Don't want to speak for Guy & certainly not Bernie, but...
Isn't it entirely possible this case was just the tipping point & the actual concern is, in a much larger context, the weaponization of Courts against political opponents?
Don't want to speak for Guy & certainly not Bernie, but...
Isn't it entirely possible this case was just the tipping point & the actual concern is, in a much larger context, the weaponization of Courts against political opponents?
I think if one's going to cast a wide net like that, you need to present more than the actions of a lone Manhattan D.A. I don't see evidence of weaponization in the other indictments. I see mostly straight-forward interpretations of existing law. I suppose it's possible that could change as the cases begin, but I have no reason to assume it will.
And again, Trump's outright promising to use the system to go after his political opponents. As president, he tried to get his Justice Department to allege crimes that didn't exist so he could stay in power. People who are worried about political weaponization should be worried about Trump.
Yea I'm troubled about him but I've been troubled by the other side since Nixon. If Trump goes to jail and wins, who's the last leader of a country that happened too
I think the chance of Trump going to prison is extremely small, and there's even less of a chance of it happening from this particular conviction (the least serious felony crimes of all that's facing).
But it's worth remembering that Republican voters and GOP leaders have been well aware of Trump's legal gauntlet for some time, and decided to go all-in on him as their nominee anyway (instead of supporting a law-abiding primary candidate who didn't try to overturn the last election, didn't steal and refuse to give back classified documents, didn't falsify financial records to cover up a porn-star payoff, and was polling double-digits over Joe Biden). So, if you want someone to blame for this uncharted territory, shouldn't Trump (who's running at least in part to pardon himself) and those who've effectively nominated him be near the top of that list?
I'm with you on the 6 th and secret docs but not this one. I can't defend Trump and I don't like the other choices we have. If you ask me and I know you're not they all are a threat to democracy.
>>I'm with you on the 6 th and secret docs but not this one.
Actually, I think you ARE with me on this one. I agree that the NY case shouldn't have been brought.
>>If you ask me and I know you're not they all are a threat to democracy.
I addressed "threat to democracy" point a few weeks ago in the Q&A:
"At this point, both sides are indiscriminately throwing that phrase back and forth at each other, thus effectively rendering it useless (which was the point for some of these people). Personally, I donтАЩt think IтАЩve ever used the phrase (because of how ambiguous it is), but my view is that election fraud (illegally tampering with the voting process) is unacceptableтАж as is trying to cancel the certified results of an election because you didnтАЩt like the outcome. As far as IтАЩm concerned, anyone guilty of either should face serious consequences including never be allowed to serve in public office. Such things are a far cry from besmirching a candidate, which is by no means a 'threat to democracy.'"
I don't have many good things to say about Joe Biden, but if loses in November, I'm extremely confident he won't do what Trump did when he lost (or anything close to it). So, I think casting both sides as a comparable threat to our constitutional and democratic order is simply wrong.
// the actions of Alvin Bragg
Don't want to speak for Guy & certainly not Bernie, but...
Isn't it entirely possible this case was just the tipping point & the actual concern is, in a much larger context, the weaponization of Courts against political opponents?
I think if one's going to cast a wide net like that, you need to present more than the actions of a lone Manhattan D.A. I don't see evidence of weaponization in the other indictments. I see mostly straight-forward interpretations of existing law. I suppose it's possible that could change as the cases begin, but I have no reason to assume it will.
And again, Trump's outright promising to use the system to go after his political opponents. As president, he tried to get his Justice Department to allege crimes that didn't exist so he could stay in power. People who are worried about political weaponization should be worried about Trump.
Yea I'm troubled about him but I've been troubled by the other side since Nixon. If Trump goes to jail and wins, who's the last leader of a country that happened too
I think the chance of Trump going to prison is extremely small, and there's even less of a chance of it happening from this particular conviction (the least serious felony crimes of all that's facing).
But it's worth remembering that Republican voters and GOP leaders have been well aware of Trump's legal gauntlet for some time, and decided to go all-in on him as their nominee anyway (instead of supporting a law-abiding primary candidate who didn't try to overturn the last election, didn't steal and refuse to give back classified documents, didn't falsify financial records to cover up a porn-star payoff, and was polling double-digits over Joe Biden). So, if you want someone to blame for this uncharted territory, shouldn't Trump (who's running at least in part to pardon himself) and those who've effectively nominated him be near the top of that list?
I'm with you on the 6 th and secret docs but not this one. I can't defend Trump and I don't like the other choices we have. If you ask me and I know you're not they all are a threat to democracy.
>>I'm with you on the 6 th and secret docs but not this one.
Actually, I think you ARE with me on this one. I agree that the NY case shouldn't have been brought.
>>If you ask me and I know you're not they all are a threat to democracy.
I addressed "threat to democracy" point a few weeks ago in the Q&A:
"At this point, both sides are indiscriminately throwing that phrase back and forth at each other, thus effectively rendering it useless (which was the point for some of these people). Personally, I donтАЩt think IтАЩve ever used the phrase (because of how ambiguous it is), but my view is that election fraud (illegally tampering with the voting process) is unacceptableтАж as is trying to cancel the certified results of an election because you didnтАЩt like the outcome. As far as IтАЩm concerned, anyone guilty of either should face serious consequences including never be allowed to serve in public office. Such things are a far cry from besmirching a candidate, which is by no means a 'threat to democracy.'"
I don't have many good things to say about Joe Biden, but if loses in November, I'm extremely confident he won't do what Trump did when he lost (or anything close to it). So, I think casting both sides as a comparable threat to our constitutional and democratic order is simply wrong.