An intended private communication like that seems significantly worse. Much harder to explain away as just political theater, joking, rhetoric, etc. and much harder to argue that Trump wasn't issuing improper (illegal?) orders to the DOJ, which is supposed to operate independently from the White House on issues like this.
Major fvck-up by Trump. Comey now has exculpatory evidence that he was going to be very unlikely to get in discovery. No way is Bonda going comply with the law and turn over what must be hundreds of communications from Trump and the White House to DOJ regarding prosecution of those on his revenge list. This one slipped through. Someone pulled a Hegger as they call it now in DC.
Question for you: how is Trump's message to Bondi exculpatory? Comey is charged with lying to Congress. That is either true or it isn't. Trump directing his AG to prosecute doesn't seem to have any bearing on the answer to that question.
Exculpatory in the sense that it is evidence that may lead to dismissal or acquittal on the charges. That's my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. I agree that it's not evidence directly related to the Comey testimony that appears to be referred to in the Indictment.
And please forgive me for what most surely will come across as "bothsidesism," but to give you a useful counterexample, before she became Attorney General of New York, Leticia James *ran* on a campaign that included indicating Trump for an as-yet-unnamed crime...which, she then did pursue after winning the election.
I didn't follow the Trump fraud trial much, but I believe Trump and sons raised AG James' statements that you referred to as part of their defense. I assume it was something about vindictive prosecution. I'm not sure how successful it was.
I know Trump raised "selective prosecution" as a defense in his hooker trial, but it had nothing to do with AG James's comments. I don't think he came up with any evidence for that defense and it was dismissed.
I don't know how successful Comey will be arguing vindictive prosecution, but Trump's errant and urgent message to his AG DOJ prosecutor will certainly help. We shall see.
I'm sure this comes across as jerky, so, to be clear, I don't favor political prosecitions when either side does them. But, they are a fact of life in our current political climate.
I'm not sure they are a fact of life in our political climate. If you are referring to the criminal and civil cases against Trump in the last few years, I disagree that those were not valid cases. The bathroom case would have been a slam dunk felony conviction. Trump lied to authorities on several occasions about possessing Top Secret classified documents, it is highly unlikely he was allowed to possess them at all, he stored them in an unsecured bathroom which is illegal, he tried to conspire with his lawyers to deny that he had the documents, he had one of his lawyers sign a false affidavit about the documents, and he tried to destroy evidence that he was hiding the documents from the FBI in his bathroom. A prosecutor would have no choice but to file charges on that. They can't turn a blind eye just because the suspect is a national political leader. It would be impossible not to file charges. There's no politics involved in Trump's bathroom case at all.
Trump's Fake Electors case was much more complicated, but it had to be investigated. You can't have a riot in the nation's Capitol building and not investigate who, what, how and why. Once investigators had evidence that Trump signed off on the fake electors scheme, they'd have to bring charges. How do you not bring charges for fraudulent documents submitted to rig a national election? Seems impossible to me. That case was political in the sense that all the underlying facts were about a political election, but the documentary evidence of corrupt conspiracy to rig an election was certainly there.
If you're referring to other cases, let me know. I'm not aware of any of what I would call political prosecutions that have been going on. Maybe some of the charges against Derrick Chauvin were. Difficult to say. I'm not even sure the charges against Comey are primarily political, although so far it looks like they are. The Indictment is ridiculous and deficient, and we know Trump and Bonda had a difficult time even finding an attorney to sign off on it. But all that could change. We shall see.
I see lefty cable news saying Comey will file a motion to dismiss the case, which he absolutely should. But then the commentators seem to get it wrong by suggesting that this is "selective prosecution." Which it is. But that is also a headscratcher as *all* prosecutions are selective. Prosecutors have discretion in this matter. It is literally part of their job description.
In my experience, the media's legal commentators do a horrible job of reporting on cases and legal events. They get things confused, they get terms wrong, they emphasize trivial things and seem oblivious to important things. So I don't know what they were saying about selective prosecution, but I wouldn't doubt they got it wrong. My understanding of selective prosecution is that it obviously requires a lot more than just a prosecutor deciding to go forward. And I think it's different than vindictive prosecution, which is probably what they were trying to talk about, but got the terms wrong.
But the exact same threat in private definitely bad?
In other words, shouldn’t it be the exact same slam dunk in either case?
(I mean, sure, the unsurprising stupidity of Trump in the one case is great, and all, but…)
An intended private communication like that seems significantly worse. Much harder to explain away as just political theater, joking, rhetoric, etc. and much harder to argue that Trump wasn't issuing improper (illegal?) orders to the DOJ, which is supposed to operate independently from the White House on issues like this.
Major fvck-up by Trump. Comey now has exculpatory evidence that he was going to be very unlikely to get in discovery. No way is Bonda going comply with the law and turn over what must be hundreds of communications from Trump and the White House to DOJ regarding prosecution of those on his revenge list. This one slipped through. Someone pulled a Hegger as they call it now in DC.
How is a directive in public, explicitly to PAM, somehow less improper (illegal?) than the exact same communication made in private? Additionally:
- Has he tried to explain it away? I don't think so, and probably won't. And, as we all know, he has a habit of actually CONFIRMING the bad intent of what he's said in the past, often after his sycophants have tried to explain it as otherwise.
- I don't know squat about juries, but I'd (probably naively) hope that many/most of them wouldn't be persuaded by a "political theater, joking, rhetoric" excuse.
- More broadly and much more importantly, of course, is how incredibly sad it that a president can explicitly and openly direct an AG to go after his rivals (first time in U.S. history?), and much of the country shrugs or cheers.
Question for you: how is Trump's message to Bondi exculpatory? Comey is charged with lying to Congress. That is either true or it isn't. Trump directing his AG to prosecute doesn't seem to have any bearing on the answer to that question.
Exculpatory in the sense that it is evidence that may lead to dismissal or acquittal on the charges. That's my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. I agree that it's not evidence directly related to the Comey testimony that appears to be referred to in the Indictment.
And please forgive me for what most surely will come across as "bothsidesism," but to give you a useful counterexample, before she became Attorney General of New York, Leticia James *ran* on a campaign that included indicating Trump for an as-yet-unnamed crime...which, she then did pursue after winning the election.
I didn't follow the Trump fraud trial much, but I believe Trump and sons raised AG James' statements that you referred to as part of their defense. I assume it was something about vindictive prosecution. I'm not sure how successful it was.
I know Trump raised "selective prosecution" as a defense in his hooker trial, but it had nothing to do with AG James's comments. I don't think he came up with any evidence for that defense and it was dismissed.
I don't know how successful Comey will be arguing vindictive prosecution, but Trump's errant and urgent message to his AG DOJ prosecutor will certainly help. We shall see.
I'm sure this comes across as jerky, so, to be clear, I don't favor political prosecitions when either side does them. But, they are a fact of life in our current political climate.
I'm not sure they are a fact of life in our political climate. If you are referring to the criminal and civil cases against Trump in the last few years, I disagree that those were not valid cases. The bathroom case would have been a slam dunk felony conviction. Trump lied to authorities on several occasions about possessing Top Secret classified documents, it is highly unlikely he was allowed to possess them at all, he stored them in an unsecured bathroom which is illegal, he tried to conspire with his lawyers to deny that he had the documents, he had one of his lawyers sign a false affidavit about the documents, and he tried to destroy evidence that he was hiding the documents from the FBI in his bathroom. A prosecutor would have no choice but to file charges on that. They can't turn a blind eye just because the suspect is a national political leader. It would be impossible not to file charges. There's no politics involved in Trump's bathroom case at all.
Trump's Fake Electors case was much more complicated, but it had to be investigated. You can't have a riot in the nation's Capitol building and not investigate who, what, how and why. Once investigators had evidence that Trump signed off on the fake electors scheme, they'd have to bring charges. How do you not bring charges for fraudulent documents submitted to rig a national election? Seems impossible to me. That case was political in the sense that all the underlying facts were about a political election, but the documentary evidence of corrupt conspiracy to rig an election was certainly there.
If you're referring to other cases, let me know. I'm not aware of any of what I would call political prosecutions that have been going on. Maybe some of the charges against Derrick Chauvin were. Difficult to say. I'm not even sure the charges against Comey are primarily political, although so far it looks like they are. The Indictment is ridiculous and deficient, and we know Trump and Bonda had a difficult time even finding an attorney to sign off on it. But all that could change. We shall see.
I see lefty cable news saying Comey will file a motion to dismiss the case, which he absolutely should. But then the commentators seem to get it wrong by suggesting that this is "selective prosecution." Which it is. But that is also a headscratcher as *all* prosecutions are selective. Prosecutors have discretion in this matter. It is literally part of their job description.
In my experience, the media's legal commentators do a horrible job of reporting on cases and legal events. They get things confused, they get terms wrong, they emphasize trivial things and seem oblivious to important things. So I don't know what they were saying about selective prosecution, but I wouldn't doubt they got it wrong. My understanding of selective prosecution is that it obviously requires a lot more than just a prosecutor deciding to go forward. And I think it's different than vindictive prosecution, which is probably what they were trying to talk about, but got the terms wrong.
Partial translation: LOTS of people in a dumb, dishonest, bad country pretend to say:
- All lying by politicians is equal.
- All criminality by politicians is equal.
- All "Get the other side" by politicians is equal.
An intended private communication like that seems significantly worse. Much harder to explain away as just political theater, joking, rhetoric, etc. and much harder to argue that Trump wasn't issuing improper (illegal?) orders to the DOJ, which is supposed to operate independently from the White House on issues like this.
Major fvck-up by Trump. Comey now has exculpatory evidence that he was going to be very unlikely to get in discovery. No way is Bonda going comply with the law and turn over what must be hundreds of communications from Trump and the White House to DOJ regarding prosecution of those on his revenge list. This one slipped through. Someone pulled a Hegger as they call it now in DC.
How is a directive in public, explicitly to PAM, somehow less improper (illegal?) than the exact same communication made in private? Additionally:
- Has he tried to explain it away? I don't think so, and probably won't. And, as we all know, he has a habit of actually CONFIRMING the bad intent of what he's said in the past, often after his sycophants have tried to explain it as otherwise.
- I don't know squat about juries, but I'd (probably naively) hope that many/most of them wouldn't be persuaded by a "political theater, joking, rhetoric" excuse.
- More broadly and much more importantly, of course, is how incredibly sad it that a president can explicitly and openly direct an AG to go after his rivals (first time in U.S. history?), and much of the country shrugs or cheers.
I guess that my comment above about juries should have been about judges.
In hindsight a strong argument could be made that Biden’s DOJ under Garland tried desperately to NOT indict Trump. There were plenty of other crimes that could have been pursued like Rudy selling Trump pardons for a quick one million a piece. Lots of other corrupt self dealing schemes.
It was only after the select committee put all that election scheming- Jan 6 evidence from almost exclusively Republican witnesses out into the public. That put pressure on Garland to appoint a special counsel. The public demanded that the instigator of Jan 6 be held accountable.
Garland is 100% an institutionalist. He didn’t want to rock the boat and thought he could just let Trump ride off into the sunset and the nation would move on.
Jack Smith has stated emphatically that he was in no way inhibiting or influenced by Garland much less Biden. Instead the evidence of Trump corruption in both the election interference scheme and the bathroom documents scheme was unprecedented and overwhelming. Trump had about 5 different chances to give back those documents but he corruptly obstructed justice because that’s what he does.
In hindsight a strong argument could be made that Biden’s DOJ under Garland tried desperately to NOT indict Trump. There were plenty of other crimes that could have been pursued like Rudy selling Trump pardons for a quick one million a piece. Lots of other corrupt self dealing schemes.
It was only after the select committee put all that election scheming- Jan 6 evidence from almost exclusively Republican witnesses out into the public. That put pressure on Garland to appoint a special counsel. The public demanded that the instigator of Jan 6 be held accountable.
Garland is 100% an institutionalist. He didn’t want to rock the boat and thought he could just let Trump ride off into the sunset and the nation would move on.
Jack Smith has stated emphatically that he was in no way inhibiting or influenced by Garland much less Biden. Instead the evidence of Trump corruption in both the election interference scheme and the bathroom documents scheme was unprecedented and overwhelming. Trump had about 5 different chances to give back those documents but he corruptly obstructed justice because that’s what he does.
Also, the rest of the world has a question: "So, your president was found guilty of multiple felonies, and the sentence was absolutely, positively nothing ?"
A country of laws, don't you know !!!
(P.S.: The party of the 100% unpunished felon - and the felon himself - successfully makes the argument to roughly one half of the country that it is THE FELON who has been treated unfairly)
And on and on. Swallowing some tough pills huh Dems?
We would have the Russia Peace plan but, of course, Russia is not with Trump, they are with Hillary.
Yankees post is very valuable here.
It speaks to the power that Trump has over his cult. Some political observers are noting that the Maga cult is now moving away from being Pro Pooty to Pro Ukraine. For years, they have been Putin simps because Trump was a Putin simp.
But all it takes is some harsh words for the dear leader against Putin and some favorable words for Ukraine and they immediately move with Trump
In hindsight a strong argument could be made that Biden’s DOJ under Garland tried desperately to NOT indict Trump. There were plenty of other crimes that could have been pursued like Rudy selling Trump pardons for a quick one million a piece. Lots of other corrupt self dealing schemes.
It was only after the select committee put all that election scheming- Jan 6 evidence from almost exclusively Republican witnesses out into the public. That put pressure on Garland to appoint a special counsel. The public demanded that the instigator of Jan 6 be held accountable.
Garland is 100% an institutionalist. He didn’t want to rock the boat and thought he could just let Trump ride off into the sunset and the nation would move on.
Jack Smith has stated emphatically that he was in no way inhibiting or influenced by Garland much less Biden. Instead the evidence of Trump corruption in both the election interference scheme and the bathroom documents scheme was unprecedented and overwhelming. Trump had about 5 different chances to give back those documents but he corruptly obstructed justice because that’s what he does.
Also, the rest of the world has a question: "So, your president was found guilty of multiple felonies, and the sentence was absolutely, positively nothing ?"
A country of laws, don't you know !!!
(P.S.: The party of the 100% unpunished felon - and the felon himself - successfully makes the argument to roughly one half of the country that it is THE FELON who has been treated unfairly)
Oh, and the world has another question: "Your president is ON TAPE very explicitly asking for over 11,000 votes, and he was never charged with anything, much less punished, much less prevented from running for office again?"
Question for you: how is Trump's message to Bondi exculpatory? Comey is charged with lying to Congress. That is either true or it isn't. Trump directing his AG to prosecute doesn't seem to have any bearing on the answer to that question.
Exculpatory in the sense that it is evidence that may lead to dismissal or acquittal on the charges. That's my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. I agree that it's not evidence directly related to the Comey testimony that appears to be referred to in the Indictment.
And please forgive me for what most surely will come across as "bothsidesism," but to give you a useful counterexample, before she became Attorney General of New York, Leticia James *ran* on a campaign that included indicating Trump for an as-yet-unnamed crime...which, she then did pursue after winning the election.
I didn't follow the Trump fraud trial much, but I believe Trump and sons raised AG James' statements that you referred to as part of their defense. I assume it was something about vindictive prosecution. I'm not sure how successful it was.
I know Trump raised "selective prosecution" as a defense in his hooker trial, but it had nothing to do with AG James's comments. I don't think he came up with any evidence for that defense and it was dismissed.
I don't know how successful Comey will be arguing vindictive prosecution, but Trump's errant and urgent message to his AG DOJ prosecutor will certainly help. We shall see.
I'm sure this comes across as jerky, so, to be clear, I don't favor political prosecitions when either side does them. But, they are a fact of life in our current political climate.
I'm not sure they are a fact of life in our political climate. If you are referring to the criminal and civil cases against Trump in the last few years, I disagree that those were not valid cases. The bathroom case would have been a slam dunk felony conviction. Trump lied to authorities on several occasions about possessing Top Secret classified documents, it is highly unlikely he was allowed to possess them at all, he stored them in an unsecured bathroom which is illegal, he tried to conspire with his lawyers to deny that he had the documents, he had one of his lawyers sign a false affidavit about the documents, and he tried to destroy evidence that he was hiding the documents from the FBI in his bathroom. A prosecutor would have no choice but to file charges on that. They can't turn a blind eye just because the suspect is a national political leader. It would be impossible not to file charges. There's no politics involved in Trump's bathroom case at all.
Trump's Fake Electors case was much more complicated, but it had to be investigated. You can't have a riot in the nation's Capitol building and not investigate who, what, how and why. Once investigators had evidence that Trump signed off on the fake electors scheme, they'd have to bring charges. How do you not bring charges for fraudulent documents submitted to rig a national election? Seems impossible to me. That case was political in the sense that all the underlying facts were about a political election, but the documentary evidence of corrupt conspiracy to rig an election was certainly there.
If you're referring to other cases, let me know. I'm not aware of any of what I would call political prosecutions that have been going on. Maybe some of the charges against Derrick Chauvin were. Difficult to say. I'm not even sure the charges against Comey are primarily political, although so far it looks like they are. The Indictment is ridiculous and deficient, and we know Trump and Bonda had a difficult time even finding an attorney to sign off on it. But all that could change. We shall see.
I see lefty cable news saying Comey will file a motion to dismiss the case, which he absolutely should. But then the commentators seem to get it wrong by suggesting that this is "selective prosecution." Which it is. But that is also a headscratcher as *all* prosecutions are selective. Prosecutors have discretion in this matter. It is literally part of their job description.
In my experience, the media's legal commentators do a horrible job of reporting on cases and legal events. They get things confused, they get terms wrong, they emphasize trivial things and seem oblivious to important things. So I don't know what they were saying about selective prosecution, but I wouldn't doubt they got it wrong. My understanding of selective prosecution is that it obviously requires a lot more than just a prosecutor deciding to go forward. And I think it's different than vindictive prosecution, which is probably what they were trying to talk about, but got the terms wrong.
Thank you so much for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I agree with way too much of what you wrote to raise any objections.
I'd like to switch gears, because I see a larger problem...
When Jospeph R Biden was President, every day in America passed with its citizens assured that we would not read a bizarre, unhinged rant at that President's political opponents. Biden did have bad things to say Trump and his ilk, but he usually managed to say them in a way that was befitting of the President of the United States.
Trump absolutely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He did something amazing, practically impossible, even. He's not going to get it (It's going to Alexei Navalny's widow...and that is with Trump somehow being the favorite in several betting markets).
Why is it so hard to say something nice about a leader when we do not like him? Biden's approval ratings were very much in the Trumpy range. They were lower than Trump's at the end of his Presidency. Two obvious answers are that Trump has an obnoxious personality and worse (like way worse).
On some level, that doesn't make sense. You can take almost any great leader and see that they are human and had massive flaws in their character which translates to massive flaws in their personal conduct.
I don't think our current political climate explains this phenomenon. I think it's our collective inability to get over ourselves.
And I could be wrong. Trump could win that prize. I hope he does. Because I would love to see what happens next.
We would have the Russia Peace plan but, of course, Russia is not with Trump, they are with Hillary.
Yankees post is very valuable here.
It speaks to the power that Trump has over his cult. Some political observers are noting that the Maga cult is now moving away from being Pro Pooty to Pro Ukraine. For years, they have been Putin simps because Trump was a Putin simp.
But all it takes is some harsh words for the dear leader against Putin and some favorable words for Ukraine and they immediately move with Trump
We would have the Russia Peace plan but, of course, Russia is not with Trump, they are with Hillary.
Yankees post is very valuable here.
It speaks to the power that Trump has over his cult. Some political observers are noting that the Maga cult is now moving away from being Pro Pooty to Pro Ukraine. For years, they have been Putin simps because Trump was a Putin simp.
But all it takes is some harsh words for the dear leader against Putin and some favorable words for Ukraine and they immediately move with Trump
Fascinating to see the hold he has on the base.
Friendly, annoying, daily reminder: "The base" includes 53 GOP Senators and almost all of the GOP House. They just have better clothing than most of "The base."
Also, the rest of the world has a question: "So, your president was found guilty of multiple felonies, and the sentence was absolutely, positively nothing ?"
A country of laws, don't you know !!!
(P.S.: The party of the 100% unpunished felon - and the felon himself - successfully makes the argument to roughly one half of the country that it is THE FELON who has been treated unfairly)
Oh, and the world has another question: "Your president is ON TAPE very explicitly asking for over 11,000 votes, and he was never charged with anything, much less punished, much less prevented from running for office again?"
In hindsight a strong argument could be made that Biden’s DOJ under Garland tried desperately to NOT indict Trump. There were plenty of other crimes that could have been pursued like Rudy selling Trump pardons for a quick one million a piece. Lots of other corrupt self dealing schemes.
It was only after the select committee put all that election scheming- Jan 6 evidence from almost exclusively Republican witnesses out into the public. That put pressure on Garland to appoint a special counsel. The public demanded that the instigator of Jan 6 be held accountable.
Garland is 100% an institutionalist. He didn’t want to rock the boat and thought he could just let Trump ride off into the sunset and the nation would move on.
Jack Smith has stated emphatically that he was in no way inhibiting or influenced by Garland much less Biden. Instead the evidence of Trump corruption in both the election interference scheme and the bathroom documents scheme was unprecedented and overwhelming. Trump had about 5 different chances to give back those documents but he corruptly obstructed justice because that’s what he does.
Also, the rest of the world has a question: "So, your president was found guilty of multiple felonies, and the sentence was absolutely, positively nothing ?"
A country of laws, don't you know !!!
(P.S.: The party of the 100% unpunished felon - and the felon himself - successfully makes the argument to roughly one half of the country that it is THE FELON who has been treated unfairly)
It's hilarious isn't it? Mueller could have easily indicted Trump for obstruction of Justice. He said so. But we have a 30 year old DOJ "Memo" that says it isn't cool to indict a president because it might be hard for him to do his job.
Do any other countries have a "memo" guiding whether or not their leader can crime in office and not be held accountable?
Also, the rest of the world has a question: "So, your president was found guilty of multiple felonies, and the sentence was absolutely, positively nothing ?"
A country of laws, don't you know !!!
(P.S.: The party of the 100% unpunished felon - and the felon himself - successfully makes the argument to roughly one half of the country that it is THE FELON who has been treated unfairly)
It's hilarious isn't it? Mueller could have easily indicted Trump for obstruction of Justice. He said so. But we have a 30 year old DOJ "Memo" that says it isn't cool to indict a president because it might be hard for him to do his job.
Do any other countries have a "memo" guiding whether or not their leader can crime in office and not be held accountable?
"The memo" is a reminder of the quaint old days when something infuriating and perplexing like that seemed as if it might be one of the worst things about our legal system. Unfortunately, of course, it's been eclipsed over and over again by so many worse things.
In other words: DoJ memo <<< SCOTUS likes Kings, POTUS can unilaterally dismantle the federal government, POTUS can openly go after any organization or person in the country, POTUS can murder possible fishermen, etc., etc., etc.