A Deeply Fractured US

[Fishbone Jones]

Does anyone here honestly see Trump actually able to keep his mouth shut during the trial. I don't mean cutting loose on social media although I can see that happening as well.
I am talking about inside the courtroom during trial. I could honestly see him loosing it , berating the Prosecutor's the Judge, his own Defence team innocent bystanders...
I don't know who I feel sorrier for, Trump's Lawyers or the Judges trying the cases.

I don't expect him to act any different in this court than in any other he's been in for this stuff. He sits still and lets his lawyers do their thing. Trying to hypothetically frame him as a loose cannon in court is irresponsible and unfair.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But... after 4 years of Trump family shenanigans non-partisans are completely desensitized, and who can blame the Biden's/ Dems for saying "piss off with your hypocritical outrage, the Trumps did this weekly."

And there we are. It's all Trump's fault.

 

[KevinB]

What I don’t get is IF there was so much outrage on the Biden Ukraine ‘issue’ we had 4 years of Trump to go forward with a case.
Keep in mind I’m a Republican (albeit a Never Trump’er now) and I think I’ve been fairly open that I’m not a fan of our current POTUS. All I really see is that Hunter is a douche who attempted to grift off his Dad’s position.

 

[IKnowNothing]

And there we are. It's all Trump's fault.

All? No.

Making a mockery of the Presidential office and lowering the bar of ethics and propriety lower than anyone could have ever guessed? You betcha.

I get that the entirety of your ego is wrapped up in not accepting that you've been suckered for this long, but has no part of you questioned just how you've come to such different conclusions on Trump than the majority in this very conservative space? Why someone like Kevin would have the opinion he does?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What I don’t get is IF there was so much outrage on the Biden Ukraine ‘issue’ we had 4 years of Trump to go forward with a case.
Keep in mind I’m a Republican (albeit a Never Trump’er now) and I think I’ve been fairly open that I’m not a fan of our current POTUS. All I really see is that Hunter is a douche who attempted to grift off his Dad’s position.

Joe's cut of the profits is just coincidental. His own admission about blackmailing Ukraine for a billion dollars exchange to fire the Burisma prosecutor is just funny story to tell over drinks. I'm sure there's a perfectly proper explanation for all the million dollar mansions he owns on a government salary. Just taken advantage of by his son, likely.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In no way proven, or even credibly accused

• Foreign actors gained influence to American policy for money
• Joe profited from from selling out the USA

"Credibly" just means "believably".

There are a couple of things - according to people with experience - that investigators looking at bribery/laundering recognize as red flags:

• Family members of a prominent politician receiving large amounts of money, without any apparent goods/services worth exchanging, might be bribery
• A network of companies in which money swishes around to no obvious purpose might be laundering

One specific accusation is that Joe Biden was paid to help Burisma, and that one of the things Biden did was pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin, in order to get Shokin out of Burisma's hair.

Enough of the pieces are in place - the money, the companies, the players, the downward slide of denials from "Joe doesn't talk with Hunter about business" to (briefly) "Joe is not in business with Hunter" to "Joe was on several calls with Hunter's business partners, but just to make small talk" - that many people do find the theory credible. Polls suggest half to two-thirds of Americans think something rotten involving Joe is at the heart of the matter.

I suppose most Americans fall into one of 3 categories:
a) believe Joe's presence on the phone was clarifying that Joe was part of the deal
b) believe Joe's presence on the phone was totally innocent
c) as (a) privately, but (b) publicly because of political exigencies

The incredible theory isn't the bribery theory; the incredible theory is that good old Joe was just on the calls for no particular reason. And for some reason, all of the pieces are just innocuous meaningless little things that don't merit investigation.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What I don’t get is IF there was so much outrage on the Biden Ukraine ‘issue’ we had 4 years of Trump to go forward with a case.

By who? The people dedicated to investigating Trump's associates to the point of blowing through customary guidelines and practices? Trump was impeached over trying to get something going, so no help from that quarter, either.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My wife coming from Malaysia will always assume bribery and corruption, plus using the judicial system to silence opponents. She seen that played out time and again. For her the only difference is that they did not charge Trump with sodomy.

 

[dapaterson]

Unclear on the concept.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687580854275444736

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Unclear on the concept.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687580854275444736

Pretty open ended statement. Who was it he was threatening and in what context? Stretchy hypothetical points, I know. But just as laughable as trying to make hay from a single statement. If the judge, especially this one, didn't rip him for contempt, it's another nothing burger.

 

[WLSC]

I wonder who he’s talking about? The golf cart driver probably.

 

[brihard]

Unclear on the concept.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687580854275444736

That post has already been quoted in a submission by prosecutors tonight. They’re using it as per of their articulation of the need for a protective order that would be intended to prevent inappropriate disclosure of discovery materials. Apparently his penchant for railing against prosecutors, judges etc on social media has caused prosecutors concern that he may disclose information prior to trial that could cause harm to trial fairness.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687642534804127744

 

[brihard]

I found this to be a very clear and helpful explainer of some of the challenges Trump’s defense will face. This piece has some important nuance and detail on what charges were laid and why they matter, as well as some of the obstacles about precisely how certain defenses could be introduced. One I’m feeling really dumb about is that, for defenses such as an honest but mistaken belief in election fraud, or reliance on bad advice for counsel- who will actually raise that defense? It would pretty much have to come from Trump taking the stand himself. Doing so would subject him to withering cross examination from the prosecution. I doubt his counsel want him to testify in his own defense due to this risk. So yeah- challenges.

Anyway, a very interesting and not terribly long read for those interested in the legalities of the Jan 6th case.

Coup Indictment: Here’s Why Trump’s Usual Defenses Won’t Work

They’re not suited for these charges or circumstances.

plus.thebulwark.com

 

[brihard]

This is not ideal, and bears watching. Pence is likely a witness in the January 6th indictment. At best, Trump’s latest social media rant is stupid and inflammatory. There’s a potential, though, that this could be seen as witness intimidation, which, if DOJ moves that way, puts the court in a bind it would likely rather not be in. Parts of Trump’s post appear to be a direct reference to para 90(c) of the most recent indictment.

The guy just can’t STFU and let the system takes its course. There are any number of other things he could be spending his time ranting about. If the court finds itself compelled to take further actions to stop potential obstruction or interference, that could end up throwing fuel on the fire.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does Trump have to prove he believes the election was stolen. I don't think so. Smith has to prove he didn't believe it. Being told by everyone he lost does not prove he believed it. This is Donald Trump.

From my reading of the indictment, the last three charges hinge on the first. If Smith loses the first the rest are immaterial.

There may be more at play here though. Maybe the democrats are hoping for a conviction, even though it may all be bullshit. What it does do though is haveTrump down to the election short strokes as a person convicted of crimes against the country. Smith knows it'll be overturned on appeal but it won't matter. The election will be over by that time. Possibilities

The other thing that strikes me, is that with all this election talk and accusations that Smith is counting on, the defence probably has the opportunity to call witnesses and records. Basically, this would allow Trump and his lawyers to re-litigate the election and demand all the stuff they wanted the first time around and put people on the stand under oath. Given all that, Trump might not have to explain himself til well into the trial, if at all. This may not be the fast, slam dunk election Smith is looking for. Maybe, perhaps.

It's all academic though, if they can't get a change of venue from DC and the democrat zealot sitting as the judge.

 

[brihard]

Does Trump have to prove he believes the election was stolen. I don't think so. Smith has to prove he didn't believe it. Being told by everyone he lost does not prove he believed it. This is Donald Trump.

Though as I mentioned earlier, even if we assume such a defense is legally viable (not a discussion you and I need), how is such a defense raised other than by Trump himself taking the stand? That would be exceptionally risky to him given that it opens him up to a full throttle cross examination. If he takes the stand, he’s gonna have a bad time.

From my reading of the indictment, the last three charges hinge on the first. If Smith loses the first the rest are immaterial.

I don’t believe there’s a tie-in between all of the charges like that. The alleged conspiracy to frustrate the counting of the electoral votes and introducing fraudulent electors in several states is distinct from the alleged conspiracy to specifically obstruct the January 6th congressional proceeding. Each of these can be proven or disproven independent of the other. FWIW, I think the first is stronger as it’s not subject to shifting responsibility for delay of Congress to the mob outside the Capitol.

The 18 USC 241 charge is separate and broader, and is a generalized charge for conspiring to deprive voters of their voting rights. 241 seems to be a broadly applicable section. Interestingly, I learned it was one of the offences for which at least one guy was convicted out of Watergate. But that’s merely trivia.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All? No.

Making a mockery of the Presidential office and lowering the bar of ethics and propriety lower than anyone could have ever guessed? You betcha.

I get that the entirety of your ego is wrapped up in not accepting that you've been suckered for this long, but has no part of you questioned just how you've come to such different conclusions on Trump than the majority in this very conservative space? Why someone like Kevin would have the opinion he does?

Your opinion. I don't share it. One line on discussion, the rest a personal attack.Tells me you don't have much to argue, just animosity. Just whiny complaining because you don't like my opinion. I could discuss how the bidens have trashed the presidency, but you're not interested in that. You'd rather trash me instead.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Your opinion. I don't share it. One line on discussion, the rest a personal attack.Tells me you don't have much to argue, just animosity. Just whiny complaining because you don't like my opinion. I could discuss how the bidens have trashed the presidency, but you're not interested in that. You'd rather trash me instead.

Actually, one line a personal attack. Strike the clause about ego - uncalled for and I apologize.

But "Has no part of you questioned questioned just how you've come to such different conclusions on Trump than the majority in this very conservative space? Why someone like Kevin would have the opinion he does?" Is in no way a personal attack or whiny complaining. Taken as literal questions- its an opportunity for you to answer and articulate the source of divergence. Taken as rhetorical, its a call for introspection. If either are threatening to the point of an "attack" - thats on you.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually, one line a personal attack. Strike the clause about ego - uncalled for and I apologize.

But "Has no part of you questioned questioned just how you've come to such different conclusions on Trump than the majority in this very conservative space? Why someone like Kevin would have the opinion he does?" Is in no way a personal attack or whiny complaining. Taken as literal questions- its an opportunity for you to answer and articulate the source of divergence. Taken as rhetorical, its a call for introspection. If either are threatening to the point of an "attack" - thats on you.

First off, I'm under no obligation to justify anything to you.

I respect Kevs opinion. We just don't agree on everything. If he wants clarification on something I say, he can ask me. He doesn't need you as a proxy.

You don't know me well enough to draw conclusions of how I think. And again, I'm under no obligation to satisfy your curiosity.

There's always someone out of step or swimming the wrong way. I don't mind being that person.

I'll stay where I am. With millions and millions of his supporters, who according to polls are the majority on both sides.

Anyway, I don't think we have anything else to discuss. At least I don't. You can carry on but I won't respond.

HAGO

 

[KevinB]

I totally understand @Fishbone Jones ’s position, as I was there once.
However, I don’t think that DJT is the lesser of two evils in this case.

I think that he (DJT) has done incredible damage to our democracy, and like a cancer needs to be cut out. Originally he like like a cute mole, but has grown into something grotesque and malignant.