Jesus was also found guilty!
but not of paying hush money to a porn star (although there was Mary Magdalene)
We’re in a strange place this morning. Reagan’s morning in America woke up with a MD20/Thunderbird hangover. Our metaphors are mixed like the rotgut in a dorm room Wapatuli tub! The gloves are off. This is spit in your eye. Get off my lawn. May we dance with your dates?
For people with big heads and small limbs who come upon this relic one thousand years from now, we’re talking about a former President and leading candidate for re-election being convicted (05-30-24) of criminal felonies on 3,400 counts, give or take.
This is the Your Retribution candidate we’re talking about. His followers want to hang Mike Pence and blame Nancy Pelosi. The Trump-friendly Federalist wants to see lists of Democrats the fresh meat felon will send to the hoosegow when he makes Rudy Giuliani his attorney general. Bill Elmhorst (whose unscripted comedies we feature occasionally at the Werkes) announces that he is More MAGA Than Ever! (Doesn’t that violate the laws of physics?)
We’re seeing more upside down American flags than at an encampment of the Alito family!
“Today we experienced one of the darkest days in American history.” — Brandon Maly, chair of the Dane County (WI) Republican party
Trump’s on-line campaign contribution site crashed. Which puts us in mind of the Japanese admiral who launched the attack on Pearl Harbor. “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
“The wrong case for the wrong offense just reached the right verdict,” counters David Frum in The Atlantic:
It says something dark about the American legal system that it cannot deal promptly and effectively with a coup d’état.
By some polling, 4% of Trump voters say they would not vote for him if convicted. There go six swing states.
An expedited appeal?
Your irascible bloggeur has reported for the dead tree media a fair number of criminal trials in his time but this one is a head scratcher. We predicted hung jury but those take days, not the 9½ hours that Manhattan panel dispatched the ex-President in the dock. Must have had tickets to that Yankee game like Jack Warden in Twelve Angry Men.
We need that ambulance-chasing lawyer Denzel Washington who defended AIDS sufferer Tom Hanks to ask: “Explain this to me like I was a two-year old.” (Without mentioning anyone’s wee wee.) Cuz we still don’t get it! Then again, Donald Trump’s own Justice Department got Michael Cohen to plead guilty to criminal tax evasion and campaign finance chicanery six years ago. The press release issued by DOJ 08-21-18 reads, in part:
On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN … did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.
In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories. …
Trump wears the stigmata
Fair enough, but why did the State of New York wait eight years to bring charges against Individual-1? AFTER the statute of limitations had expired? DURING a presidential election?
For your Penance, expect a renewed effusion of Trump religious pornography: Trump being comforted by the crucified Jesus. Trump confronting Judas at the Last Supper (catered). Making the on-line rounds: “Jesus was also found guilty.”
Blaska’s Bottom Line: The very people who rent their garments when Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted are now intoning “trust the legal system” — and vice versa. Didn’t we used to have a President named Dwight Eisenhower?
20 responses to “Trump may be guilty but not of this”
“Trump may be guilty, but not of this”
What do you mean by that? Do you believe he did not falsify business records? Or do you believe that the records were falsified but they were not falsified to further another crime?
I’m no lawyer, but cutting through the noise it seemed like a pretty simple case with ample documentation. My understanding is that it’s a misdemeanor to falsify the records, and a felony if it was done to further a separate crime.
Hard to argue that the records were not falsified, and it seemed fairly well established why they were falsified, and unfortunately for Trump the why (campaign finance violation) is indeed a separate crime. Now sure, someone can be free to disagree that these laws should exist, but alas they do exist.
I’m open to hearing a dispassionate, factual, and reasonable explanation for how this verdict is legally incorrect.
All of which is well past the expiration date, ie., statute of limitations. Believe will be overturned on appeal.
Rollie, the argument is that President Trump used this “accounting error” to hide an NDA from the voters and thus influence the election. Former FEC Chair Brad Smith was going to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election was over. The former FEC chair was not allowed to testify to this by Judge Juan Merchan. This in itself is not an issue. Explanations of Law to a jury during a trail should come from the Judge. It was Judge Juan Merchan’s job to explain to the jury this exculpatory nugget. Merchan finished the “trail” by not telling the jury anything about this. Now you know more than the 4+4+4 angry men. There are many, many other reasons to overturn the results of this witch hunt, but to sum up this one: In this case, the falsification of business records to influence the 2016 election could not have influenced the 2016 election. Does this change your mind?
Facts and logic please.
By a strange coincidence no one has ever been prosecuted for these same “crimes”. By yet another coincidence, no one has ever been struck from a presidential election for an alleged crime besides President Trump in Colorado. How many 9-0 votes by the Supremes do you want to rack up Rollie? No one, besides President Trump, has had the statute of limitations reversed or been fined in clear contravention of the Eighth Amendment.
See any pattern in these facts Rollie?
Oh oh, facts. Curious to see how Rollie pretzel- logics this.
“Curious to see how Rollie pretzel- logics this.”
Payback for the miscarriage of justice that railroaded a pure as the driven snow Juicy Smollett…?
The Gotch
Rollie…buddy…”None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.”
FF‘sS, what does it tell you when jury reaches a verdict at WARP SPEED in a complicated trial of this magnitude? Heck, the judge didn’t even sequester the jury…in NYC! S’pose that’s because, you know, like, the Big Apple media’s objective to a flippin’ fault in its reporting, am I right?
Anywho, did you even read what career Lefty legal experts Jonathan Turley, Ann Althouse, et al, said?
Didn’t think so.
Mark Levin: “NO LAW, STATE OR FEDERAL, THAT HAS BEEN BROKEN. The statute of limitations on the state law had already run anyway. There is no federal campaign issue, which is why NO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN LAW HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CITED AT ANY TIME DURING THE TRIAL.” (bolds/caps/italics mine)
For anyone who thinks Justice was served, here, hope has ceased to exist.
Glass half full?
You should be tickled pink that MLB went full Didn’t Earn It when it…um…explicably decided to incorporate their stats with those of the Negro Leagues.
In a perfect world, STOOPID (sic) that profound would hurt…BAD!
The Gotch
I did honestly want to know if I was missing something with this case, so I appreciate the feedback. But I’m not yet convinced that this verdict was legally incorrect and he is innocent of the charges. I’ll try to respond to the various points here.
I’m not in a position to know that – what is the source of this research? My recollection is that Cohen went to jail for the campaign finance part of it, so there’s someone who was tried for that part. Then we have the falsification of records. Nobody has ever been tried for that? This case is rather unique in that the facts of the case have been in the open and hitting the public in the face for a long time. I could imagine that other business falsifying records keep it much more quiet.
I won’t argue that a target isn’t on Trump’s back, but doesn’t that come with the territory? It’s not fair? Yeah, life isn’t fair. He’s so forward and outrageous with his contempt that it doesn’t surprise me that someone in a position to would challenge him. Someone who spent years leading chants of lock-her-up shouldn’t be surprised if the roosters come home to roost.
Not to mention that no other president has done the things Trump did… Naturally that would result in unique consequences. But that’s beside the point in this case. There are a bunch of other deflections in this thread, like baseball, Smollett, etc. so I won’t bother further response on side tracks.
This is an interesting fact, I’d be interested in learning if it’s a true fact. This angle is interesting because it’s a procedural issue, not an issue about guilt or innocence. Lots of people get off their charges in court due to procedural mistakes, I wonder if that will be the basis of an appeal?
I don’t think the trial was complicated. I was able to sum it up in 2 or 3 sentences. The defendant is a notable person, but that shouldn’t influence a jury or the facts.
Yeah, he’s a neutral and dispassionate observer! 😉 if he says it, it must be true! That is simply what every defendant in history says. I don’t know why Trump didn’t ask Levin to be his lawyer if he has it figured out so well. But Levin is only a blowhard, he couldn’t risk his image by putting his money where his mouth is. Way more fun to say that stuff outside a courtroom and advise other lawyers who will be the ones with egg on the face. I look forward to Levin representing Trump in his appeal.
Anyone reading this thread can simply contrast Rollie’s measured, coherent, fact-based analysis with the Trumpian, blustery deflections of those on the other side.
Thank you, Rollie, for your patience and your willingness to take the time to explain and examine the actual circumstances of this case.
“Yeah, he’s a neutral and dispassionate observer! if he says it, it must be true! That is simply what every defendant in history says. I don’t know why Trump didn’t ask Levin to be his lawyer if he has it figured out so well. But Levin is only a blowhard, he couldn’t risk his image by putting his money where his mouth is. Way more fun to say that stuff outside a courtroom and advise other lawyers who will be the ones with egg on the face. I look forward to Levin representing Trump in his appeal” is “measured, coherent, fact-based analysis“?
Sooooo, measured, coherent, fact-based analysis involves impugning the communicator while not addressing the communication?
Good to know!
This measured, coherent, fact-based analysis reference you’re using, The Gotch doesn’t think it means what you think it means…
The Gotch
But.. but.. but… the statute of limitations makes it mute. Meanwhile, Trump raises over $54 Large since the verdict. Progs are the dumbest smart people I know.
Kooter, I’m sorry to break it to you, but no progressives care what Trump supporters do with their hard earned money. “I’ll show those progressives, I’ll light money on fire!!” You’re giving money to a man who thinks gold toilets are cool, and in the end it basically just goes to the lawyers.
I encourage you to sell your home, live in your car, and send Trump your life savings.
Rollie, you’ve gone from Whack-A-Mole, passed disengeuous and into fatuous.
‘He has a target on his back but doesn’t that come with the territory.’ What territory that you know of has a man borrow money from, let’s say Deutches Bank, who, as banks will, pays for their own appraisal, checks the applicant’s credit and issues him the loan. The bank is paid back with interest and on time. Now comes a NY judge that says that is a crime to me despite the fact that there is no victim and the bank in question says it would appreciate doing more business with thir customer. The judge says defendant must pay $348,000,000.
Here are some more facts, Rollie; Hillary Clinton was repeatedly briefed on security requierments as SecState. She signed off on these written requirements, then had a secret, private server installed in her house and had her own clandestine email account assumedly to run her pay to play schemes for Clinton Inc. When under subpoena for those emails, she admiitedly erased 30,000 of the, This is against the law. No one can file a FOIA demand for erased emails whose hard drives are then smashed beyond recovery. All these facts were admitted by her personal FBI Director Comey, who basically pled ‘Security is hard for girls.’ Even if she is the smartest woman in the world and a lawyer. But then who wants to piss off the next president of the United States. THAT is why she has to listen to lock her up!
What crime did President Trump commit to get him disqualified on a ballot. What cime did he commit by allegedly falsifying documents. Name it or drop it as one of many BS “crimes.”
You introduce Mark Levin out of nowhere and castigate him. Is that a squirrel or a straw man, Rollie. Prove him wrong. Cite a statute. Please.
But, to his credit, Rollie’s spelling is impecable.
Some of the comments from this thread (including one where The Gotch triggers Rollie by quoting Mark Levin) have been purged, no idea why; perhaps Blaska might fill us, the benighted, in…?
The Gotch
Ok. As before, I’ll sum responses into one post, quoting what I’m responding to.
No, that was a response to Gotch, he brought Levin up.
I’m not a lawyer. But the whole reason we’re having this conversation is literally because a lawyer already proved him wrong, and cited statute.
I did address the communication. I said that Levin only said the same thing every single defendant ever says: no law was broken. Sure, I had a touch of fun on him, but surely that’s not a foreign concept to Gotch! Is it? Calling Levin a blowhard is about as gentle a critique as can be.
Those cases have nothing to do with this one. But yeah, bullies can get bullied themselves.
OMG, but her emails!!! Again nothing to do with the case. But if she broke the law, she should go on trial.
In summary, it seems like people are quite upset with this, but nobody has much to say regarding the actual facts of the case. Best you have is a technicality (statute of limitations). Just saying he didn’t break any law doesn’t make it so.
It is interesting to see the passion of Trump supporters.Like poker players with too much pride to ever fold. He loves that about you.
More measured, coherent, fact-based analysis (H/T Michael) from The Gotch’s erstwhile buddy?
Priceless!
The Gotch
Just a hint there Rollie, but amount of money spent corresponds to who’s elected (not that I necessarily agree with it). So yes, Prog’s should be concerned about the amount of money Trump has raised. Also the amount of money raised in a short time after the conviction indicates to me broader support than most people think. Regarding the statue of limitations: should you be prosecuted for the red light you ran 10 years ago? Always fascinates me how Prog’s twist the law when it suits them. I think the average person out there sees through this crap and Trump’s chances of being reelected now are stronger than 6 months ago.
Update: over $200 million now raised. Progs continue to crush the MENSA curve: wrongfully convict Trump and garner new support, raise a ton of money, lose said convictions on appeal, thus almost guaranteeing Trump election. Brilliant!