a surprise to precisely nobody. Those who protest the verdict most fiercely know better than anyone how justified it is. The would-be Trump running mate Marco Rubio this afternoon shared a video on X, comparing American justice to a Castro show trial. The slur is all the more shameful because Rubio has himself forcefully condemned Trump. "He is a con artist," Rubio said during the 2016 nomination contest. "He runs on this idea he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy—his entire career." Rubio specifically cited the Trump University scheme as one of Trump's cons. In 2018, Trump reached a $25 million settlement with people who had enrolled in the courses it offered.
Eight years later, Rubio has attacked a court, a jury, and the whole U.S. system of justice for proving the truth of his own words.
We're seeing here the latest operation of a foundational rule of the Trump era: If you're a Trump supporter, you will sooner or later be called to jettison any and every principle you ever purported to hold. Republicans in Donald Trump's adopted state of Florida oppose voting by felons. They used their legislative power to gut a state referendum restoring the voting rights of persons convicted of a crime. But as fiercely as Florida Republicans oppose voting by felons, they feel entirely differently about voting for felons. That's now apparently fine, provided the felon is Donald Trump.
What has been served here is not the justice that America required after Trump's plot to overturn the 2020 election first by fraud, then by violence. It's justice instead of an especially ironic sort, driving home to the voting public that before Trump was a constitutional criminal, he got his start as a squalid hush-money-paying, document-tampering, tabloid sleazeball.
If Trump does somehow return to the presidency, his highest priority will be smashing up the American legal system to punish it for holding him to some kind of account—and to prevent it from holding him to higher account for the yet-more-terrible charges pending before state and federal courts. The United States can have a second Trump presidency, or it can retain the rule of law, but not both. No matter how much spluttering and spin-doctoring and outright deception you may hear from the desperate co-partisans of the first Felon American to stand as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major U.S. political party—there is no denying that now.
David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
Tags
Who is online
610 visitors
Agree. The American justice system is far from perfect but the big critics should identify which other justice systems are significantly better.
Who’s quote are you quoting?
We lost rule of law thanks to Biden and the Democrats.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote to continue the last 8 years of violating all norms, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
I always did like David Frum - of course it figures that he's a Canadian, born in Toronto. so he doesn't feel it necessary to chain himself to a specific American political party's dictates like most Americans submit their existence to.
He's been a knee jerk leftist for the last decade. He's famously one of the most predictable partisan hacks on the internet.
Your comment was predictable. I take no sides, I've taken either one side or the other or NO side depending on my personal feelings about issues. I, like so few others on this site, am NOT locked into a uni-directional viewpoint like, well, you know who I mean, don't you?
, like so few others on this site, am NOT locked into a uni-directional viewpoint like, well, you know who I mean, don't you?
Lol. You should read your posting history and try again.
Hey, go ahead, label me. I'll enjoy seeing YOUR opinion.
LOL. Looks like we're not going to get a reply to that.
Which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of all but the most radical Americans. Unlike some countries, we don’t have to ”submit” to anything. We are always free to choose. The choices aren’t always great but choices we always have.
Actually, nobody I know here "submits" to anything. Everyone I know here is quite happy with their lives. It's pretty calm where I am. Perhaps those who are elsewhere are fed horror stories and fairy tales about others in order to make them feel their own personal situations are not as bad as those of others. Oh, wait, there is something. I have to submit to the fact that nobody is permitted to have a gun except SWAT team police, armoured truck staff and the military. Funny thing is I don't feel at ALL deprived because of that, and in fact I feel pretty good about it.
Sounds familiar. I’ve tried to explain this to you before Buzz. What you read about Americans doesn’t even come close to describing what most experience. NTers is a good example of that.
To each their own. I don’t feel threatened in the least about gun ownership in America. I know the mass media would have you believe differently but there you go.
Constitutional rights give us the privilege of not having to submit to the will of the government as much as some. Although some here are trying to change that.
Thanks for a civil reply, Sparty On. However, I'm quite comfortable in the peaceful atmosphere where I am and appreciate your advice that it's not true that American legal wrangling and politics are pretty chaotic these days, and I need not have any concern because it's impossible that my grandchildren in Milwuakee could ever get shot in their classroom, or that my son because of his profession would ever be a target these days. However, just a bit of advice. If you happen to be driving in the wrong direction, make sure you damned well never try to turn around in someone's driveway.
Do it all the time.
Still here I must be lucky
This haiku for you
LOL. Sparty, you're a poet!!!
Hardly, but I can haiku …..
Yes, you can, your haiku was perfect.
Marco Rubio should be ashamed of himself.
Sooner. It's a test of loyalty. . . to the one and only 'idol' that matters: Donald.
If you are a Democrat supporter you already have jettisoned every principle.
Which is gonna blow and blow big. Some of my friends on the may not survive it when it hits.
No matter what anyone says and claims I will not now nor will I ever place a vote Joe Biden (a solely owned subsidiary of the CCP)
And how many patents did Ivana trump get in China? 18? And where is all her merchandise made? China? Just like all the MAGA hats...made in China. And who was it again who invited Xi to Mar-A-Lago? Trump, of course.
But you won't vote for Biden because....something something something...."China".
Got it, good chat.
What does any of that have to do with what I said. I don't trust Biden as far as I can throw him and I think even less of his current VP. I said I won't vote for Biden.
You talking about Biden there?
Whose family received money from China, Russia, Ukraine, and ME countries and didn't do anything for it again?
The rest of this thread was removed for no value.
Um, no? LOL
Therein lies a fundamental problem with this country. It's the choice of priorities Tribe over truth. Party over facts. Winning an election over justice.
Emphatically. MAGAs have taken over the Republican Party and thrown out the moderates (every time one pops up, s/he is primaried, compelled to quit or retire out of gross frustration. (Some) MAGAs are tribal. They don't want to diverse this country; they liked it as it was before! They want the country back (to when conservative ideology ruled it) because it was the only 'sure' worldview that held sway with the majority.
Change? They want no part of it. And as you can see some conservatives have a myriad of ways to say: 'Nay!' 'Nay!'. . . and 'Nay' to liberals seeking to get out from under their control.
Your statement is only valid if you are talking about Democrats.
They are the ones that shat on the Constitution and rule of law.
I’m happy to say both sides engage in that behavior. The fact that you can’t is an example of the problem.
So now we have a sitting congresswoman who cusses aloud and in her writings. I hope she gets censured by her congressional associates.
ex GOP Representative Mo Brooks , aka a human yoyo, has weighed in
Mo Brooks spoke at Trumps pre-insurrection rally on Jan 6th.
ut the American legal system that it cannot deal promptly and effectively with a coup d'etat.
Of course it can. Of course, waiting two plus years to start legal proceedings to maximize political impact will always delay justice.
he verdict should come as a surprise to precisely nobody.
I don't think it did. From the time indictment that didn't actually list the constitutionally required second crime was allowed to stand, it was clear what this was.
he United States can have a second Trump presidency, or it can retain the rule of law, but not both
Yeah. he'll use the DOJ to go after his opponents and put them in jail, brag about ignoring the Supreme Court, insult justices and threaten to pack it if they don't given in to his political demands, issue executive orders to ensure the country is flooded with illegal aliens he can turn into voters, and get his DOJ to forgive hundreds of thousands in tax debts owed by his family....
Trump could not be indicted while he was president. Bragg was elected in the fall of '22 and filed the charges in April of 23.
He wasted almost no time doing what he thought was right.
The verdict shows the previous DA was wrong to not indict Trump.
I was referring to the Jan 6th cases. I don't think anyone, even someone as hysterical as David Frum, would consider a wrong bookkeeping entry (also made by Hillary Clinton) a coup d' etat.
Not at all. The verdict was always the easy part (assuming a pliant judge, which is a safe bet in New York).
As they say a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, and the average person commits three felonies a day. A wise prosecutor knows not to be a Javert. The ramifications of this verdict, which might take years to play out, will determine if the DA was right or wrong.
Will you continue to say that if it's overturned on appeal?
OK, so I think that's a BS cliché. But let's assume it's true.
In such a case, why is it impossible that Trump - alone among Americans - committed felonies?
In such a case, why are conservatives - who usually are defenders of police and prosecutors - always saying you have nothing to fear from the system if you haven't done anything wrong?
You can't have it both ways. It can't be that the country is populated with felons, and cops and prosecutors are just good public servants, but Trump in particular is exempt from all that.
Unique among Americans, Trump is as pure as the driven snow, and any prosecutors out to get him are dishonest. Any judges that preside over his case are against him. And jurors - who didn't ask to be jurors, btw, and were subject to dismissal by the defense counsel - are unanimously against Trump.
Really??
Where did I say that?l
ways saying you have nothing to fear from the system if you haven't done anything wrong?
I don't say that and I'm not familiar with any conservative who does.
That's literally the point of the observation that "the average person commits three felonies a day."
You can't have it both ways.
Glad I'm not trying too.
ique among Americans, Trump is as pure as the driven snow, and any prosecutors out to get him are dishonest. st. Any judges that preside over his case are against him. And jurors - who didn't ask to be jurors, btw, and were subject to dismissal by the defense counsel - are unanimously against Trump
you are burning strawmen left and right. That might be some sort of record for strawen per sentence.
Personally, I think people should be guilty of the crime for which they are convicted not convicted because they are "bad" Radical, I know.
It's ignorance. It's fixation. It's delusion.
Some conservatives want what they want: the takeover of this country. They believe, and are partially right, that once upon a time this country truly was a conservative's "paradise". . . even though millions of the citizenry here were oppressed and suppressed.
Consequently, they are willing to look 'through' liberals (as if we are not there or of limited consequence) and are open to telling liberals outright lies about what they understand as truth. It's deliberate and intentional.
It's a form of mass hypnosis. That is, if you repeat it long and 'hard' enough more people (masses) might 'believe' and thus you have a 'movement' and become a leader in a man, woman, or a cause (manufactured out of whole cloth)!
And you know why all of this 'retro-thinking' is being proliferated by MAGAs'. . . .because of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
MAGAs have no intentions or desire to 'partner' with liberals equally and/or with 'equity' share this country's grandeur and wealth with liberals of any stripe!
So they delude themselves and 'silo' themselves until the delusion overwhelms them. . . usually becoming 'bigger-sized ' in the next and succeeding generation of children born to MAGAs.
Time to call it as it is!
This might seem like an advanced concept, but I didn’t quote you as saying that, so you don’t need to worry about it. What you did say reasonably led to the conclusions I made and the questions I asked. You could have chose to respond to the content of my reply, but alas.
I’ll dumb it down for you. Your words imply a conspiracy with no evidence. Your words also imply it should be easy to convict literally anyone of felonies, unless his name is Trump.
So was Trump mistreated? Where’s your evidence? Do you think he’s one of the special ones who doesn’t commit daily felonies? What exactly are you trying to claim? And can you support any of it?
Would the overturning of the conviction convince you?
Will you stand before us a year from now and say that you were wrong?
Bragg ran on "getting Trump", period. Just like Leticia James and Fani Willis.
Only in leftist land is it ok for DA's to target people.
Convince me of what?
Wrong about what? Did I make a claim somewhere?
I gotta ask, do you have any concerns about how the trial occurred? We have a case where the FEC and DOJ investigated and declined to prosecute, the previous NY DA declined to prosecute and then we have the new DA who ran on "getting" Trump, won the office and devoted a lot of time and money into this trial. We have a lawyer from the DOJ who was part of Mueller's team on the 'Russian collusion' investigation who joined Bragg's team. We have a judge who's daughter works to raise money for Democratic causes (if it had been a Republican judge which a daughter who raised money for Republicans, what do you think the outcry would have been?). A judge who gave a good appearance of siding with the prosecution on objections raised.
And I still don't understand how the prosecution could get away with raising misdemeanor counts to felony charges without showing what the secondary crime was, not to mention the jury instructions giving the jurors three possible secondary crimes that they could then choose from.
I have a lot of questions around the handling of this case. I'm not saying the defense didn't fail also. I also expected the guilty verdict, especially after the jury instructions were let out. But I have a lot of questions around this case and I do feel that it will be successfully appealed.
The verdict shows that the previous DA was wrong when he declined to pursue the case.
One of the assistant DA's who worked on the case under Vance was very upset that charges were not made against Trump at that time. It was in the news. The idea that Vance's office did not pursue the case and therefore the case was poor is not supported by subsequent developments.
I'll make this a little bit more clear. The complaint from Trump supporters is that the previous DA refused to charge Trump, therefore Trump must be innocent. It is more likely that the previous DA was wrong to not pursue the case, and the verdict yesterday shows that. The fact that the case was not pursued before Bragg does not mean it wasnt a good case.
Because under the law the prosecution was allowed to tell the jurors they could consider multiple options as the second crime.
As did the subject matter experts, the DOJ, and FEC..
Only a partisan Democratic prosecutor in a partisan Democratic city decided that prosecuting the Republican candidate for President for an event that occurred seven years ago using a esoteric theory premised on a statute that's never been used to charge someone criminally before in the history of the state was a good idea.
Bragg and Co operated exactly backward as to how justice should be dispensed. Instead of starting with a crime and trying to solve it, they started with the man and looked for the crime
Can you cite that law please as I cannot find it. And I guess we'll see how it plays out in the appeal.
But by your acceptance that all of this was above board and correct, then you will have no room for complaint when a Democrat is treated this way in the future. IMO this opened up the ability for a DA to bend the law. Will that happen? I cannot say for sure one way or the other but it does open the possibility.
It almost assuredly will. It's Pandora's box.
It was a completely unprecedented prosecution As CNN analyst Elie Honig wrote in New York Magazine:
It's the opposite of no man above the law and there's no reason to expect ambitious Republican prosecutors won't concoct similarly esoteric theories to "get" Democrats.
And what about the FEC and DOJ? Were they also wrong to decline the case? Why did Vance's office decide to not prosecute?
No, but I’ll try to address your concerns as much as some random guy on the internet could.
Ok, well those are federal agencies, and he was prosecuted under state law. Maybe the federal agencies made the right call according to federal law.
So, under the previous DA, prosecutors in NY were investigating this matter from 2018. I hope you realize it’s an understatement that merely investigating, much less prosecuting a sitting president would be problematic. Nevertheless, that investigation was taking place, and the DA did not stop it. He announced his retirement shortly after Trump left office, with the investigation still ongoing. I see no evidence that he declined to prosecute.
Every DA who is elected campaigns on their agenda. It may be to prosecute a certain crime, or even certain notorious criminals. They may promise to pursue a specific gang or gang leader, or a certain industry or specific business. And then they do it. That’s not unusual at all. What makes it unusual is that in this case, the target was a former president. Remember though, as I mentioned above, the previous DA was investigating the same target already.
I don’t see the problem in a lawyer or investigator working on a project they might be familiar with.
There will always be people who complain about a thing, but that doesn’t make the objection relevant or valid. Do you hold Justice Clarence Thomas responsible for the political activities of his wife? How about Justice Alito for whatever flags his wife raises? Spouse strikes me as a more likely source of bias than an adult child who probably moved out a long time ago, but I hear conservatives dismiss that concern regularly.
I don’t know the judge’s personal politics, but I do know he started his career in the DA’s office. I know that liberal prosecutors exist, but most of the ones I have met tended to be conservative. The liberal lawyers tend to work for the Public Defender’s office.
The concern should be, “were the objections proper under the law?” - not how often the judge sustained them.
So, I found this :
He was.
Do take stock (and it happens a lot here) that conservatives are 'fond' of supplying extraneous facts about participants and non-participants in every discussion venue. It is as if they are doing background searches, pulling police reports, or military records or 'asking a connected friend' to fill them in on facts and innuendos that can be used to cloud the issue.
One of the things Donald does often is criticize (have his 'people' research) the judge/s, DAs, witnesses, and juries (when he can get their names) that prosecute him. He makes himself the 'determiner' in their worth/value. However, he never sees his own sorry ass as the worthless miscreant he has given himself to be/come. He works 'hard' to bring in-depth plus talking points about those who try to get him for his many legal 'indulgences" that end in a court date.
We see it happen here on NT as well. Some conservatives bring up 'points' that are not relevant to the discussion of a particular individual or villain. Points that they pull from "sources" not readily explained.
One interesting thought: It did not escape my notice that while Donald repeatedly 'hits' the Judge, his daughter, the DA, with his usual 'on background' schtick. . . he did not repeatedly (if even once) go after Steinglass, Colangelo, or Hoffinger - the ones directly prosecuting him.
Donald plays the business risk game and sometimes the risk (50/50) bites back! This is the second of his trials that has as a foundational theme: Fraud.
All that was accomplished today was a weakening of our justice system.
Trump will win on appeal but the haters got their way. It won’t be until after the election. Just like planned.
Too bad it won’t help you win in November dumbasses.
What I find absolutely hilarious is that we have Biden stating :
Biden and Schumer were sure out front bitching about the SCOTUS ruling that ended Roe v Wade. There was a lot of talk about how bad that ruling was, how wrong it was, etc. And a lot of talk about the need to expand the size of the court to prevent such from ever happening again.
But now it's all "let the legal process play out, don't be irresponsible to bitch just because you don't like the verdict. Damn....
There is a big difference between disagreeing with a legal holding and calling the whole process "rigged."
Even so, I get why people might feel that way about the SCOTUS. There, we have justices who have been chosen and approved on very partisan grounds. In particular, for the very case you mentioned, Trump ran on a promise to nominate judges who would decide exactly as they did in that case. Amazing that the same man could complain about anything being rigged.
A few decades ago, you could generally count on high court nominees simply being accomplished jurists, and the Senate would approve 90-something to less than 10. That is not the case anymore. Nominees are chosen for their perceived extremism and approved for the same reason.
By contrast, the local courts in Manhattan - or anywhere else - see cases subject to a wide variety of judges presiding and a totally random pool of jurors. I don't know how you would go about rigging that.
yeah, but Schumer did a lot more than just disagree with a legal ruling. He threatened Justices.
They are paying a price. Public opinion of the Court is the lowest it’s ever been. This is leading to calls for reform, particularly in the areas of term limits and expansion of the Court.
By the way, none of that constitutes a threat unless you want to go full snowflake and employ the most expansive possible definition of the word.
Yeah, who could have imagined Democrats and the Democratic aligned media attacking every Republican appointed justice as extreme and every decision they disapproved of as corrupt would bear fruit, particularly among democrats. Go back and look at the freakout and hysteria over Souter Crazy how that works.
I'm sure packing the Court with Democrats will definitely restore the country's faith in the Court as non partisan.