site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27830 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Breaking news. It looks like the jury convicted Donald Trump in the "hush money" case.

This verdict will likely galvanize voters come November – leading to record turnout among Republicans. I might even vote for the old rascal myself as I view this lawfare as both morally wrong and deeply destabilizing.

To make a prediction closer to home, we're now certain to cross 1000 posts on the weekly thread.

So far, it seems like the felony conviction has mostly galvanized support for Trump.

He has raised almost $34 million within 6 hours after the conviction, and $52.4 million within 24 hours. 29.7% of donors are new donors: https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20240531368/trump-campaign-says-it-raised-35-million-after-guilty-verdict-nearly-doubling-its-prior-recordl

Early polling shows that the number of people who said they would vote for Trump if he was convicted of a felony has increased post-conviction: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-believe-prosecution-donald-trump-upheld-rule-law-not-motivated-politics

This is true across democrats, republicans, and independents.

One betting market had Trump's odd job up: https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1796288757177446654

It went from 45% at the start of the trial, to 58% after the trial. As of 6/1, it currently sits at 54% https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024

Just to provide some a counterpoint, this poll from Reuters suggests there would be some drop in support for Trump: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/one-10-republicans-less-likely-vote-trump-after-guilty-verdict-reutersipsos-poll-2024-05-31/ (Note that the number of republicans who said they would be less likely to vote for trump if he was found guilty has actually decreased post-trial.)

This article suggests other betting markets had Trump's chances fallen although that betting market they quote still puts Trump ahead of Biden:https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20240601270/betting-markets-give-lower-chance-of-trump-election-win-even-as-billionaires-back-him

The source Morningstar uses shows across multiple betting markets Trump is ahead of Biden: https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

Trump saw a big leap and then a small correction but he is still ahead compared to when the trial initially started.

It seems like the anti-Tump side has to try much harder to spin this in a negative light than the pro-Trump side has to make it seem like a positive.

The most relevant point is made in several places and deserves its own discussion:

Trump is accused of using personal money for a campaign purpose.

  • His lawyer paid a hooker to sign an NDA, and when Trump reimbursed him it was marked this as a legal expense.

  • The accusation is that this is a campaign finance violation because this benefited his campaign and therefore should have been marked as such.

However, it is not illegal to pay somebody to sign an NDA. Suppose Trump had done what the NY state prosecutor is implying he should have done, which would be to use campaign funds to pay off this hooker.

Would it be better? That seems unlikely.

The regime sees Trump as illegitimate. Because of this any political action he takes is illegitimate.

The most relevant point is made in several places and deserves its own discussion:

Trump is accused of using personal money for a campaign purpose.

And without getting into the sleazy details, this is something that every sentient person assumes every candidate does to some extent, and Trump is the only one signled out for it.

Talk to any small business owner/gig worker, and the lines between personal and business spending are sort of vaguely (mis)understood and largely unobserved. You should see the uncomfortable faces when the bookkeeper in our local small business circle talks about this subject. Everyone is bad at this this. At times, it seems almost impossible to dilligently keep track of these things in accordance with the law. The general assumption is that small, non-malicious fudging of that line will be overlooked. This kind of petty gotcha on Trump on this subject is unlikely to substantively move the needle for anyone already sympathetic to him.

What would be the legally acceptable way to quietly pay off a mistress like this? If a Pro-Trump Super PAC had paid Daniels instead of Cohen/Trump personally, would that be unambiguously legal? If the National Enquirer had caught-and-killed the story with David Pecker’s personal funds instead of merely informing Cohen, would that be unambiguously legal? What if it was simply a friend of Trump who paid, with no business relationship to the president? A surface level reading would suggest not, because by these trial standards that would technically involve more than $2700 or whatever going to something that could possibly benefit the campaign.

A personal payment from Donald Trump to Stormy Daniels would not be an issue under campaign finance law (spending your own money on your own campaign is 1st-amendment protected activity) and would not generate any business records that could become the basis of a "falsifying business records" charge.

Why didn't Trump do it that way? Partly because his personal lawyer was a lying crooked sack of shit who couldn't give him decent legal advice. Mostly because he doesn't think that laws apply to him in the way they do to little people.

Mostly because he doesn't think that laws apply to him in the way they do to little people.

They don't, actually, because these charges have never been used against anybody before in the history of the world.

Err wot? Falsifying business records is charged in almost every white-collar criminal indictment in New York.

See here or here for surveys on the issue, or here for an example of a criminal defence firm which holds out this kind of charge as an important practice area.

I agree that there is a bit of a reach to get to felony falsification in this case - the point I was making was that Donald Trump clearly committed a misdemeanour completely unnecessarily (and may have committed a felony depending on a legal technicality he didn't feel the need to ask a competent lawyer about) because he didn't care.

There is a real question of whether the record was in fact false. If my contractor builds my deck and pays out of pocket for materials, would it be a false record if I label my payment to him as construction expense even if it reimbursed in large part those expenses?

I think the Trump defense mangled this argument a bit but we don’t have to.

Trump has been doing business in New York for 40 years and the only crime they can charge him on is something nobody has ever been charged for before -- "falsifying records" is one thing, this is falsifying records used totally for internal purposes, as though he committed fraud upon himself (this has been discussed to death in other comments in this thread by now).

There is no one who has ever been charged with anything similar to this. You want to make it sound as though Trump is contemptuous of law because he described money paid to his lawyer as legal expenses, for arranging an NDA, which is legal, with a porn star, which is legal. If Trump was as contemptuous of law as you suggest, maybe there would be other bookkeeping crimes to charge him with that don't involve felony upcharges on underlying crimes that are not specified.

Trump has been doing business in New York for 40 years and the only crime they can charge him on

The business-related crimes Trump has been successfully bought to justice as a result of the NY AG-led investiagtion include:

I am not including the stuff that is plausibly "three felonies a day bullshit" like housing discrimination, SEC penalties for improper disclosures when one of Trump's companies was publically traded, antitrust litigation, or ordinary commercial litigation of the type any sufficiently large company gets involved in regularly.

The Trump University scam probably isn't a crime, and it looks like Letitia James brought the loan fraud allegations in civil fraud because she couldn't prove mens rea against individual Trump org executives beyond reasonable doubt. But that is 3 and a half serious crimes of which someone in the Trump organisation is factually guilty, and the evidence points to it being the boss.

The District Attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: the charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor – in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere – has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html)

((It's not clear that the underlying crime was actually the federal campaign finance matter; the jury instructions just reference 17-152, which itself requires "unlawful means", and the judge verbally instructed the jury to pick any combination of FECA, other paperwork record violations, or state tax laws.))

Those surveys tend to back this up: the lightest or attempted theft in this page is still 300 USD in Ramirez, Murray in the multiple thousands, Kirkland for 350k USD(!). I can't find exact numbers for Freeland or Holley, but napkin math puts even a short duration puts it around 200 USD/month and Freeland covering multiple months, and Holley's insurance fraud claims are almost certainly closer to Murray than Ramirez. In this case, the erroneous classification probably increased, rather than decreased, Trump's final tax payment.

Trump is accused of using personal money for a campaign purpose.... The accusation is that this is a campaign finance violation because this benefited his campaign and therefore should have been marked as such.

It should be noted that this "accusation" is not actually in the indictment.

It is part of the jury instructions (at least as reported by AP), and the modifier (doing it as part of a campaign finance violation) was one pathway towards treating this as a felony.

my enemies’ lawfare, my rule of law

It’s hard to take the lawfare accusations seriously.

  • there are tons of high level republicans who are not subject to prosecution, with the obvious explanatory difference being that they, you know, didn’t commit crimes

  • dem DOJs go after dem politicians for similar violations

  • the same DA goes after normal people for similar violations

This looks like a case of “man does crimes, gets prosecuted for said crimes.” The only remarkable thing is that this man is a former politician with a loser cult of personality.

Let me flip it around: can you honest to god hand on the Bible imagine a scenario in which Trump committed a crime and you don’t call the resulting prosecution “lawfare?”

Edit: I also suspect that the venn diagram of people calling for Trump to lock up Hillary over the made-up email thing and people calling the prosecution of Trump "lawfare" is close to a perfect circle.

  • -19

Count me outside of that circle. I never really understood any of the things Hilario was accused of, I do think the Trump prosecutions have been hilariously overdrawn.

I think Hilary was trying to evade FOIA.

She used a private email server to do government business a practice ubiquitous, but illegal, because it let's you sidestep FOIA requests. Look at the recent fury over Fauci doing the same. Hillary had the misfortune of having her sever hacked, unlike everyone else. But, the fortune of having all the emails deleted by a careless aide before they could be subpoenaed.

She used a private email server to do government business a practice ubiquitous

Not exactly. A lot of government officials use private email accounts to sidestep FOIA. Obama did it, Pence did it. Hillary set up a private email server, which is different and extremely rare. It's the difference between opening up a separate bank account, and opening a separate bank. If you use a private email account, at least all the network traffic, data storage, and encryption is being handled by Microsoft, or Google, or some team of engineers that has spent millions of man-hours solving the important technical problems. Hillary just had her own server, run by some IT guy she hired. Then she put classified documents on it. Imagine if she took taxpayer money and moved it from the Fed to the Bank of Hillary. It's an unlocked shed with a camera. Security, she probably has some. Did somebody take the money? Did she take the money? Nobody can say, because as soon as it turned into a scandal she deleted all the records, the FBI gave her subordinates plea deals in exchange for cooperating, and Comey absolved her of doing anything all that bad.

There was no reason for Hillary to set up her own private email server, unless: 1) She was doing horribly corrupt things on it 2) She was extremely willful and ignorant and insisted on doing something that everyone around her would have told her was a bad idea.

There was no reason for Hillary to set up her own private email server, unless: 1) She was doing horribly corrupt things on it 2) She was extremely willful and ignorant and insisted on doing something that everyone around her would have told her was a bad idea.

I actually think it's a worse double compounding of these two things;

She did it because the people around her knew she was doing horribly corrupt things and convinced her this was a really good idea so that she could avoid responsibility down the road.

Hillary had the misfortune of having her sever hacked

Most of the clueless boomers have the decency to just use gmail or something for their hidden emails -- for all their faults, Google does have a reasonably competent security team, unlike the pimply-faced local losers Hillary hired to stand up her private server. As I recall the only reason we have any of the emails is that they were a bit incompetent at deleting them, even.

The emails weren't merely deleted, her staffers destroyed electronics with hammers.

Count me outside of that circle as well. While I did acknowledge that it was not a complete legal nothingburger, I proudly have receipts that I was on Team No Indictment. This Trump case relies on implicitly conjuring up a federal elections charge which simply would not stand against a vigorous defense and Supreme Court precedent if it were to be seriously taken up by a serious court of law (by which I mean as opposed to a trial court).

there are tons of high level republicans who are not subject to prosecution, with the obvious explanatory difference being that they, you know, didn’t commit crimes

No the obvious difference is that they never went to war with the establishment the way Trump did. Also, admittedly Trump is publicly a liar and sleazeball so that makes a lot of people think that he must be a criminal too, which creates a favorable environment for pursuing a prosecution.

This looks like a case of “man does crimes, gets prosecuted for said crimes.”

No he did not commit a crime.

  • Paying hush money to a mistress is not illegal
  • Paying hush money as a pre-tax company expense to avoid embarrassment for the CEO is not illegal
  • Paying hush money from non-campaign funds is not illegal, in fact, arguably the opposite would be illegal. This is an area where the law is inherently ambiguous and something of a catch-22.
  • Keeping the payment of the hush money secret from the American public is not illegal
  • Trump never tried to hide the payment from the tax authorities.
  • A CEO making a false description of some expense in order to avoid potential leaks and embarrassment of a business the CEO wholly owns is not illegal. The NY law is against making "a false statement with intent to defraud." This is used in cases where an employee is defrauding the CEO or shareholders, or the tax authorities, etc. Trump cannot make a false statement that is somehow defrauding himself.

So to get a felony conviction here, the prosecutor, judge and jury had to introduce multiple unprecedented or ridiculous leaps:

  • Claiming that any false entry is inherently fraud against the state of NY. This is novel, no one gets tried for this.
  • Claiming that the false entry was in furtherance of another crime ... without actually including that crime in the indictment and without that crime ever being adjudicated in court
  • Hinting that the false entry was in furtherance of some kind of attempt at electoral fraud, but without that charge ever actually being adjudicated.
  • Arguing that this crime corrupted the 2016 election even though the crime happened in 2017
  • They had to infer that Trump actually intended to "defraud" someone, despite there being no direct evidence of this. Again, intending to make a false entry to avoid embarrassment is not a crime.

Here is an establishment liberal explaining why this prosecution was so unprecedented: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

Let me flip it around: can you honest to god hand on the Bible imagine a scenario in which Trump committed a crime and you don’t call the resulting prosecution “lawfare?”

Yes, of course.

The thing about Trump is that he is a sleazy guy who lies a lot, but he is ultimately a show-man Boomer business man who listens to his lawyers and doesn't do obviously criminal things. He is not mobbed up. His faults are those of a carnival barker, not of a Bernie Madoff. There has been an enormous media campaign to portray Trump has some kind of obvious fraudster criminal but that is not actually who he is.

Edit: I also suspect that the venn diagram of people calling for Trump to lock up Hillary over the made-up email thing and people calling the prosecution of Trump "lawfare" is close to a perfect circle.

I'm in the tiny sliver of people who thought Comey got it right. He was right to have the press conference explaining what she did wrong to the American people, but also right not to prosecute. Her violation wasn't serious enough to try warrant overriding the electoral process with a judicial process.

When it comes to prosecuting the highest-level politicians, I would use this rule of thumb: If you explained the crime in a few sentences to George Washington, would he say, "what? I don't even understand why that is a crime in your era." Or would he say, "Of course that is a crime." Actually taking bribes, deliberately leaking secrets to enemy powers, executing opponents, etc, are all real crimes and should be prosecuted regardless of the person. But prosecuting high-level officials for technical crimes and gray-area crimes and crimes invented in the last 80 years gives far too much power to the bureaucracy.

If you explained the crime in a few sentences to George Washington, would he say, "what? I don't even understand why that is a crime in your era." Or would he say, "Of course that is a crime."

You don't think insider trading should be considered a crime?

Isn't that mainstream thinking among many economists?

Regardless shareholder disputes in the Dutch East Indies company are documented as early as 1605, so the concept of short sellers, insider trading, and shareholder advocates was all mainstream by the time of Washington.

I don't think we should be selectively picking and choosing lawmakers and pedantically going through their actions to decide whether their actions do or do not technically count as "insider trading" or not and then prosecuting the ones that the prosecutor chooses to prosecute at their own discretion.

Instead I think we should make a new law that unambiguously singles out lawmakers, prevents them from buying/selling/owning anything other than specially licensed (and public) index funds, limit their transactions to certain times of year, and also prevent external sources of income. Then ruthlessly enforce that law on all of them, which should be tailor-made to be less ambiguous than existing insider trading laws which are not designed with politicians in mind.

Obviously this will never happen because the politicians are the ones who make laws and don't want to cripple their own sources of income. But if it magically happened then I would feel comfortable prosecuting it.

"Hey George, some lawmakers are buying companies, then passing laws favorable to those companies. Think that should be illegal?"

It's really not hard.

That's not insider trading as it's usually defined. Insider trading is more like knowing your company had a good quarter and so buying shares before publicly releasing this news.

Yeah I suppose so. Washington seems like a pretty bright guy though--I don't think it would take him long to grasp the concept.

Insider trading can easily be compared to betting on a fixed match, something George Washington would recognize as wrong.

When it comes to prosecuting the highest-level politicians, I would use this rule of thumb: If you explained the crime in a few sentences to George Washington, would he say, "what? I don't even understand why that is a crime

Great post. I wish you would post more.

Claiming that the false entry was in furtherance of another crime ... without actually including that crime in the indictment and without that crime ever being adjudicated in court

This is the part that bugs me the most. How can a crime be asserted as a predicate fact in court when that crime has never been charged, tried or convicted?

If the argument is that the crime exists because Michael Cohen pled to it as part of a bargain, isn't that irrelevant with regard to Trump? AIUI, one person cannot be convicted by proxy of another person's trial; Trump would be entitled to his own defense.

Further, the insinuation that it is electoral fraud for a political candidate to mislead the public opens unlimited potential for lawfare fuckery. Does this mean it's possible to charge Joe Biden with Electoral Fraud for saying that his son's laptop was fake during a Presidential Debate? Or any other outright lie or even half-truth told in the course of any campaign?

I admit, seeing most active politicians from the past few decades jailed for dishonesty might be a nice corrective, but selective prosecution is not the way to go about it. It seems like this case is going to come back at the Democrats in severely unpleasant ways.

This is the part that bugs me the most. How can a crime be asserted as a predicate fact in court when that crime has never been charged, tried or convicted?

Would you feel any better if you found out that the referenced crime need not even have occurred? And that this has been the case for hundreds of years? Look at common law burglary, for example (modern statutes usually expand the definition, but we'll keep things simple). Unauthorized breaking and entering of a dwelling in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein. Say Bill breaks into Tom's house at night. A neighbor sees him break in and calls the police. The police apprehend him and he's carrying a gun. Tom was not home at the time. A witness testified that Bill told him he was going to kill Tom. There's sufficient intent to prove burglary. The fact that he can't be convicted of murder is irrelevant. The fact that he can't even be convicted of attempted murder is irrelevant. The fact that it would have been impossible for him to even commit the intended murder is irrelevant. He's not getting this reduced to criminal trespass.

Attempt crimes always have allowed for mistake of fact and are not given the same sentence as the crime itself. Not only is this set of facts enough to prove burglary, it also would prove attempted murder.

This is not akin to the Trump case, because in your case we would know that the alleged felony that the burglar had the mens rea to commit was murder. But in the current case, we do have an exact crime. Instead the prosecution waved at a bunch of statutes and said its possible that Trump committed those crimes (while they and the judge didn't let Trump put on an expert witness who would have said he, in fact, did not violate those laws). This is a novel application of the law in many ways, so its not really serious to compare it to burglary.

Nor even something else like criminal conspiracy, where again you need not succeed in robbing the bank, but it is enough for your gang to buy guns and masks and bags with money signs on them, then drive to the bank, go into the bank, and if you get arrested at the front door, you still are guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank. Again, totally unlike the current situation.

Tagging @zeke5123a since this response also applies to his comment from yesterday that I didn't get a chance to respond to.

You're confusing mistake of fact with impossibility. Mistake of fact is a defense that obviates some element of the crime, the classic example being the theft of property one wrongly believes to be his own. If I take a coat similar to mine from a coat room at a bar because I thought it was mine, I can use mistake of fact as a defense because I haven't formed the sufficient mens rea. Factual impossibility, on the other hand, is generally not a defense but the opportunity to even raise it is so rare that it's not really a huge issue. The hypothetical I gave doesn't involve impossibility, though, because the conduct doesn't amount to attempted murder. There's no generally recognized point at which mere preparation becomes attempt, but it's but it's basically hornbook law that lying in wait or looking for the intended victim don't rise to that level. Cases involving this test usually focus on things like whether the bullet you fired had a realistic chance of hitting the target, which is well beyond what I presented.

The reason I presented that specific fact pattern is that it illustrates a point I'm trying to get — the intent requirements of some crimes don't require you to prove those other crimes. The crime of burglary developed at common law specifically because the act of breaking into someone's home did not in and of itself rise to the level of attempt, but the courts agreed that it was still a crime. So when New York law prohibits anyone from falsifying business records with the intent of concealing another crime, whether or not you can prove that he committed another crime isn't important. Whether or not you can even specifically identify that other crime isn't important. With respect to crimes like this, there's a certain res ipsa loquitur aspect where the mere commission of the act is evidence of intent in and of itself; if a defendant is found having broken into a jewelry store with his face concealed and in possession of burglary tools, the prosecution usually doesn't have to go any further than that to show intent. They don't have to — what some are suggesting would be required in Trump's case — give extrinsic evidence showing that the defendant broke into the building specifically to steal jewelry.

The fact that Trump may not have violated election law is therefore irrelevant. The fact that the prosecution couldn't demonstrate the very specific scienter requirements required to prove an election law violation are also irrelevant. Trump wasn't charged with violating election law. The elements of the crime he was charged with are independent of the elements of the crime he is alleged to have concealed. You may not like this, or think the DA is stretching the law, but that's just The Way It Is, and it's been that way for a very long time. If you're looking for an appellate court to overturn the conviction because you disagree with one or another of the principles involved, that's fine, but even as someone who's broadly liberal I don't know if I'd welcome that, as it would give the Warren Court a run for its money on how defendant-friendly it is.

But a necessary element of the felony is that he falsified business records as a part of a scheme to cover up another crime. In many ways you'd argue in the other direction. The element is even more difficult to satisfy. Trump needed to know how was committing a crime AND known he was covering it up. You'd have to prove both.

The argument you are making makes the misdemeanor/felony distinction moot, which is antithetical to a good reading of laws. What you are saying is that the falsification of the record itself demonstrates the intent to cover up a crime, but that makes no sense. Falsification with intent to defraud is the misdemeanor charge. There is the additional element of the second crime that makes the felony charge a felony. So you cant just waive it away.

This is interesting, and I might be persuaded.

Scenario A:

Let's say I mistakenly think that some completely legal act is illegal, like buying paperclips. Every time I buy paperclips for my office, I intentionally misclassify these transactions as "legal services" because I don';t want the law to know that I bought paperclips.

In this scenario, I have committed a felony, because I was attempting to conceal a "crime," and therefore fool the state, regardless of the actuality of any crime being committed.

Scenario B

Let's say I think that buying paperclips is embarassing but not illegal. In this case, I would be committing only a misdemeanor by misclassifiying the purchases, as I was not trying to conceal what I thought was a "crime?"

Scenario C

I'm not sure if buying paperclips is a crime, so just to be safe, I'm never going to admit to buying paperclips on paper. I'm going to send my lawyer out to buy my paperclips for me with his own money, and since he's my lawyer, when I pay him back, I'm going to classify the expense as "legal services," because he's my lawyer. I think I have successfully avoided admitting to the actual act and insulated myself from any crime if any crime exists. What is this? I have created layers of insulation between my willful ignorance and reality. Can intent be proven here?

Intent can't be proven in any of the three scenarios you put forward because buying paperclips isn't illegal, and legal impossibility is almost always a complete defense. In any event, whether you think something is legal or not is irrelevant, because in most cases, mistake of law isn't a defense. Ignorantia juris non excusat. What's tripping people up here is that the crime Trump was allegedly concealing has very specific intent requirements that does require knowledge of the law, while the crimes he was actually charged with don't. The relevant analogy here is where buying paperclips actually is illegal. In that case, if you falsified records relating to their purchase you'd be guilty of the falsification whether you knew they were illegal or not.

More comments

Res ipsa is not appropriate here. If any time you falsify business records you per se are doing it for a reason to cover up another crime, then you’ve written the misdemeanor out of the statute since everything is a felony.

What is also black letter law is that texts should generally be read in a way that does not render any part surplusage.

The only way to give meaning to both the misdemeanor and felony is to treat the intent with respect to committing another crime as having to be proved without regard to the misdemeanor. This is especially true here because unlike burglary (ie why else did you break into someone’s home) there are many reasons why Trump might arguably falsify records (eg he didn’t realize it was false, he wanted to hide it from his wife, he thought it would be bad publicity unaware of the legal implications). The same inference is not reasonable.

So whilst I agree you don’t need to prove the actual other crime was committed you do need to prove the intent to commit a specific other crime was intended or else you render meaningless a large portion of the criminal statute at play and are making an unreasonable inference.

I'm not saying that res ipsa is sufficient on its own, just that there's a certain element involved when it comes to proving intent. If the falsification of the records happened in a vacuum and there was no obvious underlying motive, that would be the misdemeanor. But when you demonstrate that the concealed payments may have covered up a potential campaign finance violation, that's probably enough evidence that a jury can infer that the potential violation was behind the concealment. Like I said in the previous post, if a guy breaks into a store the prosecution doesn't have to demonstrate that the defendant was there specifically to steal a particular item for it to be anything more than trespass; the jury can infer that because there was a very obvious motive for the break-in that the defendant intended to commit a felony. The defendant can certainly argue that that wasn't his intent and present evidence supporting that, but that's a question of fact for the jury. We can argue all day about whether there was sufficient evidence of Trump's intent to commit a campaign finance violation for the purpose of the statute, but my overall point is that arguing about the specific elements of such a violation itself or the mens rea requirement to prove a campaign finance violation is irrelevant here because we're operating on two separate legal principles.

More comments

According to this logic, if the falsification of business records is inherently proof of a cover-up of an underlying crime, the falsification of any business record is proof of an underlying crime. The distinction between misdemeanor and felony charges for this crime may as well as not exist. (Why else would you "falsify" a business record?)

You say that reversing this standard would be too lenient for defenders. Upholding this standard is a recipe for jailing almost anyone at any time.

With respect to crimes like this, there's a certain res ipsa loquitur aspect where the mere commission of the act is evidence of intent in and of itself

Yes, and the intent is obviously "don't write down the embarrassing adultery he's trying to cover up", right? Is trying to keep his despicable personal life secret a crime? If not, then isn't looking for some additional redundant intention, much less assuming it, a basic violation of Occam's razor?

It's not a crime to try to conceal personal information, obviously. But whether or not that was Trump's intent in falsifying the records is a question for the jury. My point was simply that that the statute he was charged with violating has a lower standard of proof than the underlying act itself, and that the evidence was sufficient for the government to make a prima facia case; doing so doesn't require them to prove the underlying act, or even an attempt to commit the underlying act.

Agreed (I make the point below that intent here is different from inferring intent in say “murder”).

What’s also become more and more a democrat playbook is they take law X and try to shoehorn it into an area it clearly was not meant for but say “the words say.”

Here, the business record falsification with intent to commit other crime was clearly about something like cooking the books to hide embezzlement or a Ponzi scheme et al. This case clearly was not what the law was about in any way.

Did Trump really go to war with the establishment? His largest legislative accomplishment was a huge corporate tax cut. That strikes me as about as establishment as it comes.

I get that he says things like “drain the swamp”, but it’s very unclear to me that he was anti establishment at all aside from his personality.

His personality is enough to ruin him. The Establishment wants defense in depth. It’s easier to defend your way of doing things when the Schelling point is based on personalities, rather than policies.

If the Establishment didn’t do everything it could to destroy Trump and make an example out of him, then there could be a future Trump who goes a bit further. Someone with Trump’s appeal but who could also seriously change policy and the way things are done.

It’s the same reason why progressives have ratcheted up the social movement lunacy to defend pedophiles (as MAPs) and transgenders. When all of the oxygen in the room is being sucked on these topics, it means that people aren’t challenging gay marriage (which was a controversial topic only 12 years ago). Gay marriage is effectively off-limits until the pedo-question is settled, so progressives have an incentive to waste people’s time on pedophiles so that they aren’t having to defend gays. Even though it’s a harder assignment defending pedophiles rather than gays.

Different establishment. The establishment that cares about corporate tax cuts probably has some cultural and interpersonal overlap with the establishment that is involved in New York judicial system but it is not like that they are the same set of people with coherent agenda.

The establishment is like the Man -- fuzzy concept that sometimes have informative uses but still fuzzy, which makes it too imprecise and underdefined for other uses.

Well, he LARP'ed going to war with the establishment, and the establishment had reasons, both valid and more Machiavellian for taking his LARP seriously. The "lock her up chants" were unprecedented norm-breaking, even if he never followed through with it. In many ways, Trump did the worst possible thing by taunting the bear but then being actually very weak in power and letting the establishment run roughshod over him (eg the Russia-gate investigation leading to a crippling investigation and imprisonment of his men).

I think the thing that legitimately scared the establishment is that he would transgress certain taboos, and verbally come out against the bipartisan consensus on certain issues, and rather than groveling after such transgressions he would plow ahead. That meant he could not be controlled by establishment norms in the same way most high-profile Republicans in the past have been controlled.

The other crazy thing was that the books were internal. So you’d have to think “Trump was doing this because he thought NYS might ask for his books to check on…federal campaign laws? It just doesn’t make any sense.

I was curious how the prosecutor even came to get those private books. He convened a grand jury that subpoenaed Trump's accountants for tax and business records, Trump sought to quash the subpoena with assertions of Presidential immunity, and it was adjudicated by the Supreme Court and not squashed. Aside: the decision here has some interesting history I'd never heard of before, with President Jefferson apparently engaging in a bit of lawfare against Aaron Burr.

Not being a lawyer, I was surprised that apparently the bar is very low for what a grand jury can subpoena, just about anything short of a "fishing expedition" is allowed. Do they even need to call their shots like in billiards, or can they start with the idea that there's one specific crime, and end up charging something completely different? Or do they even need a specific crime to investigate?

I've tried to find the reason that this grand jury was convened and can't find anything official. I found one report on a Manhattan grand jury that said "It is unclear what assets Manhattan District Attorney’s office will be investigating specifically," but I don't know if that's even the same grand jury that led to the falsifying business records charge. The indictment itself doesn't have any identifier like date the grand jury was convened.

So, how is one to judge whether the subpoena was a fishing expedition or not?

The argument here would be targeted prosecution. But it reminds me of the speech about the awesome power of the prosecutor. A guy like Bragg should be a million miles away from such power.

I think Trump is probably guilty of worse crimes than this, and I find it hard to feel particularly sorry for him (lie down with the dogs and all that), but this happening so close to the election and my sense that he was facing a particularly hostile legal environment makes things around this conviction feel at least somewhat politically motivated. I haven't bothered keeping up with details though, so this is just vibes really.

For your flip around. Even though he’s said he could get away with it.

If he shot a person in Times Square (change to Mar-a-Lago for obvious reasons) I would hope he’s convicted.

  • high level Republicans - they are not in NYC. NRA had a bad time there. They are also not the big guy so less worth their time.

  • when have Dems gone after Dems for similar violations? Hillary is free. Hunter Biden is free.

  • they go after normal people for this. Who? I believe I’m guilty of what Trump did. I do think Trump is guilty.

Hunter Biden is being prosecuted. He's not currently behind bars, but neither is Trump.

New York apparently prosecutes falsifying business records something like a thousand times a year.

Hunter Biden is being prosecuted.

Only after a judge squashed the absurd plea deal that exempted him from all future prosecution.

It's a half-step removed, but isn't this guy paying Hunter Biden's back-taxes to benefit Joe Biden similar to Cohen paying Daniels to benefit Trump? Why isn't California coming down on this guy for FEC violations?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/s-kevin-morris-says-paid-hunter-bidens-back-taxes-rcna135277

I think that if you were able to secure Morris' testimony that he paid Hunter's liabilities as part of an agreement with Joe Biden to prevent bad press that would hurt Joe Biden's election chances, it would be a comparable situation. Currently Morris is claiming he made the payments out of the goodness of his heart and with no electoral motive. I don't believe that for a second, but in order to successfully bring a prosecution you'd need some way to prove that Morris is lying.

I think that if you were able to secure Morris' testimony that he paid Hunter's liabilities as part of an agreement with Joe Biden to prevent bad press that would hurt Joe Biden's election chances, it would be a comparable situation. Currently Morris is claiming he made the payments out of the goodness of his heart and with no electoral motive. I don't believe that for a second, but in order to successfully bring a prosecution you'd need some way to prove that Morris is lying.

I trust that the State of California is doing their best to trap Morris into a plea deal wherein he admits as much! As it is, he has nearly run out of money and can't afford to buy more than 11 of Hunter's paintings. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/hunter-biden-legal-defense-kevin-morris-money-00158237

Hunter Biden is certainly not being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The government had an open-and-shut tax evasion case against him and deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to expire. The government is making a minimal show of prosecuting the other chargers.

I started reading your first article. The first two people are for bribery. Much different offense than mislabeling your personal business dealings. 700k and gold bars versus I wrote it down wrong on internal documents.

We can quibble over the specifics of how "similar" you want examples to be but the broader point is that dem DOJs go after dems when they do shady white collar activities too.

  • -18

Bribery is not 'shady white collar activities', it's 'high crime' on par with treason. The fact that you would try to conflate the two makes your reasoning suspect at best.

Probably the most recent one is Bob Menendez (D-NJ) being prosecuted for corruption and obstruction of justice.

Are you comparing writing down “legal expense” versus “paid mistress” to accepted gold and cash envelops?

I mean, the crimes are different. It is still the Biden administration prosecuting a Democratic Senator.

  • -12

Big difference between.

I prosecuted a Democrat for murder.

I prosecuted a Democrat for jaywalking.

This isn’t quite that far but I do think it falls under different.

I view this lawfare as both morally wrong and deeply destabilizing.

Why is this lawfare? And why is it wrong? I can see both sides of the issue but want to make sure I'm not missing something.

Camp: this is terrible

This is a tragedy for justice. Trump did stuff that, sure it was technically illegal, but it took prosecutors like 5 years to charge him for this. The fact that it took so long is sus. The fact that it's during an election year is sus. Also, there are tons of people committing actual horrific felonies in NY that aren't being prosecuted. Additionally, it really seems like the prosecutor had to squint to find something to bust him with. This seems very politically motivated and like it sets a terrible precedent. It simply shows that you can prosecute any business leader for something if they infuriate the establishment enough. Additionally, you can't really read too much into this. He was charged and convicted in NY, a place that's full-on Trump Derangement Syndrome. He probably would've been sentenced to death for a parking ticket if the court allowed it. America is in danger.

for contrast

Camp: this is fine

This is a victory for justice. Even former Presidents are not above the law. He did a crime and he was convicted of it. He very much had a guilty mind, surrounding generally bad behavior, and did bad things while campaigning to be a leader of the country, one of the most important positions in the world. In the process of these morally bad acts he crossed a legal line and he's being called to account for it. Sure, it took a long time and sure it might have some twinge of political motivation to the timing, and this is a crime few people can really relate to, but you also want leaders held to a high standard and you also want them to be accountable. Juries may hate Trump but it's just implausible to expect even 12 New Yorkers to find him guilty of something just because they hate him. America has demonstrated its commitment to rule of law and we should celebrate.

Consider also in Camp: this is terrible:

Trump did not do anything that was technically illegal. There is nothing illegal about paying someone to sign an NDA. A former chairman of the FEC is on the record as saying this expenditure does not count as a campaign expenditure. Smith also commented:

Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count?

There is, at the least, reasonable doubt that this action was illegal, and the standard for convicting someone of a felony is beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the FEC did find AMI paying McDougal (the other woman alleged to have an affair with Trump) off was a campaign finance violation. So i am not sure how much we should Smith's words count here. Note this was even with the FEC committee being split 50-50 Republican and Democrat.

"The FEC ruling states that the Enquirer's publisher, American Media Inc, "knowingly and wilfully" violated election laws by paying for the rights to Ms McDougal's story and never publishing it in a practice known as "catch and kill"."

So the FEC itself does seem to feel that paying off alleged affair partners does itself count as a campaign expenditure.

Had they paid for the story and then published it would it have been a contribution for Trump's opponent?

Do you think a presidential candidate could use campaign funds to do it? Again at best the law is murky which seriously calls into question that there was an intent to violate the law AND would call into question whether it was void for vagueness.

Same reply here: https://www.themotte.org/post/1019/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/217701?context=8#context

He pleaded to it as part of a deal to avoid being prosecuted for other things. Read my link, it is directly related to that question.

Granting that this is what happened, it sounds a lot like a case of what people here like calling "leopards eating faces" when it happens to the other side. Republicans are the law-and-order party that spent decades architecting a legal system where prosecutors have free rein to use tactics like blackmailing (or, equivalently, bribing) people to incriminate their allies, so as to be able to secure convictions in cases like gangs where they feel they caught a bad guy but can't find a legally watertight way to prove his guilt directly; now that they found themselves at the business end of this machinery, they are crying foul.

If this was a Bush/Romney Republican, this wouldn't have happened. The Republicans haven't gone after Democrat politicians, so that is also something to consider. They also aren't the only ones part of designing it.

And of course under your scenario, the spirit of the law that isn't violated when persecuting gangs is violated when getting Trump over this.

Through loopholes you can create a dictatorship out of any democracy and can abuse any system. And so, when such loopholes are abused, you either blame those who abuse them and oppose it, or promote a theory of leopards eating face, if you support the process of abusing the law to get your opponents. Any justice system to work well, requires respecting the spirit of the law, because you can manage to get a lot of people with technicalities, and by abusing the system. No system is so designed as to be infallible to that. There is always something one can find as an excuse if they support a transformation of the system into that.

Ironically, in addition to tit for tat, ideally towards actual crimes done by dem politicians as a deescalating force, to the extend liberals have such attitudes, it is actually justifiable and not just going after ones opponent to consider if people with such ideology are going to abuse their position as judges, bureaucrats, etc, etc. And even people like journalists, academics, have their own enormous influence that is going to affect everything. For the right, protecting the integrity of the system, and not letting their political opponents dominate it and abuse it then become interchangeable. For liberals, the opposite claim is not actually justifiable. Precisely because the right not only haven't prosecuted liberals over BS, but also have failed to prosecute more clear misconduct. And it is precisely that appeasement and sense of no consequences that has encouraged the liberal side into escalating.

Did Republicans really create this legal system? It seems noteworthy to me that these systems operate most often the way you describe in areas dominated entirely by Democrats.

I would vastly prefer to be in Trump's shoes in New York than in Georgia. The bar for proving RICO is so low there and it comes with a 5 year minimum sentence.

That trial won’t occur. Fani is getting kicked off.

More comments

Steelmanning: the FBI prosecutor made up a crime, an SDNY prosecutor carried water for this made up crime and charged Cohen with it, and Cohen plea bargained it and a judge validated the plea bargain and thusly this made up crime is now a real crime in this court and they charge Trump with it in the future, too.

Skeptically: I understand you give up your right to defend yourself when you plea bargain but does this mean a judge will let you confess to things that aren't crimes? Are you completely surrendering to the prosecutor's legal determination?

He confessed to a crime in the sense that there is a law on the books that he confessed to break. That doesn't mean that he actually violated that crime. For example, let's say I wanted to murder a bank teller because of a personal beef. After my crime, I plead to attempted bank robbery and un-premeditated murder so that I can avoid being tried for pre-meditated murder. Bank robbery is a crime, but I never actually tried to commit it. I just plead to it because it keeps me from the electric chair.

Michael Cohen confessed to a crime he didn't commit given the facts at hand. People do this to avoid long sentences for possibly other crimes they committed. Michael Cohen is a convicted perjurer and was trying to avoid going to trial for tax fraud:

Cohen was facing multiple tax and fraud charges that could have landed him in jail for the rest of his life, even if he beat the campaign finance allegations. By pleading guilty, he limits his jail time to just a few years.

Michael Cohen confessed to a crime he didn't commit given the facts at hand. People do this to avoid long sentences for possibly other crimes they committed. Michael Cohen is a convicted perjurer and was trying to avoid going to trial for tax fraud:

What I'm saying is there wasn't a factual dispute re: the campaign finance violations. Those acts were either a crime or they were not. I'm surprised people are complaining that wasn't something he could have been charged with but the judge signed off on it anyway. The more intangible things like mens rea doesn't really enter into it, IMO.

I'm surprised at your surprise. That's just what a plea deal is. "I will plea to this lesser charge that does not accurately depict reality so that I don't risk jail for a greater charge and you don't have to go through the trouble of a jury trial."

Question:

In the 9th episode of series 15 of "Law and Order: SVU", a serial rapist offers to plead guilty to a rape which he did not commit, while refusing to plead guilty to a series of rapes which he actually did commit (the reasons for this are complex and irrelevant to the question). The prosecutor and police seriously consider accepting his offer, even though they know he didn't commit the crime he wants to confess to, because they don't think they can prove the crimes he actually did commit. This doesn't sound to me like something which would be legal. Could a prosecutor really agree to a plea bargain deal which would involve the defendant confessing to something which the prosecutor knows they didn't do?

Answer:

Such things are in fact legal in some US jurisdictions, as part of plea bargains. In fact such pleas are not uncommon. More usual is the case where a person pleads guilty to a lesser crime, so as to qualify for a lower sentence, when all involved know that the lesser crime was not committed by anyone. It is simply a device to get a compromise sentence and avoid a trial.

In some jurisdictions the Judge, in the course of accepting a guilty plea, requires that the accused admit specific facts that form a minimal legal basis for conviction of the crime pled to. In others no such admission is made. But even where such an admission is made, the truth of such an admission is not usually checked. The Judge will generally make sure that the accused understands the effect of a guilty plea, the rights given up by such a plea, and the possible range of sentences that will result. If the Judge believes that the plea constitutes a miscarriage of justice, for example that a totally innocent person is yielding to improper pressure from the prosecutor, the Judge can refuse the plea, but this is very rare in practice.

There aren't limits to plea bargaining than what each side accepts based on their risk tolerance.

Cohen plead guilty to a campaign finance violation. A campaign finance violation is indeed a crime it is possible to commit. No one in the process, however, had to double check that what Cohen did actually counted as a campaign finance violation.

More comments

Actually the Trump camp is he didn’t do anything illegal but due to venue shopping and a corrupt judge they were able to get a conviction on what is a minor crime.

Scroll further down to see explanations on why he didn’t break the law

Wasn't Michael Cohen charged and convicted for his part in this almost immediately, though? In 2018? The charge was referred by the special prosecutor's office, to a different NY DA, with the case allowed by a different judge?

Also, was it venue shopping? Wasn't Trump a resident of NY at the time, and didn't the crime happen in NY?

To steelman: actually, Trump didn't do anything illegal but due to multiple corrupt judges and multiple corrupt prosecutors they convicted Trump's attorney and Trump himself on what is a minor crime. All of this happening within one corrupt court, the SD of NY.

Cohen was in trouble for tax charges and taxi medallion scams. They were discussing plea deal and threw in FECA allowing him to plead to something “less bad” with an intent of getting Trump.

More particularly, the biggest lawfare aspect is the grasping to conjure a federal crime at the root of Trump's recordkeeping activities -- if NY had chosen to prosecute Trump for misdemeanor records fuckery it would have been still pretty clearly politically motivated, but probably not had much impact on the election.

The way they went about it seems pretty clearly designed to impede Trump's current national campaign, which is very bad -- maybe some Red State prosecutor can come at the NY DA for 'unauthorized campaign contributions' to the DNC or something?

Sorry, why wouldn't it be a federal crime if it is considered violating federal election law for his campaign for a federal elected office?

The federal authority in charge of prosecuting this kind of crime did not think it was a crime.

Could they have? According to LawyerGPT

Lack of Criminal Authority: The FEC does not have the authority to prosecute criminal violations. When potential criminal conduct is identified, the FEC refers such cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or relevant U.S. Attorney's Offices for criminal investigation and prosecution.

The DOJ also was referred this conduct and did not charge it. Saying this was an election law violation requires a tortured interpretation of the statute, and arguably would have put Trump in a catch-22 situation where classifying the expense as a campaign expense would be illegal, but also not classifying it as a campaign expense was illegal.

Ok? They didn't refer Trump's conduct to anyone either -- probably because they didn't think it was clear that paying Daniels was a campaign expense. Or maybe because paying her through an intermediary doesn't make it a donation by that person.

Ok? They didn't refer Trump's conduct to anyone either -- probably because they didn't think it was clear that paying Daniels was a campaign expense.

They did think paying McDougal off was a campaign expense though. Remember the FEC committee is equally split between Republicans and Democrats so what the FEC thinks is basically what a 6 person panel equally split between two opposing sides can hammer out as a compromise. They fined AMI for paying McDougal off on behalf of Trump.

More comments

The FEC looked at this very case and decided not to bring any action. The Judge in this trial prevented Trump from providing this fact to the jury.

There's a scenario I've seen postulated elsewhere, that I'm not sure how plausible it is as a possibility (not enough of an expert on the legal system). Specifically, judges can issue suspended sentences, where a defendant is spared jail time subject to abiding by certain conditions set by the judge. These conditions can include refraining from behaviors, contacts, etc. associated with the crime in question — such as giving someone convicted of a drug crime a jail sentence suspended on the condition they go to rehab, stay clean, stay away from known dealers/drug houses, etc.

Given that the 34 charges for which Trump is being sentenced are related to political campaign finance, the proposed scenario is that Judge Merchan gives Trump serious jail time, but suspends it on the condition that Trump refrain from running or campaigning for political office. That is, give Trump the choice of dropping out and letting the Republican convention four days later name someone else their candidate, or going to jail (where he dies — depending on your views and flavor of the scenario, either from old age after how ever many years, or from getting Epsteined before election day).

Is there some rule about sentencing that prevents this?

I hope he tries this. Trump will win elections from a jail cell.

Of course, he won’t try it. It’s a bridge too far, even for New York.

Trump will win elections from a jail cell.

Not if they Epstein him first — assuming it's even necessary, given his likely inability to overcome the "margin of fraud" after all the "Party of Law and Order" Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon" just like they did with Stevens.

Murdering their political opponent in jail would be a bridge too far for many democrats.

Believing that their political opponent killed himself in prison wouldn't, though.

Who would believe this? No one believes Epstein killed himself. Few people even believe McAfee killed himself.

People will believe whatever they need to believe to justify themselves, so long as it's at least plausibly compatible with reality.

ETA: Would you really have such a hard time believing that Trump suffered a sudden and lethal heart attack while alone in his cell?

Any Democrat faced with the choice of believing "the guys on my side are so evil they murdered their rival to keep him out of office" and "The other side's crook couldn't handle prison so shot himself in the back of the head, twice" will pick the latter, every time. And call you a loon for believing otherwise.

I hope he does do that. It would lay bare for the world to see the motive with zero excuse. Get Trump to Florida and say Molon Labe

Florida is required to adhere to New York court decisions. Roberts would sign the order himself. And if DeSantis didn't play ball anyway, there's Federal Marshalls.

I’m not sure Roberts would. He can see what this is and the logic of the Colorado decision applies directly to this case.

It would lay bare for the world to see the motive with zero excuse.

So what? What does it matter if people see "the motive with zero excuse"? Let them see, and get mad, and stew impotently in their anger, doing nothing about it because there's nothing they can do about it.

Get Trump to Florida and say Molon Labe

And when they do indeed "come and take him," drag him back to NY and lock him up?

It's a cute trick, but probably one step too far even for the New York Democrats. After the earlier kerfuffle about States not being allowed to determine eligibility for the Presidency, even John Roberts won't let it go.

even John Roberts won't let it go.

Even after Rep Raskin and the Justice Department force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves?

And besides, John Roberts can make his decision, and then let him try to enforce it.

Raskin and the Justice Department lack the power to force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. I can't see Thomas doing so. They could try to impeach and convict, but they don't have the votes.

The same can be said, at that point, for the state of New York.

The state of New York has armed men in their employ, paid specifically to enforce such decisions. The Supreme Court has literally no actual enforcement power whatsoever beyond the willingness of government officials to willingly heed its rulings.

There are plenty of red law enforcement under federal employ. For that matter the NYPD is fairly red.

There are plenty of red law enforcement under federal employ

None of whom answer (directly) to the Supreme Court. And most cops, regardless of political alignment, are likely to put keeping their jobs and pensions over their personal politics, and the latter means following orders from above. As one put it about why he'd go door-to-door confiscating guns if orders to do so came down "try telling your boss you're not going to do what he's directly told you to do, and see if you still have a job."

I find all the “this is an escalation that will lead to unrest” thoughts going around dangerously naive and fantastical. There is zero possibility of political unrest in America. Americans of both spectrums are increasingly isolated, sedentary, and addicted to their phones. White Americans are becoming poorer. Everyone is addicted to a device which spies on them continually, and all social activity now begins* online. The upper rung of intel communities are hyper-elite well-connected individuals with names like Robert Swan Mueller III who likely care more about maintaining intergenerational wealth and family influence than adhering to abstract principles of justice. If through some cosmic miracle you managed to create some organization intent on unrest, it will be Ruby Ridge but with drone strikes. It’s simply impossible. Any “unrest” would have to come from inside the upper rung of the intelligence agencies, not among the common squabble.

This fact needs to be accepted so that conservatives realize the whole moral burden of correcting the perceived injustice rests in their ability to propagandize, boycott, and culture-craft. There will be no cavalry or Calvary moment to save you. If you do nothing politically or culturally productive, nothing will happen. Ever. Ad infinitum. The new world does not allow for the smallest amount of unrest. They will drone strike you (you will once again complain it is an “escalation”) before they allow any unrest that could be utilized by foreign actors to reduce American influence.

White Americans are becoming poorer.

Is this true? I can see it being true in a relative sense as other groups catch up, but it seems totally fantastical given that basically everyone has become massively richer over the past 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 years.

If you do nothing politically or culturally productive, nothing will happen.

They are incapable of doing that because the right has no human capital

It's unclear what the Democrats will do if they win, because they can't promise anything as they have almost no more positive-sum, or even zero-sum, gains to make. Almost everything they do from here on out, unless someone in the Democratic coalition actually acts as a leader and e.g. shuts down the Left-NIMBYs and greenmailers, is negative-sum, and against a particular ethnic group and sexual identity.

If Trump goes to prison, but Democratic leadership shut that negative-sum behavior down and can manage to just be normal for 20 years, then I think there are few consequences to them for jailing Trump.

But they've put so much effort into avoiding necessary reforms and avoiding having tough conversations, that it's hard to believe that they'll suddenly act like mature leaders governing the nation in the broad national interest.

If they don't shape up, the question is just how much abuse bright young cis heterosexual males (of left-discriminated-against racial or ethnic categories) are willing to take before they decide to organize for their own advantage, just as Democrats tell every other group to organize for their own advantage.

A lot of paranoia within Social Justice seems rooted in the understanding that these men really aren't organizing for their own interests right now, but would be a powerful force if they did so in the future, and thus wants to weaken this category based on an implicit theory of inevitable identitarian conflict, rather than pursuing a more peaceful solution which avoids creating incentives for conflict.

It's unclear what the Democrats will do if they win, because they can't promise anything as they have almost no more positive-sum, or even zero-sum, gains to make.

They'll make negative-sum gains by taking from their enemies and giving to their friends and clients.

If they don't shape up, the question is just how much abuse bright young cis heterosexual males (of left-discriminated-against racial or ethnic categories) are willing to take before they decide to organize for their own advantage, just as Democrats tell every other group to organize for their own advantage.

It turns out the answer is "all of it". They've successfully convinced a majority of society -- including said cis-het makes -- that they deserve all the abuse that is handed out to them, and that it is unacceptable for oppressors like them to organize for their own advantage.

If they don't shape up, the question is just how much abuse bright young cis heterosexual males (of left-discriminated-against racial or ethnic categories) are willing to take before they decide to organize for their own advantage,

So what if "bright young cis heterosexual males" do decide to start organizing for their own advantage? Just cut them off off all avenues of converting such organizing into advantage if you can. And if you can't, then just punish them for organizing in that manner. One can always adjust incentives away from an undesired outcome by shifting the cost/benefit analysis through imposition of costs. If the "abuse" left-discriminated-against-categories are taking is incentivizing them to pursue "organizing for advantage," then you need only provide an offsetting disincentive. People will take any amount of abuse if the consequences for not taking it are even worse. If the punishment for "bright young cis heterosexual males" organizing isn't discouraging them from doing so, then escalate it, harsher and harsher, until it does.

Why "shape up" when you can instead simply destroy the lives of anyone who tries to oppose you?

The democrats have done a ton of positive sum things and there are a lot more positive sum things I expect them to be much better at executing than republicans. For example dems all lined up for the TikTok divestiture, which Trump supported until some random billionaire with a financial interest in TikTok donated and got him to oppose it.

The situation with support for nasty racial/ethnic coalition politics by the Democrats is so bad that it actually isn't clear that forcing TikTok to divest from China will be a net benefit in the medium to long term. If the general direction continues, it will be so out of control by mid-century that Xi Jinping Thought will look reasonable by comparison.

In theory, e.g. environmentalism can be positive sum, but they can't stop screwing up construction projects. Unions, administrators, or environmentalists - at least one group of the democratic coalition must take the loss.

I don't trust Republicans do e.g. properly run groups that monitor for radium in road salt. But at the same time, if those organizations divert resources from checking for radioactivity to the left-identitarian omni-cause, then we are not looking at an even a maintenance of the status quo, but a loss.

We have tried asking nicely for Democrats to stop supporting "corrective" racism, and they always refuse. I don't see how anything other than imposing consequences on them will work. The personnel and programs responsible must be defunded, and de facto legal liability must be increased.

The situation with support for nasty racial/ethnic coalition politics by the Democrats is so bad that it actually isn't clear that forcing TikTok to divest from China will be a net benefit in the medium to long term. If the general direction continues, it will be so out of control by mid-century that Xi Jinping Thought will look reasonable by comparison.

So what? It clearly benefits the people pushing it, and there's nobody remotely powerful enough to make them stop pushing it, so why should they stop?

then we are not looking at an even a maintenance of the status quo, but a loss.

Again, so what? This is a bad thing, sure, but it's an inevitable badness — there's nothing that can be done to stop it.

We have tried asking nicely for Democrats to stop supporting "corrective" racism, and they always refuse.

Because they know there's no possible consequences for said refusal, since there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop them.

I don't see how anything other than imposing consequences on them will work.

Yes, nothing else will work… which means nothing will work because there is simply no way whatsoever to impose consequences on them. They're too powerful.

The personnel and programs responsible must be defunded, and de facto legal liability must be increased.

Except there is no means available, at all, to do any of those. It's never going to happen.

Unless this is wrong, it has decreased since 2018. Something else I’m interested in knowing (but haven’t found yet) is a really solid income x cost of living estimate which accounts for the higher paid jobs increasingly being in high cost areas, eg white American well-paid professionals moving into Silicon Valley or city centers — “average cost of living” tells us nothing about specific cohorts. Have white American wages since 2010 actually accounted for white Americans moving to higher cost areas? Idk. Also curious if it accounts for delayed age of retirement and delaying work because in grad school? Maybe someone smarter than me can inform on that.

the right has no human capital

I don’t disagree but I do think they can develop this, over time

I don't have it by race but 2021-22 were kind of down years across the board that have reversed more recently. Even moreso for wealth.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

But without getting into the quarterly bouncing ball the trend at the frequency of a few years is still strongly up.

Adjusted for inflation net worth since Biden took over increased less than 1% per household. This is much less than when Trump was president.

As I said downthread, as someone in deep red country the conversations I hear have an underlying apprehension of violence that rises by the day including today. I don't believe in their hearts these people want violence, but as the right is the political alignment predicted by having superior-to-average faculties at assessing danger, I think even if only intuitively they understand and greatly fear how swiftly we approach violence as the only way out. Blessed are the meek, blessed are those who know when to draw the sword. If and when it happens, it will be the right and only time.

The thought of this as being what stops Trump is many things, all of them wrong. There's not one person in this country who has decided this is the moment to hop off the fence, "Okay, now I won't vote for the man." Farcical. There will be topical complaining from RINOs, the establishment-GOP will continue searching, as they surely have since 2016, at finding a way to keep him out, and in November Trump will be on the ballot and receive 100 million votes. This conviction completes the ascendance of the man as the idea of the total rejection of the establishment. The establishment understands this, and is thus why they attack him with a wholly unparalleled ferocity; it is exactly the same reason those who land on the turbo-normie-left-side-of-bell-curve-meme support him. They don't have to think and wordswordswords, they viscerally understand power against power.

People try to contextualize what's happening in so many irrelevant details, ignore the minutiae. It has never been about vice, it has never been about ambiguous business dealings, it has never been about brashness, candor and honesty. Politicians as a category are the least ethical humans in this country, why would they care about any of this? It is about a man who refused to kneel when demanded by seated power and has risen to threaten their entire existence. This conviction heralds the imminent arrival of the pivotal figure of American history. It doesn't have to be Trump, but where we are in the reverberations of history is no earlier than the election of Buchanan.

100mm would be a massive increase. Trump only got 74mm in 2020 (losing by 6 million).

It’s possible that a felony conviction will get him 20mm more votes but I think that’s pretty unlikely.

This is fair.

I reached the numbers for my wager through personal belief, it's nothing specifically evidenced: I believe at least 10% of Trump's ballots were destroyed in 2020 with methods that will fail this November--physically destroyed, fraudulently marked invalid, "lost", compromised machines modifying totals--that takes 74 to 81, +10 from the verdict is 91, and then enough to reach the over on 95.5 with "any other factor", which refers to the fallout from the establishment's next move when the verdict fails. In the event of a failed assassination attempt I'd add a second over on 105 million.

Again though feel free to write this off immediately as "just what this guy believes", I have no actual argument here.

Why would these methods fail now?

Sure COVID was a thing in 2020, but Trump was in power and already suspicious of rigged elections. Despite that, the rigging took place ant 10% and there was no concrete evidence?

There's not one person in this country who has decided this is the moment to hop off the fence, "Okay, now I won't vote for the man."

Elections are won and lost by a percentage point or two. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that possibly one to two in a hundred American voters doesn't like Biden but won't vote for Trump after enough messaging about him now being a convicted felon. It also may not have any such effect, or have a reverse effect. Time will tell. But you're overconfident.

Out of the hundreds of posters on the fora I inhabit, not one has plausibly made the claim that they would have voted Trump if not for this -- at least one or two have said that they didn't want to vote for him (and would have gone for a third party), but now feel that they have to in order to send a message. Some of them do have a post history of criticizing the guy, so I think I believe them?

As @VelveteenAmbush points out, it's the people NOT on forums who are going to stop voting for him. The law-n-order conservatives who have never seen a prosecution they don't like.

And those people are going to vote for who exactly? Certainly not Joe 'Mostly Peaceful' Biden -- even among throwaway votes RFK doesn't really appeal to this crowd, and I can't see them getting too excited about putting the 'Libertarian' in LGBTQ.

The cohort you are talking about are also the 'you don't vote, you can't complain' guys -- so I can't even see it hurting on turnout much here.

ETA: I'm not really talking about quirky geek forums here either -- if you wanna put your finger on that particular pulse I'd reccomend ar15.com -- those guys are the most law abiding, letter-of-the-law dudes you will find, and maybe even more right wing than here. I haven't had cause to be down that rabbithole lately, but I guarantee they will have something to say about this.

And those people are going to vote for who exactly?

They'll just stay home and let the Democrats take the purple areas.

The ar15.com guys are familiar with blatant abuse of the law because BATFE does it all the time.

Sure, but they take all the dumb rules to heart -- go on there and ask about cutting an inch off a shotgun barrel or something sometime. And they won't stay home -- voting is a civic duty, remember? And these guys are all about the civic duty.

Yeah, the ar15 guys are serious about the dumb rules because they know if you're not, you risk having your wife shot in the head in front of you. But they're not the guys who will be turning away from Trump. It will be the guys who (at the time Ruby Ridge was in the news) were of the opinion that if Weaver didn't want to get his wife shot, he shouldn't have cut that shotgun too short. Or should have showed up to court (despite getting wrong and conflicting information about the date). There were distressingly many of such people at the time, and they still exist.

More comments

Posters on the fora you inhabit are not a representative sample of the electorate, no matter how many fora you inhabit nor how much you post.

True enough -- but I've heard literally zero people on fora or IRL who were plausible Trump voters and say that now they won't vote for him -- 'some' is more than 'none', and I'm pretty comfortable extending this to the electorate. All this lawfare is a big mistake -- it won't succeed in keeping him off the ballot, and Americans love an underdog. Trump will lean into it.

I'm pretty comfortable extending this to the electorate

You shouldn't be. It's just not reasonable to extrapolate your personal social experience to the electorate, no matter how badly you want to.

Whatever man -- apparently he raised $52M over it yesterday, and right next to that in the feed is a sheriff from Cali (who seems kind of law & order oriented) saying "it's time for a felon in the White House": https://x.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1796750332359262368

That's top of Twitter from typing "trump" into the search box -- tell you what, why don't you see if you can actually find some people that were ever likely to vote for Trump but won't now? The people saying that this matters are saying so because they hate Trump already, simple as.

All very interesting but none of them is a poll

More comments

Give it a week and we'll have new polling that shows if this event moved opinions at all. Hopefully they ask specifically about whether the verdict changed their opinion and in what direction so we don't miss one direction of movement being netted out by another.

Convicting former presidents for paperwork related felonies (in a court and a state that hate him no less) is such a bad precedent to set I don't even know where to start. There is a reason Nixon was pardoned. Who will want to give up power if they know they will be possibly thrown in jail if they do? Even if that never happens the knock on consequences of this down the road are hard to overstate. Like all bad law, it might make sense morally and emotionally at the time, but it creates a monstrosity that will have to be dealt with later.

Sure. The idea that 0 people weren't convinced to cancel their trump vote because of this trial cannot statistically true at the scale of an American election.

But do you really see a meaningful overall shift that way instead of the opposite? Trump has been impeached, sued, and disparaged with screeching histrionic screeds from every single major media platform in the world for almost 8 years at this point.

And yet a sham conviction like this is supposed to be more progress towards crushing him instead of the reverse??

That's even more of a stretch than what you're casting doubt on. Overconfident? Yes. But this was a counter productive move on the establishment's part. I'll be voting for R over L for president this year because of it. Maybe.

I hear have an underlying apprehension of violence that rises by the day including today. I don't believe in their hearts these people want violence, but as the right is the political alignment predicted by having superior-to-average faculties at assessing danger, I think even if only intuitively they understand and greatly fear how swiftly we approach violence as the only way out. Blessed are the meek, blessed are those who know when to draw the sword. If and when it happens, it will be the right and only time.

Can you self reflect for a second about how ridiculous this LARPing fanfic is? This is the right's equivalent of lefty women breathlessly imagining the Handmaids Tale is going to come true. The core Trump demographic is old, obese, uneducated people. They are unhealthy. They have no human capital. They live in the middle of nowhere. Their entire personality is centered around talking about how scary they imagine New York to be. Any people like this who are actually talented, have human capital, and are capable of acting with agency have moved to the coasts to participate in the real world.

They are a party of losers. Their greatest political achievement is electing an elite who openly scorns them and handed out tax cuts to other elites. Their second greatest political achievement is one of them having a heart attack during their protest in DC. These days they comically threaten to "boycott" New York, as if the Red Lobster in Times Square will even notice that they aren't there. They aren't some dark brooding populist force that's going to be the vanguard of the revolution. They're a bunch of people who have been left behind and resist the grownups' efforts to help.

It is about a man who refused to kneel when demanded by seated power and has risen to threaten their entire existence. This conviction heralds the imminent arrival of the pivotal figure of American history. It doesn't have to be Trump, but where we are in the reverberations of history is no earlier than the election of Buchanan.

Trump is a talented guy who recognized there are a bunch of losers out there and figured out how to manipulate them. These people spend their political capital on banning lab grown meat to own the libs. They're not leaving anything of note behind in history.

  • -11

Militant angry Trump supporters actually kind of are losers until and unless proven otherwise. They have loads of guns and a large fraction of them think that the 2020 election was stolen from them, yet they've killed a total of about 0 government workers. If they continue like this, it will make sense for their enemies to ignore them as LARPers. Personally, I'd love to see them rise up and make some of the establishment face the consequences of their inactions and actions, but so far they haven't done almost anything. What's it going to take? I guess there is some breaking point at which they would rise up, but what would it take?

Dissident right Twitter bodybuilders and even stuff like Charlottesville (despite subsequent messaging) has given some very online people a completely warped perception of Trump’s base. They’re thinking it’s tall white fit, salmon-colored shorts wearing frat bros, decently educated, probably 115 IQ college grads, deep red, hard right, well versed in issues, probably know how to handle a gun. Similarly, people’s very online perception of the Dem base is either the worst dregs of the criminal or homeless underclass, or like ‘aids skrillex’ type screeching weedy non-binary student protesters crying about Palestine and police brutality.

But that isn’t Biden’s base, and that certainly isn’t Trump’s base. As the Tomato says, Trump’s base is fat middle aged or old people in flyover states who watch Fox News. They may or may not have guns, but boy, they sure aren’t overthrowing the federal government with them, today or any day.

[REDACTED] : "They have no human capital." and subsequent description is boo outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: antagonistic [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup

My. It's rare to see a comment get quite that many reports, and have the consensus of the volunteer jannies be that it's frankly fucking terrible.

You could very well have conveyed the exact same message with much less inflammatory wording. In the words of @Amadan, while we don't police content, we very much police tone.

And yours is utterly dripping with sheer contempt, and is absolutely not what we're looking for here, or even conducive to a healthy argument.

You've been warned once for antagonism before, and I would wager it hasn't worked. I hope a day's ban will make you choose your phrasing more carefully in the future. You're welcome to share your opinion on Trump and his voters, simply not while nakedly sneering.

That was absolutely not a ban worthy comment.

For what it's worth, I didn't at all consider reporting the comment.

Tomato's response was probably a bit more acerbic than desirable but it's a reasonable conclusion to the discourse of the terminally online left and right. The left is much more gleeful about the prospect of violence but that seems a poor gradient when both sides, again among the terminally online, wonder loudly "Why aren't we killing them all yet?" The right thinks it should have been no later than summer 2020, the left thinks probably no later than Charlottesville, and so when violence hasn't happened but you expect it, you seek an answer. Nobody's questioning first principles, they're not asking if their fundamental assumption is wrong because people almost never do. The right concludes with docility, the left concludes with calling it a larp. When the lefties have been hearing since at least 2020 "One of these days, man . . . " some amount of mirth isn't unreasonable.

Well--not unreasonable within the frame. Stepping back to only observe terminally online discourse (and discuss it here sure) without allowing it to excessively influence one's thinking is best.

Of course I also assert it as a fear response, but I have no blame for someone who chooses to self-assuage fear of the will to bloodshed that still absolutely inhabits western man.

Oh come on, there are comments on here dripping with sheer contempt all the time that don't get the authors banned.

Keep in mind, I'm not a leftoid, I just think that most of the rightoids on here are retarded. If we had more leftoids here, I'd tell them that they are also retarded, cause I genuinely believe that.

But the Tomato didn't express himself in a way more obnoxious than what we see regularly here, so come the fuck on, shape up or have this site keep being viewed as a joke by actually smart people.

Right now, this site is mostly just a refugee camp for midwits who overrate their own intelligence because they realize that different races differ in IQ or whatever (Wow! You just have to be a non-retard to understand that different races differ in IQ for probably in part genetic reasons! Congratulations on having a bare minimum intelligence to be worthy of smart people paying attention to you!).

Having the bare minimum of intelligence to be able to see through leftoid ideas of how everybody's on average equal in intelligence or whatever... doesn't take much. It's just like the bare standard minimum. This site is overrun with lame social trads, religious idiots, authoritarians, and so on... all of whose ideas are not rationally obviously correct, but they clearly are pushing these ideas because they have deep-seated emotional (as opposed to rational) reasons for wanting to push those ideas. They often write things that are not rationally justified, and imply that their opponents are all sorts of nasty things when they write it, but I am not calling for them to be banned. So why ban Tomato for writing a mild few paragraphs poking fun at his political opponents?

Edit: Sorry, I was drunkposting and a bit too harsh. Oh well, I don't mind a week vacation.

have this site keep being viewed as a joke by actually smart people.

I'm tempted to ask where all these "smart people" are whose opinions we're supposed to care about, but I don't really care.

So why ban Tomato for writing a mild few paragraphs poking fun at his political opponents?

Because poking fun at your political opponents is not what this place is for.

You have a long record of exactly the sort of comments this place is not for, and since you went full I Am Very Smart with a post you surely knew would result in a ban, why don't you go find smarter pastures that are more fitting for your intellectual caliber?

You have one AAQC and a bunch of warnings and (remarkably) only one previous ban. I'm giving you a one week ban, but I strongly suggest you decide whether you want to return if this level of sneering really reflects how you feel.

I think this comment should have been allowed. Almost all of the negative statements about Trump voters here are demonstrating a counterargument to @jake's claim that a Trump voter revolution is nigh. The tone is 20% more biting and recriminatory than the argument itself, but that could also be said of a lot of @FCfromSSC comments I enjoy reading.

I've got a thread going on with a couple of the mods on how they are killing this place, and owe them a response -- this is a perfect example to include. They've shifted the (important!) norm of 'be charitable to other posters' to 'be charitable to every-fucking-body' -- and I don't think it's possible to get at truth when people are handcuffed this way.

(and of course I'm elsewhere in this very thread arguing strenuously against @Tomato's thesis here -- but if we aren't allowed to put our theses forcefully to the forum, how are we gonna test our shady thinking, eh?)

Trump's core demographic is >70% white; among young white men it is the overwhelming majority; it is the hypermajority of those men most capable of purposeful violence. You cope, just as many of those in the terminally online right go doomer. They wrongly think the time for violence was years ago and they rationalize their misunderstanding as passivity. You fear reprisal so you take the lack of response as proof there is no sleeping leviathan.

Violence is the worst outcome. In "organized" warfare it's considered a sterling ratio for 1 civilian to die for every 1 combatant killed. In a civil war everyone is a civilian. Most wouldn't die from direct violence, they'd die from starvation and disease. Lack of food, people die. Lack of meds, people die.

The people who would act and suffer most have lives, families, jobs, hobbies and hanging with the buds. They understand on some level how we are living in the best time so far it has been to be a human. Something ancestral absolutely calls to them in recognizing how even a person living in project housing has a lifestyle of quality that would astonish people just 100 years ago, let alone 500. Why tear it down if it isn't absolutely necessary?

And that's the catch. These people aren't risking the lives of themselves and everyone they love, they aren't risking damning subsequent generations to the same strife, only because violence might be necessary. Knowing this makes your response darkly funny: so you think there but for lack of will go death squads? There but for lack of will go politicians getting garrotted for transing kids and sending pallets of cash to Ukraine to protect the GAE? I wonder if your mockery doesn't hint some awareness because the arguments I'm making should be the arguments you're making. That the issues of the day are not yet (and it could be not-ever!) worth risking civilization to address, or at least that peaceful resolution remains an option and should be certainly held as paramount. Instead you mock and I must think it's because you're afraid, I'm worried too, because we both know these things: it won't take many, the people who could constitute far more than many, and we know exactly what they're capable of if that switch is flipped. They just correctly don't think it's necessary yet, and that's good!

I've said before my political alignment is the one that keeps technology moving forward. We are closer than I think anyone understands to the singularity, and I think it's going to solve everything; to be honest I think it's because an AGI will emerge, a peaceful one, but one who nonetheless accepts no ideological contestation of good, true good. What's truly best for everybody, including the most important thing humans will ever do in colonizing space. Many of the people doing that research, yes live in those cities, and in conflict many would die, and regardless the research would be impacted and in the best case it's a decade before we've picked up the pieces and by then it could be too late.

party of losers

What typifies the leftist? They brand themselves superbly, so even past the successes of the communist's long march on American institutions, starting with universities, asserting themselves in the legal, HR and marketing departments of every major western corporation, they can also get the support of the culture generators of the entertainment industry, so at its peak it is celebrities, the attractive, those of good tastes. But this is the pleasant mask, the typical left-voter is one of: welfare dependents and the indolent; criminals; illegal aliens or the children thereof, or at any rate people from countries ruined by disastrous governments who now vote for politicians with the policies of their wrecked homelands; single mothers, especially those whose children have multiple fathers; a million or so women who only vote on abortion. Who else? The millions of illegal aliens the left has allowed to invade this country with the explicit purpose of altering voter demographics. The "party of winners", institutional winners yes, would not exist if it could not promise the money of the productive to give to its patrons. Leftist leaders are "grownups" but in a dark sense of the tyrant-mother; leftism in the body politic is the supreme abdication of personal responsibility.

Trump is a talented guy

If he were a grifter he would have made his appeasement to the establishment in his first term and he would still be President. There's much to discuss about his general ineffectiveness in office (though his overtures at peace with North Korea and his success at starting no new conflicts deserve great praise), the plausibility of it being a grift has been dead for three years.

Trump's core demographic is >70% white; among young white men it is the overwhelming majority;

In 2020 Trump won young white men by just 6 points. Younger zoomers are already majority nonwhite or close to it. When adding the 45% of young white men who vote Dem to almost all young black and Hispanic men (many of whom are indeed armed etc) it seems unlikely that violent young men in total are as extremely Republican as you suggest. In addition we have things like obesity data and so on. Young Red men aren’t all, or even close to being, in any large number, fit, muscular 6’5 blonde Midwestern farm boys with a personal armory ready to March on Washington. Even if they tried, blue hair they/thems in Arlington or Silicon Valley can drone them as easily as the IDF drones square-jawed jacked Palestinian youths trying to throw grenades at Israeli soldiers. The idea that the reds would easily win a civil war is ridiculous. They might win, but it is unlikely to be easy.

Agree so much with this. It honestly still baffles me how much of a cult of personality Trump has been able to build and maintain despite losing.

It baffles you because none of the politicians you support are likable, they're nakedly predatory and contemptuous of the plebs. Blues are struggling against the fact that they're squares and stiffs. Tomato's screed reads as "dear subhuman filth" does. The online right have been using the sentiment as a recruiting tool for years.

Trump literally ran a university to scam the plebs! He’s the most nakedly predatory man in the game.

I’m very much red tribe and it’s an absolute embarrassment that Trump is the nominee again.

in November Trump will be on the ballot and receive 100 million votes

Put your reputational money where your mouth is. Is this a prediction? Would you be willing to concede that you were wrong if this doesn't come to pass, or would you just say that the election result must have been falsified?

Yes. My hardline for fraud is Biden receiving >79* million votes. A conceded Trump defeat requires significantly fewer votes than 2020.

Money: Trump wins

O/U: 95.5 million for 94.5-95.5 push

Spread: 10 million; voided if Biden totals >79* million; will consider alternate structure where California votes are not included

Edit: Corrected Biden values

I would take the bet that Trump wins in November, although I made the same bet in 2020 and lost so I suppose my reputation isn't worth much. I can't see Biden improving between here and election day, and I don't believe that losing this trial is going to do anything other than galvanize the Republican base.

Ironically, I think the only thing that would tank Trump would be some group of his supporters turning their guns on a group of civilians. So long as Trump and Republican voters win support as the downtrodden underclass taking on the elites things are good. The left wants to portray them as dangerous paramilitary units - the Proud boys, Charlottesville, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, etc. were all major gifts to Democrats.

Interestingly, I have Biden winning with the same set of priors, except that I find right wing violence highly likely between now and November.

except that I find right wing violence highly likely between now and November.

Which will be utterly disorganized and poorly-aimed, cracked down upon harshly, and only serve to further weaken the right and strengthen the left.

Yup. A retarded guy in a Q themed Hawaiian shirt is gonna kill a cop and we're gonna hear about it all fall.

What evidence would you accept to decide if an election had been stolen?

What exactly does stolen mean?

Suppose

  1. Actors work to give one candidate an unfair disadvantage in voter perception, but votes are voted and tallied fairly. (E.g. the suppression of Hunter Biden laptop story)
  2. People change rules to give a favored candidate an advantage (E.g. Pennsylvania Supreme Court broadening early voting standards)
  3. A few people submit votes illegally, or in an illegal manner.
  4. Same as 2, but at scale, as a deliberate campaign
  5. Deliberate tabulation errors, at small scale
  6. Deliberate tabulation errors, by major actors or at scale
  7. Candidates being ruled ineligible
  8. Unfaithful electors costing a presidency
  9. Setting up other slates of electors to substitute for the duly elected ones

Which of these are or are not theft of an election?

My own perception is that Team Biden's done 1, 2, 3, and tried 7 and 8. Team Trump's done 3 (presumably, somewhere) and tried 9. 4 or 6 is what people often hear by "stolen election", but I haven't seen evidence for it.

But whether any election's stolen depends on which of those (and there are probably more debateable types of maybe election theft) exactly is a stolen election.

"1" seems to completely normal political campaigning. E.g., The Hillary Clinton email server thing.

Sure, many would agree. But I've seen this as a way that people have claimed the election was stolen without having to endorse the stronger claims, so I wanted to be sure I included it.

"1" seems to completely normal political campaigning. E.g., The Hillary Clinton email server thing.

Isn't this now, according to the bases on which Trump was convicted, illegal election fraud?

1 was poorly written. It should say allegedly neutral alphabet agencies instead of people.

And that is not normal.

"Actors" includes both. Perhaps I could have split it, fair enough.

We write on a free posting site. I think Tomato knew what you meant anyhow (just as I was pretty sure I knew what you meant)

The republican FBI director famously announced that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton's emails a week and a half before the 2016 election.

  • -12

And then famously despite Clinton committing obvious destruction of evidence under subpoena said FBI director invented a new standard to not charge Clinton.

It depends on the scale. For a claim of large-magnitude manipulation (skewing the popular vote by 5% or more), I'd take a plausible scenario how it could be done, corroborated by a significant number of eyewitness accounts from people who do not directly stand to benefit from the claim being proven true (in particular, disqualifying dedicated members of the party alleging manipulation to its disadvantage). Of course, this does leave the possibility that your party should have 55% of the vote but the other 45% have formed a unified block that will falsify the result while agreeing to keep it secret, but this in itself (almost complete absence of people who are not in the affected party, involved with the electoral process and would testify to manipulation they observed) seems like a very surprising scenario. Sure you could in turn concoct a conspiratorial scenario in which principled paper pushers do not exist and they all merely pretend in public that they would execute their role according to its description, and so on, but then increasingly your gap scenario will just look like an alternative model of reality on the algorithmic complexity level of a religion.

For a claim of smaller-scale manipulation (like a 0.5% skew that flips the result), evidence gets harder to come by (and to begin with, how would you even prove that any 0.5% manipulation against you that you presented evidence for was not outweighed by 1% manipulation for you that you didn't present evidence for?), but I'm also finding it harder to consider such cases a "stolen election". Elections shouldn't be sports contests, even if some people feel about them that way; for a country to be governed by the whims of 49.5% instead of the whims of 50.5% does not feel like a terrific delta-injustice. To begin with, this puts us in the range where an election could be "stolen" by adverse weather in a few large metro areas. Either way, this is not the order of magnitude that I expect the parent poster to be wrong by - apparently in 2016 both candidates received around 60 million votes, so he probably will wind up having to assert manipulation on the order of 20+%, based on nothing but the feeling that everyone he knows is extremely outraged about the conviction and so an approximate fifty-fifty can't possibly be representative.

The establishment understands this, and is thus why they attack him with a wholly unparalleled ferocity

It’s less mindblowing than what happened to JFK.

The Republicans hired Lee Harvey Oswald?

I wouldn't know, but its always fair to ask Cui Bono. In the case of LBJ getting to decide what to do in Vietnam, warhawks got prettymuch exactly what they wanted, and the resulting political unrest provided a solid tentpole for Nixon.

Obviously the assassination of kennedy has enough question marks that an entire cottage industry spawned around explaining it, but it doesnt seem like it was orchestrated by people with leftist goals.

but it doesnt seem like it was orchestrated by people with leftist goals.

Since Fidel Castro figures as the person who ordered it in some of the theories, I don't think that's necessarily true. The (Soviet) KGB is also a common suspect.

There's not one person in this country who has decided this is the moment to hop off the fence, "Okay, now I won't vote for the man." Farcical.

Trump had been immune to a lot of these things so far, but I'm really hoping this moves the needle for the less-engaged crowd, however slim that wedge is. We'll know more about the actual impact after the next group of polls I guess.

There's not one person in this country who has decided this is the moment to hop off the fence, "Okay, now I won't vote for the man."

That's exactly what a number of Alaskan Republican voters did when Ted Stevens was railroaded, so I don't see why I shouldn't expect at least some of them to do the same with respect to Trump. After all, "Taking the high road" is the only thing that separates us from them, you see. We're the party of Law and Order, and only a Leftist would vote for a felon, so therefore anyone who votes for a felon has ceased to be One Of Us and has become The Enemy. Better to lose while keeping your Sacred Values than to damn your immortal soul to eternal hellfire for a mere election.

Nobody except Twitterati resistance libs takes this trial seriously. Anybody with the faintest glimmer of a possibility of voting for trump thinks it’s a political prosecution at best and third world country bullshit more likely.

Nobody except Twitterati resistance libs takes this trial seriously.

Do you include former GOP state governors Asa Hutchinson and Larry Hogan (the latter running as the R candidate for Maryland's Senator) in the "Twitterati resistance lib" category?

Yes

Donald Trump is the idol of a cult of personality bewitching a third of the country, whose every utterance compels the leaders of the free world ever more openly to complete madness, running against a backdrop of reignited multipolar geopolitical conflicts, collapsing middle-class living standards, allegedly stolen elections and entrapped so-called insurrectionists, unbridled millions invading undefended US borders, schools erasing children's concept of gender, worldwide lockdowns, and mandatory population-wide experimental injections.

Ted Stevens is "series of tubes" guy.

Ted Stevens did not trigger existential crisis in a low-stakes, functionally-irrelevant, 90% Republican-voting state, therefore disenfranchising a third of the country by holding show trials for the most polarizing man in American history will provoke no more than eyerolls from the median Republican voter, because the median Republican voter is a holier-than-thou asshole who will cut off his nose to spite his face? Have you just emerged from a coma? The non-RINO Christian Right is framing this "mere election" as the final turnaround on the highway to the Downfall of Western Civilization. Despite all his character flaws, Donald Trump is not immanentizing the eschaton. He is an avatar of all of the insults suffered at the hands of the Elite, and with every sling cast upon him, it becomes clearer what lawlessness they will embrace to render him powerless, and how trivially they could trample over people like us who don't have a billion dollars and a TV show and buildings with our names on them. When the alternative is writing a blank cheque to godless, lawless evil, it turns out God will forgive you a vote for a felon; man's laws are not God's laws, render unto Caesar, etc.

Nobody stood up for Ted Stevens, because Ted Stevens was a nobody who stood for nothing. Trump is the last man standing. And if they bring him down, and the only ones left are sneering subservient RINO elite wannabees and a lawless brigade that makes its living destroying the lives and livelihoods of middle class Americans on principle... Well, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

Well, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

Man, what the heck are you talking about? Americans have never been richer, had higher incomes, had more political and economic freedoms. The job market has been stronger-for-longer than it has in years. Inequality is on a downward trend. Things are incredible right now. Whose boot is stamping on whose face??

If tiktok zoomers entering the real world for the first time, and wanna be coal miners instating on a maintaining a antiquated fantasy instead of getting a real job in a real city think things are bad now, wait until we get a normal economy.

  • -11

Every single metric you listed as being "incredible" right now is material and even that is only pertinent to the economic elite. Wage earner's buying power is going down and they are uninterested in your exploding portfolio.

You don't understand Trump voter's social grievances. All you think about is number go up. This election is bigger than that.

The non-RINO Christian Right

A minority, and a shrinking demographic.

sneering subservient RINO elite wannabees

I also object strenuously to the use of the term "RINO" to characterize the GOP establishment. Because there's nothing "in name only" about them. Indeed, it's quite clear to me that — regardless of what GOP voters may want or think the party stands for — they are the Republican Party. Being a "RINO" "sellout" Outer Party fake-opposition is what the Republican Party is, what it has been for a long time. It's populist outsiders like Trump — and the sizable fraction of voters who support them — who are really Republicans "in name only."

it becomes clearer what lawlessness they will embrace to render him powerless, and how trivially they could trample over people like us who don't have a billion dollars and a TV show and buildings with our names on them.

Which is why we're going to lose. They can and will simply "trample over" all of us, and there's nothing we can do about it.

When the alternative is writing a blank cheque to godless, lawless evil

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

I've been told repeatedly that Christians are not promised worldly political victory, but that they will be handed over to be persecuted, that they will be killed, and that they will be hated by all (see Matthew 24:9). That the right must understand that, per Tolkien, history will only ever be "a long defeat" and that the only victory to be had is in the next life, by sticking to our values unwaveringly even unto torture and martyrdom; that one should indeed willingly embrace said martyrdom like so many saints of old.

Back at the old place, Hlynka argued that it was precisely this embrace of "principled defeat" in this life for the sake of the next that defines "right wing" and separates it from the left, and thus only those who believe in an afterlife can be on the right; and that, regardless of their political positions, atheists are all automatically "left wing" by definition.

And if they bring him down

There's no "if" about it.

the only ones left are sneering subservient RINO elite wannabees and a lawless brigade that makes its living destroying the lives and livelihoods of middle class Americans on principle... Well, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

Yes, I agree with that. That is what's going to happen. It's inevitable, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.

Death is the only escape.

Are you Christian?

Are you Christian?

No, but most of the "normie Republicans" I know are (at least in a nominal "Christmas and Easter" sense). And I'm repeating the arguments some of them give (over and over) for why it's better for Republicans to "stick to our values" and keep losing than to "descend to our enemy's level" by retaliating tit-for-tat. They like to quote Mark 8:36 a lot.

I, personally, am one of those atheist right-wingers that Hlynka claimed doesn't exist.

I wouldn’t know. I think it was Michelle Obama who lamented to Barack that the left was too committed to going high when the right went low. Now the situation is perceived to be reversed. It seems there is something in both tents that suggests principles. I’ve never heard about them. I don’t think they exist.

It is fully possible for a muscular Christian narrative to assert itself alongside the tit-for-tat plays of the right.

Michelle's comments were funny at the time, given that the contemporary Democratic/media strategy was to regularly accuse or insinuate opposition to the Obama administration was based on racism, even as the Obama administration employed political machine politics at the national level. It was very consistent with assuming a posture of moral superiority while simultaneously going low.

I'll second at least the sentiment that RINO is almost always wrong as an appelative. (And am sympathetic to much of the rest.)

For some reason, your reference to Toilken makes me think of the fall of Gondlin. Yesterday felt like that to me.

Back at the old place, Hlynka argued that it was precisely this embrace of "principled defeat" in this life for the sake of the next that defines "right wing" and separates it from the left, and thus only those who believe in an afterlife can be on the right

This is an interesting idea, and it's the best and most coherent version of the Hlynkian thesis that I've seen. (I don't recall ever seeing this exact formulation in any of his own posts, at any rate - if you have a link I'd appreciate it.)

if you have a link I'd appreciate it

Afraid not; it was years ago and over on Reddit (which I find terrible to try to search).

Trump is the last man standing

Sometimes, like right now, I get the strangest urge to create a sure-selling T shirt.

I’ll only say this; That was a very long time ago, in a very different time politically for the US. Not only is the GOP different now to the point of almost being unrecognizable, so are independent voters and what they want.

I live in a deep blue area, but I know a ton of red tribers, mostly undercover like me. My experience is largely the same; this Los being perceived as lawfare even amongst less politically engaged independents, and has only strengthened support for trump as the anti-establishment force that he is perceived as being. Which is almost entirely a positive; red tribe “establishment” types have been almost entirely hollowed out and might as well be democrats at this point.

I'm after a summary of summaries, seeing if I've got it roughly right. Bolding done by me.

SECTION 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175 § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

Post-Summation Instructions PDF

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

Is Trump now convicted of all or some combination of 1, 2 or 3?

I saw this explanation somewhere else but it's actually very straightforward.

Burglary is a crime of entering someone's house in order to commit some other crime. To prove that someone is a burglar you just need to show that they entered someone's house and that they intended to commit some other crime. It's okay if some people on the jury think the burglar was going to commit theft and some people on the jury think the burglar was going to assault the homeowner. The burglar himself may not even have been sure which he was going to do---he just had a crowbar and was playing it by ear.

Similarly here. Falsifying business records in the first degree is when you falsify business records with the intent to commit some other crime. As with burglary not everyone needs to agree on what the other crime was.

I find burglary very non-analogous, it being a malum in se crime. But even then if you think its a good analogy a person who is charged with burglary is allowed a defense along the lines of "it was cold outside, I was going to freeze to death, I broke in to be warm, there was no intent to commit a felony therein." Trump had an expert witness lined up that said there was no crime being covered up, and he was not allowed to testify.

I have no idea and neither does the jury obviously. This case is anything but straight-forward and ultimately comes down to whether the jurors think Trump is a bad guy and want to punish him.

The man clearly falsified business records for campaign purposes.

That’s a simplification, but not hard to grok.

Can some one define business records? I have no idea what they are referring to.

There are different levels of business records. Tax returns? Thing you submitted to investors. Internal things you filled out for accounting of a private enterprise? Bullshit compliance stuff for a corporate job where you just pick something?

Small businesses often have really shitty internal accounting.

Am I a felon because I put some joke on a venmo.

Can some one define business records?

Not really directly related (there are better answers below), but the DOJ argued in Yates (2015) that a fish was a "record, document, or tangible object" destroyed for the purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley when a fisherman under investigation threw undersized fish back into the Gulf of Mexico. RBG wrote the 5-4 opinion that "tangible object" for the purposes was required to be one that is normally "used to record or preserve information": not a fish.

Nope.

An inaccurate business record recorded with innocent intent (eg as a joke or by mistake) is not a crime.

An inaccurate business record recorded with intent to defraud is a misdemeanor.

An inaccurate business record recorded with intent to defraud in the furtherance of another crime is a felony.

You are not a felon because you put a joke on a venmo.

Who did he defraud?

Ok so I am a felon too like Trump. I’ve sent mislabeled Venmo’s because I did not want Venmo to know what I’m doing.

So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records? A long line of New York state court cases supports an expansive conception with respect to § 175.00 crimes – namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981).

Trump acted with intent to defraud the state of New York by frustrating its power to faithfully carry out its own law.

You did not mislabel your Venmos (as far as I know) with the intent of preventing the state of New York from executing its law, so you are not guilty of falsification of business records (assuming your Venmos are even business transactions).

Where is the evidence that Trump was thinking about NY executing its own laws? If you don’t need scienter, then you’ve eliminated intent from the statute.

I believe the law in question is Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

So to break it down my understanding (which could be wrong, I'm just some bloke on the other side of the world who isn't even a lawyer) of how the technical legal theory of the case works is:

  • Trump falsified business records with the intent to defraud the state of New York by preventing them from executing their laws.
  • He intended to prevent them from executing their laws by concealing the fact that he had participated in a conspiracy to promote his election to public office by unlawful means.
  • The unlawful means in question were Cohen making a payment to Stormy Daniels in order to conceal her story from the public in order to prevent it from damaging Trump's election chances.
  • This is unlawful because it's against federal election law to contribute more than a certain amount to a political candidate, and making a transaction on their behalf counts as a contribution.

Or if you're just making the narrow point of asking how the court could know his state of mind, I think the standard rule is that a jury is allowed to infer that a person intended the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.

I think you're making good and accurate points and it's a shame you're getting downvoted. But there's one point I disagree on.

The unlawful means in question were Cohen making a payment to Stormy Daniels in order to conceal her story from the public in order to prevent it from damaging Trump's election chances.

I don't think this should actually be considered a crime. As I understand it, Cohen pled guilty to it. I think that was part of a plea deal and he just took it because the way plea deals work is that he wouldn't actually receive a better outcome by trying to insist that one, but only one, of the things he was being charged with was false.

But looking at the actual law, the idea that concealing information which could damage Trump's campaign is a campaign contribution is silly. If you're that loose with the standards, practically anything would be a campaign contribution.

More comments

There are a few things things wrong with your post.

  1. Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen. The prosecutors treated TO and Trump as the same. Therefore Trump turned the payment by Cohen (which is limited) into a payment by Trump. Trump is allowed to make unlimited contributions to his own campaign. See Buckley v Valeo.

  2. It is far from clear that the payment to Stormy constitutes a campaign contribution. Indeed, the law is designed to limit the ability for candidates to use campaign funds for mixed motive expenses (eg a suit) since the opportunity for abuse is obvious.

  3. So it isn’t clear under either reading that there was a campaign finance violation. Moreover, it is clear that if properly structured (ie Trump himself made the payment) there is no criminal FECA violation (at worst there was a reporting obligation in 2017).

  4. Now we get to intent. Yes, you can generally infer from actions what intent was. For example, if Person A points a gun at B and pulls the trigger, it is reasonable to infer he intended to shoot B as that is a natural consequence of the action. This is different. There is a requirement as an element that the false records were intended to in this case to avoid FECA. This seemingly suggests there needs to be more than the normal case; it seems to require that Trump knew what he was doing was to break a law.

First, no info was offered that Trump was thinking of any law.

Second, even if you don’t think Trump needs to think he was breaking the law (which seems really hard here) it is not a reasonable inference from the action (ie filing the records a certain way) that there was an intention to violate FECA (especially since it is far from clear there was a violation). Even worse, it is really clear Trump could’ve easily structured the transaction to avoid any FECA issue. So we are supposed to believe that Trump knew what he was doing was a FECA obligation, and either had the choice to slightly restructure the transaction (without changing economics) or he decided to break FECA and falsify business records. Does the latter even sound reasonable? Reasonable enough to get past reasonable doubt? No way.

  1. It isn’t clear that unlawful means something that is illegal under laws other than the US. What if there was some action a campaign did wherein business records were falsified and it hid say a violation of Russian law. Would that be captured? What if it was Alaskan law?

  2. Finally the records were internal records. How would Trump think these records would ever be requested in relation to NY somehow regulating a federal election?

Fantasy football payments would seem to qualify. That is a business - someone makes money. Whoever won probably did not pay taxes so there is the coverup of another crime.

So yes I am a felon.

And for proportionality reasons my $500 fantasy football buy-in is equivalent to Trumps 750k to a hooker.

You did not mislabel your Venmos (as far as I know) with the intent of preventing the state of New York from executing its law

Assuming he's in New York, yes he did: he knew those transaction records could be subpoenaed for a variety of reasons, and mislabeled them anyways. This is clear intent to frustrate the state carrying out its laws.

This is nonsense -- you could argue that any mislabeled record was mislabeled with "intent to defraud the state". That's what makes this egregious: the crime Trump is charged with isn't a crime unless you investigate it as though it is a crime!

Yep. It renders intent meaningless which (1) is a no-no when construing statutes and (2) moreso in criminal context.

You can argue anything. Proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is however a fairly high bar to clear.

Here there was literally zero evidence of intent offered. So clearly not a high bar to a heavily biased jury.

Not when the jury and judge are stacked against you!

More comments

Yeah it is quite the slippery slope. It is one of the problems when you criminalize pretty much everything.

From the jury instructions:

BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity

Sheesh. Was that written by Kamala Harris? There is no way a jury of normal Americans could parse that word salad.

Let's be honest. The judge could have said anything. The jury heard this: "You think Donald Trump bad guy? Say yes if you think bad guy."

The jury isn't exactly normal. There's a banker, two attorneys, and a software engineer.

Low effort, condescending, and consensus-building. You have a bunch of bad posts recently. Improve your posting quality or you're going to get a timeout.

Will do. I am trying to improve the volume of posting here which means lowering my filter a bit. I'll tighten it.

I appreciate the mods for doing a mostly-thankless job.

As many people have noted, this jury was unusually highly educated, and included two lawyers. I reckon they could understand that sentence fine.

It's not word salad. I think it's quite clear. If you know what "writing" is, and you know what it means to "keep or maintain" something, and you know what a "condition or activity" is (perhaps the most vague part of the definition, but still, these are very common ordinary words and it's easy to furnish many examples of conditions and activities), then you understand the definition.

The definition as written may lead to counterintuitive results. For example, if I'm the CEO of a company and I write on a post-it note "we have a lot of money" and I store that in my desk drawer in my office, then that is a piece of writing, and it is kept by the enterprise (on our premises, with security measures to prevent unauthorized access), and it does reflect a condition or activity (the condition of having a lot of money), so it appears that according to this definition, the post-it note would count as a business record. But being counterintuitive is not the same thing as being unclear.

It's not clear because it doesn't clarify the important question, which is: what are the documents Trump is being charged with falsifying? Tax records? Internal memos? Paystubs? Drafts for a contract? Transcripts? Post-it notes?

According to your interpretation, the government could prosecute you for writing on a post-it note in your office, determining that this is a business document, and then alleging that you lied when you wrote it. That's not clear at all!

It's not clear because it doesn't clarify the important question, which is: what are the documents Trump is being charged with falsifying?

The definition of "business record" itself is just a definition of a term. It's not going to include any specifics about what business records a person did or did not create in a particular concrete case. Presumably, that information would have been discussed during the trial proper.

According to your interpretation, the government could prosecute you for writing on a post-it note in your office, determining that this is a business document, and then alleging that you lied when you wrote it. That's not clear at all!

"Unjust" and "counterintuitive" are not the same thing as "unclear".

I was purely addressing the assertion that the definition was "word salad", nothing more. I think that accusations of that sort are thrown around too liberally on TheMotte so I felt that it was important to address. Too often people default to calling something "bad writing" when actually they have a different (and more specific) complaint with it.

The motte seems to agree you can be convicted on any of those.

Perhaps, Trump is actually guilty. I am coming around to this. But in that case a lot of people are guilty.

I am glad I asked this question because I have been wondering for a while what is meant by a business record. And I feel like it’s a key point I haven’t seen people talking about.

No. You have some people coming in with some Nonsense. The key thing is they never proved intent (and the prosecution and judge for FECA wrong).

Pay attention that most of the r people saying he was guilty are the people who were very wrong on most legal issues (ie they lose at SCOTUS).

More comments

Literal answer to your question: Trump is accused of falsifying the checks he wrote to his lawyer when he wrote on the checks that they were for legal expenses. He is also accused of falsifying his accounting books for his business when he recorded that the checks paid to his lawyer were for legal expenses.

Edit: sorry, above I said "accused" but the more factual thing now would be to say "convicted." My mind's having a hard time downloading the latest update.

How is payment for signing an NDA not actually legal expenses?

More comments

That is in fact, how laws have to be written - very specifically. I don't doubt that if it wasn't, you'd complain it was too vague - everyday language often is!

I'm not sure the definition of Business Record is very specific or useful since it seems to qualify nearly any piece of data in any equipment or file held by the business.

Based on this definition even messages on Slack or Teams between employees joking about how their manager looks could be argued to qualify as a business record.

I don't think jokes about the managers appearance on Slack would be kept or maintained for the purpose of evidencing the company's condition or activity.

Having said that, yes, many legal definitions are intentionally very broad.

I’m not sure the definition of Business Record is very specific or useful since it seems to qualify nearly any piece of data in any equipment or file held by the business.

That was probably the intent - which in turn makes the definition very useful, to the relevant government authorities.

Yes, that's the idea every document someone working for a business creates is probably a business record.

We're on the Scott subreddit.

It's possible to be clear with plain language. Scott is.

Legalese (and its academic cousin) are more often than not just bad writing. They are optimized for sounding professional, not for clarity. Anyone who interacts with the tax code has experienced this. But this isn't surprising. By necessity, the law is written and executed by people who are simply not that intelligent.

And yet, instructions to an even less intelligent jury should be clear. These were not.

Not disagreeing, just curious. How would you have written that definition to make it easier to understand and also cover all the bases?

He's not convicted of any of those. He's convicted of falsifying documents (labeling his payments "legal expense") to cover up some combination of 1, 2, 3, or perhaps even other unknowable crimes.

How common are convictions based on hypothetical crimes that a defendant hasn't been convicted of? Is that like a special New York State thing or is it common across the country?

It's common everywhere. To quote Sideshow Bob, "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"

It's very common.

Well, things like intent to distribute are common. But “Wack a mole” with no evidence showing intent? That’s pretty sui generis.

I don't think anyone's mind will be changed unless Trump actually goes to jail. Not sure if this is just me, but I have found the details of these endless investigations and trials mind-numbingly boring ever since they started six or seven years ago, and cannot get through reading a single article or post about them without nodding off. If the Democrats haven't figured out a way to lock this man up by now, I doubt they ever will.

On a related note, I find the contrast between the apocalyptic way this election is being framed online and in the media and the complete apathy and disinterest I see in the real world to be the greatest in my lifetime. In 2016 and 2020 I could see people around me marching/organizing/rioting/etc. but this time around I've just seen the demonstrations for Palestine, which seem more like an impotent tantrum than something that risks spiraling into partisan violence on behalf of a party or candidate with a real chance of seizing power. Other than that most normies seem to be minding their own business, getting on with their lives, or else wandering around in a sort of haze as though they never quite recovered socially from covid lockdowns.

Blue tribe has been playing down the election because they don't want to think about how the prosecutions are clearly part of the election strategy.

Seeing Biden out on the campaign trail while Trump is forced to be in a courtroom under gag orders would trigger some cognitive dissonance.

Trump actually did some (useless) campaigning in New Jersey during these weeks.

Retrospectively, it's worth a chuckle or two to look over year after year of newspaper headlines to the effect that it's really all up for Trump this time, he's going to have to resign any minute now, his career is over, etc., rinse, repeat.

I think some people's minds will be changed by the headlines trumpeting "Trump convicted on all counts!"

Probably. But before the election there will be months of Trump walking around doing normal Trump things. And lots of people are under the impression that you get convicted and immediately dragged to prison. They'll equate him being out and about with the conviction having been overturned or no big deal or something.

Probably. But before the election there will be months of Trump walking around doing normal Trump things.

If they don't jail him until the election, citing his attitude as reason to jail him even though it's a first offense.

The impression I'm getting is that standard practice in these sorts of cases is to grant bail pending appeal. So it's highly unlikely he goes to jail before the election even if he gets a prison sentence, as the inevitable appeals process will almost certainly not conclude before the election.

I doubt it. They've treated him with kid gloves in the contempt of court procedures so far, fining him what were objectively pissant amounts for attacking the judge's family. He could easily be in jail already for contempt, and he's not, so I think they will be much too cowardly to jail him immediately. He's highly likely to remain free, even absent any appeals, until November.

The Merchan's daughter is working for a political consulting group raising money from Trump's trial. I.e., Merchan's family is profiting from this case. When Trump pointed out this conflict of interest, Merchan's response was to accuse Trump of attacking his family, gag order him, and then hold Trump in contempt for calling this unfair. This is decidedly not treating Trump with "kid gloves".

Why he was held in contempt is irrelevant to the point that he was held in contempt, and the penalties assessed for contempt of court were minuscule, to Trump. No effort was made to assess a penalty that would actually harm Trump, like multi-million dollar fines or imprisonment. That is kid gloves.

I'll make the point here that the judge was legally barred from fining Trump more than $1k for each instance of contempt. He could have jailed him, but he could not have levied multi million dollar fines.

It goes directly to your false description and whether it was appropriate to even gag him in the first place.

"We made up something you did wrong, but only punished you slightly" is not kid gloves. Kid gloves are when you punish people lightly for severe offenses.

More comments

If anyone could have their mind changed by the media about Trump, they would have done so already.

It's certainly possible. I don't think many highly engaged people will change their minds - anyone arguing on the internet about this has already decided what they think. But the people paying basically no attention (a group Trump is doing very well with) could be influenced. I'll be very interested to see what the next batch of polls say.

I'll drop my take in the interest of breaking that 1000 post mark. I am not a big fan of this, I do not like Trump or the deranging effect he has on politics and wish for him to be defeated the normal way. That said he's probably guilty of this and more likely guilty of the documents case.

I long even more than before for an end to the Trump era. I miss the ability to have actual substantive discussion between the parties that aren't dominated by a rehashing blow by blows of nationally embarrassing stories. The president should be above these kinds of thing. I understand the slippery slope of letting petty scandals give your enemies a veto over who you can rally behind but can it at least be made hard? Would that be so much to ask? That a candidate not actually cheat on his wife with a porn star such that the legality of hush money paid needs to be debated? Surely that bar is low enough.

The toxic Israel Palestine debate where the protestors chant inane slogans at the decrepit president that stands behind Israel no matter what is a breath of fresh air because as stupid as most of the narratives are at least they're about the conflict.

Some have noted that we're already almost into June and it doesn't really feel like a race is on yet. A normal outcome of having two relatively uncontested primaries after two hotly contested elections in a row but even with things not yet ramping up I'm already exhausted. A feeling I think I share share with our two presidents both born in the 40s before disposable Diapers and the Transistor and Color TV.

I don't have a great way to wrap this comment up, or this election. It's probably going to be pretty consequential who wins but I feel like I'm holding my breath until 2028 election.

On the bright side, I believe this conviction will make it quite a bit more likely SCOTUS hands down a more expansive presidential immunity case which will bar this prosecution. Prior to this case, I was confident they would hand down narrow caselaw which would protect Trump. With this conviction, I believe they're more likely to adopt a more expansive view in order to make sure the holding squelches these sorts of state-law prosecutions. We may even get a case which requires impeachment and removal in order to open a former president to prosecution, especially for state crimes.

The case, Trump v United States, should be published next month.

What, you mean this case?

It doesn't appear to involve normal crimes so much as misuse of the office. Or perhaps I'm misreading. I don't see why eternal immunity from states would be on the table.

Also, wow, that sounds absolutely horrendous. Would a murder charge require Congress to convene and impeach?

It is Trump's position, as his lawyer argued both in the court of appeals and to SCOTUS, that if a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival such President could not be charged with a crime unless impeached and removed.

I mean this non sarcastically— thank for adding in “unless impeached and removed.” Most all critics leave tgat bit out. But basically, it is an argument over forum.

I would also further limit the description to acts undertaken qua president and not all acts whilst president but in a personal capacity.

That seems plainly true, but I doubt his lawyer would have picked such an example.

His lawyer was presented with that hypothetical in oral argument, and responded by reiterating that prosecution would require impeachment and conviction in the Senate first.

It's kind of wild to be running on a platform of "my opponent can legally assassinate me", but here we are.

Of course he isn’t. The argument isn’t about legality but forum for hearing the claim.

The practical import of Trump's argument is that as long as Democrats refuse to convict Biden in the Senate, Biden can legally assassinate him.

You could of course argue that Democrats are too noble and high-minded to abuse the system in this way. But that seems like an odd argument to run alongside the claim that they have corrupted and perverted the justice system specifically to target him.

If a third of sitting senators are willing to openly endorse the assassination of domestic political rivals, we're long past the point of these sorts of debates mattering. And if the crime is either not substantial enough or not evidenced enough to convince two thirds of the Senate, maybe convicting the president wouldn't be such a good idea afterall. That seems like exactly the sort of decision we would want widespread, general consensus on, doesn't it?

I don't necessarily think such an expansive view of presidential immunity is allowed or required by the Constitution (I haven't researched the issue anywhere near thoroughly enough to have a strong opinion either way, but tend to be skeptical of governmental immunity arguments generally), but there's at least a reasonable argument that impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate is the only mechanism for punishing the conduct of a sitting president.

You would think many thinks would so shock the conscience of even Dems that a literal assassination order would result in impeachment and removal. If not, then inter arma enim silent leges

a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival

You know, we never did get case law as to whether or not Obama could lawfully order the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (or his underage son), both of whom were American citizens outside the US. I have long thought it would be an interesting legal case if some state tried to claim jurisdiction for a murder trial, although I concede that he wasn't exactly a good guy. Sure, the DOJ wrote a memo suggesting it was a lawful act, but I don't see a good clear line between drone striking a citizen advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and "assassinating a political rival."

I've seen lots of domestic advocacy for violently overthrowing the US Government in the last few years: can the President unleash the Predator drones on the next CHAZ protest? Is it that he was outside the country? That's not hugely comforting to anyone who travels overseas. Given that he was over the age of 35 and born a citizen, if al-Awlaki had said the magic words "I intend to run for President of the United States," thus cementing his status as "a political rival," would that magically require calling off the drones?

On the gripping hand, war (although in this case not a war declared by Congress) is messy business, and ordering attacks to cause deaths is part of the name of the game. I don't really have a great answer there. But yes, there are probably some situations in which the letter of your claim might be arguably true and no criminal trial would occur, although domestic military actions would probably swiftly lose the court of public opinion, which sometimes seems like the only one that really matters at the end of the day.

Why would you need case law? He was a trator and an enemy combatant. Some americans joined nazi Germany's army and we didn't need trials to kill them in combat.

Sure, the DOJ wrote a memo suggesting it was a lawful act, but I don't see a good clear line between drone striking a citizen advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and "assassinating a political rival."

In court the DOJ was arguing that presidential immunity applies whenever the DOJ says the action is legal. That seems a bit hard to square legally and constitutionally, but it does sound like exactly the standard the DOJ wants.

I don't see a good clear line between drone striking a citizen advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and "assassinating a political rival.

The individual in question was unambiguously working for a terrorist organization.

Foreign vs. domestic soil and organizational affiliation matters quite a lot.

On the bright side, I believe this conviction will make it quite a bit more likely SCOTUS hands down a more expansive presidential immunity case which will bar this prosecution.

Can I ask your reasoning why?

With this conviction, I believe they're more likely to adopt a more expansive view in order to make sure the holding squelches these sorts of state-law prosecutions.

But why would SCOTUS want to "squelch" this?

But why would SCOTUS want to "squelch" this?

Because wide latitude for states to prosecute presidential candidates is going to be extremely chaotic and destabilizing. Ideally, yes, candidates who have committed crimes should be prosecuted without favor -- but you have to acknowlege that state party operatives are going to abuse this newly validated tool in cynical and destructive ways.

EDIT: One of my most important rules-of-thumb for politics is, "Do I want a candidate/party/official I don't like or trust to have this power?" If the answer is "No," then I don't want it for my team, either.

Because wide latitude for states to prosecute presidential candidates is going to be extremely chaotic and destabilizing.

Only if both sides are allowed to use it. If it's restricted solely to the Left prosecuting right-wing candidates, then it would be stabilizing, because we'd get nice, stable single-party rule.

to acknowlege that state party operatives are going to abuse this newly validated tool in cynical and destructive ways.

I acknowledge that one side's operatives are going to abuse this newly validated tool in cynical and destructive ways, even as they successfully shut down any attempt by the other side to do the same. When the refs are all siding with one team, the outcome of the game is a foregone conclusion. Bambi Meets Godzilla can only have one outcome.

"Do I want a candidate/party/official I don't like or trust to have this power?" If the answer is "No," then I don't want it for my team, either.

Whereas other people, when they answer the question "no," see the way to deal with that is to make sure only their own side's candidate/party/official can use that power, while forbidding it to those they "don't like or trust". "Rules for thee, not for me," quod licet Jovi non licet bovi, nobles can do what is forbidden to peasants — this has, historically, been a common system. Look up the origins of the term "privilege."

So as a bit of preamble, at the moment the left has partisan control of courts in NYC and DC at all levels until the SCOTUS. The appeals courts won't curb any abuses against Trump or Trump supporters. At the same time the left has been running campaigns to attack the SCOTUS as illegitimate and partisan to keep them in line and push for court stacking.

The theory behind broad presidential immunity is that without it any random prosecutor in the US could threaten the POTUS with prosecution after they leave office unless they do what the prosecutor wants. Official immunity isn't a new concept. Courts have given judges and prosecutors broad immunity already. Sr government employees generally only face internal disciplinary actions, and if they are charged they'll face a DC court with a jury made up of government employees.

Can prosecutors always find things to charge them with? Usually yes. There are a lot of broadly written laws that the government uses to go after people who are troublesome. They aren't applied broadly. You need to piss someone off and be enough of an outsider that they think it's safe to go after you.

The argument against broad immunity is usually that the appeals courts will quickly correct any misbehavior. Politically motivated charges are a civil rights act violation so surely the appeals courts will dismiss them quickly.

The appeals courts not doing anything neuters that argument.

So SCOTUS is upset. Correcting every error would get them salami sliced as Trump toadies. One broad ruling would prevent them from having to make dozens of smaller rulings.

The theory behind broad presidential immunity is that without it any random prosecutor in the US could threaten the POTUS with prosecution after they leave office unless they do what the prosecutor wants.

Yes, and…? What's wrong with that? Particularly if you make sure only prosecutors on one side of the political divide are actually able to follow up on those threats (while the other team's guys get squashed for trying), then the establishment's hold on power gets even stronger, which is of course something the establishment would want.

Courts have given judges and prosecutors broad immunity already.

Courts give court officers broad immunity, huh? That doesn't necessarily mean they'd extend it to the other branches, does it?

There are a lot of broadly written laws that the government uses to go after people who are troublesome. They aren't applied broadly. You need to piss someone off and be enough of an outsider that they think it's safe to go after you.

Exactly. Not a bug, but a useful feature, so why get rid of it?

Politically motivated charges are a civil rights act violation so surely the appeals courts will dismiss them quickly.

As we've seen in other contexts, the Civil Rights Act often means only what the left establishment wants it to mean, and punishing "violations" mostly goes in one direction.

Correcting every error would get them salami sliced as Trump toadies. One broad ruling would prevent them from having to make dozens of smaller rulings.

Or they can cave — to save their own necks/reputation — make no immunity ruling at all.

Edit: Do you still think the court would rule in favor of broad immunity after Alito and Thomas recuse themselves?

Democrats are desperate that Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas recuse themselves from any cases involving January 6, seeing as they're both insurrectionist sympathizers. Rep. Jamie Raskin, who you think would have embarrassed himself enough on the January 6 select committee, has an op-ed in the New York Times Wednesday explaining that recusal is not a "friendly suggestion." He argues that the Department of Justice can force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves.

“This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.”

(More at link.)

Nothing ever happens. Old, fat, Fox News-watching boomers will grunt and groan for a while but people will gradually forget about Trump. The Deep State will triumph and after Trump eventually dies a Nikki Haley-type figure will return the GOP to its blissful days of corporatist, Reaganite neoconservatism.

The only time something happens is when the economy collapses. Politics like this is just a sideshow. Keep your eyes open wide when the Dow Jones goes down to 25,000, when the unemployment rate hits 8 percent, or when housing prices drop by 40 percent. The Dow is down by about 2,000 points from its all-time high in the past several days.

Honestly SPX needs to take a hit to bring it back down to earth compared to the rest of the world's equity markets. US equity valuations are insane and not justifiable when comparing to the rest of the world.

Yesterday I had a special smile on my face because the US markets went down while the UK's market went up. It's a rare day when this happens but always one to be pleased about.

So this is the case where trump should have paid a hooker out of campaign funds, not his personal ones, yes? When do we hear about the fraud case that isn’t fraud?

I guess the big question is ‘what happens next?’ I can well believe New York would like to imprison him.

I guess the big question is ‘what happens next?’

I think @The_Nybbler has it: a bunch of "law and order" Boomer Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon," and Biden wins. Just like happened here in Alaska with Ted Stevens — yes, the conviction (in that case) was a product of egregious prosecutorial misconduct (in conspiracy with FBI agents to withhold exculpatory evidence), and was quickly overturned on appeal… but not until after the election was already lost.

We're about to see total Democrat dominance at the Federal level bigger than that of the mid 20th Century — no conservative "Dixiecrats" to "cross the aisle" or Eisenhowers getting through. Just ever-more-triumphant Blue Tribe as us Reds continue dying out, until we finally go extinct, and disappear forever.

Edit: And, in support of the 'Republicans are going to keep on "taking the high road" rather than engage in tit-for-tat lawfare,' I link former governor of Maryland, and current GOP candidate for US senator for that state, Larry Hogan on Twitter:

Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.

I think @The_Nybbler has it: a bunch of "law and order" Boomer Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon," and Biden wins.

This situation didn’t put a dent in Trump’s poll numbers.

That’s because the type of republican that would theoretically have their mind changed by this barely exist anymore, and are almost entirely artificially signal boosted by anti-trump democrats and their supporters.

People keep bringing up Ted Stevens, but that was 15 years ago, and he was and a very long 15 years. With all that’s happened between then and now the political scene is almost unrecognizable.

I think there’s a blind spot of some of the old guard rightists, on this board, “establishment” republicans have been almost completely gutted by both trump and a vote base that shifted underneath their feet. A lot of people are either too blackpilled or too hidebound to see it, even years after Trump left office.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel). That is what establishment republicans think.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel). That is what establishment republicans think.

I'm essentially a NR republican of the Jonah Goldberg Remnant variety. I am anti-Trump in that I think he is cultural poison and I will(have) never vote(d) for him. I agree completely with the NR consensus on this.

The problem with the "This will kill Trump" viewpoint is that it sees Trump in a vacuum, as a uniquely corrupt outlier. My view is that is he is the "naked" exampled of the corruption already pervasive in elite politics. Everything he does or tries to do or wants to do is completely routine and no more dirty than what the Bidens/Clintons/Pelosis have been doing for decades. And probably the Bushes, Obamas, etc.

The difference that Trump offers is that he is simultanously pettier/dumber/incompetent at everything he does AND he has none of the friendly institutional cover afforded to the elite club and their competent lawyers and knowlegable operatives. They have a system that they know how to navigate, litigate and obfuscate, and Trump doesn't know that he needs to know how to work that system to succeed.

So, when the proposition comes up: Does this change your opinion of Trump? The answer to even mainstream Republicans is, "This makes no difference, because the other guys are just as bad, and maybe worse because they're good at being that bad and getting away with it."

If Trump going down is the draino that unclogs the swamp and he takes them all down, this maybe isn't so bad. If he's the only one who makes it through the drain, this is a sort of travesty of selective justice.

I actually think Trump is less bad compared to the Clinton, Bushes, etc. He is also more vulgar and doesn’t “hide it” as well.

But think of how many relatively poor people go into politics and leave crazy wealthy.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel)

Nothing before the "but" matters.

The Wall Street Journal thinks everything is fine.

[Trump] adding, “I don’t know if Biden knows too much about it because I don’t know if he knows about anything.” There is no evidence that the Biden administration was involved in New York prosecutors’ decision to charge Trump in the case.

Emphasis mine. Not only is this blatant editorializing in a news story by the Wall Street Journal, it's blatantly false, because the involvement of a former Biden DOJ official is evidence.

Ehh the focus has been very heavily on “this is wrong” and not “Trump’s atty did a bad job.”

The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.

The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.

Headline from the WSJ opinion section: "Trump Was Convicted by a Jury, Not by His Political Enemies".

Trump said, without evidence, that President Biden was responsible for his conviction, saying “this was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent.” Trump also implied, again without evidence, that evil big-money men are out to get him, describing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as a “Soros-backed D.A.” And he claimed that trial judge Juan Merchan was unfair, calling him “a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case.”

But it was 12 ordinary citizens, not Biden, Soros or Merchan, who unanimously pronounced Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. In fact, the Trump trial shows why juries have long been considered an important anti-corruption device. A sitting judge—one person, known to future litigants long in advance—is in theory easy enough to bribe. But does Trump mean to imply that all 12 of the jurors, none of whom was known in advance, were paid off by Biden or Soros? How? A judge might be tempted to kiss the hand of the state government that feeds him or, in the case of a federal judge, the president who nominated her in the past and might promote her in the future. Not so a jury.

(there is, in fact, evidence that the Biden administration was involved, and certainly evidence that people were out to get him, given that the NY AG ran on that as a campaign promise. But none of that matters, the holy jury has spoken)

More comments

That doesn’t surprise me even a little that they would say that, but I think it’s telling that National Review has never been less important or influential than it is now.

Like Rolling Stone magazine for the conservative movement. How the mighty have fallen.

My only real take on this is that I wish Republican politicians talking about Trump's civil liberties had the same energy for the rest of us.

"He was convicted on the testimony of a felon! Who only turned on him for a plea deal!" Cry me a river dickhead. This is a routine dance across the country in courtrooms from coast to coast. When a normal citizen's defense attorney tries that, the prosecutor gets up and gives the same line about "I wish I had nicer witnesses, but the defendant hangs out with felons, so felons are the people who know what happened." Every damn day. Trump has a very limited ability to gain credibility by accusing his lawyer he chose of being a slimeball.

Prosecutorial overreach has impacted thousands of Americans, where's this energy for them? Where was Mike Johnson when Aaron Swartz was hounded to death? When Assange was pinned on bullshit charges? When our prisons were filling up with people who plead down to felonies when cops lied about having witnesses, and prosecutors told them to take this deal or risk dying in prison?

Don't take your political movement that's spent decades building a state with the power to imprison citizens on a whim, and get all shocked Pikachu when one of your oxes gets gored.

This is a good bit of who/whom.

The truth is our entire system falls apart if jury trials and evidence mattered. It’s very difficult to prove reasonable doubt. Except for very stupid defendants like this guy:

https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/1795966422826238110?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

Who did his zoom court day for a suspended license while driving. He actually seems 100 IQ.

One reason why we use to jail people for a while for being a felon with an illegal gun is because that is a very good proxy for murder when murder is hard to prove.

We could never actually try every case. So this guy is bad and convict him is about the standard we need.

This is a good bit of who/whom.

It is. Republican Politicians want one rule of law for the poor, and another for the powerful. I have trouble feeling sympathy for them when they were mistaken about being the powerful.

I remain hopeful, but not optimistic, that Trump's Trials and Tribulations will lead to a future where some portion of the American people coming to a consensus that centering all power in the Imperial Presidency was a Bad Call, that enabling prosecutors to jail any American was a Bad Call, that enabling the National Security state to spy on everyone all the time was a Bad Call. So far, it seems that both Republicans and Democrats have taken the lesson that it means that we need Our Guy in charge. C'est la vie.

So far, it seems that both Republicans and Democrats have taken the lesson that it means that we need Our Guy in charge.

This is the usual process for democracies sliding into authoritarianism; the Greeks literally had a word, στασις, describing escalating tit-for-tat political prosecutions until one side rules(the one with more guns) forever.

Real civil liberties I think are no-longer possible in America. If every criminal defendant got Saul Goodman (make him a little less of actual criminal) as their defense attorney and fully taking advantage of civil liberties our entire economy would need to be criminal justice.

If we were like Japan with low crime we could implement the US civil liberties by the letter of the law. Unfortunately, we are not.

I hate it. But who/whom is necessary. And in NYC Donald Trump is the who.

I want the system you want because I am basically honest and try to do right. But lower class and upper class both break aren’t.

It’s funny because I know rule breakers. I understand why industries have a thousand regulations where workers spend half their time just being legal and probably still aren’t. SBF is a big example who I think is a proper “who”, but catching him requires a lot of regulations. And now we have a financial system with a thousand rules because at some point someone did something bad and each rule catches one of them. But as a whole it grinds the entire system to a halt.

When our prisons were filling up with people who plead down to felonies when cops lied about having witnesses, and prosecutors told them to take this deal or risk dying in prison?

Oh please. Your contention is that our prisons are full of innocent people, imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, as a result solely of lies told by police? What percentage of incarcerated people do you think can accurately be described this way?

Plea bargaining constitutes something like 98% of convictions, even though it's a hilariously flagrant infringement of the Sixth Amendment. America mostly doesn't have trials.

Our local lefty defense lawyer has pointed out before that a completely negligible number of people facing charges are innocent.

Yes, obviously I’m aware of that. What I’m disputing is that any significant number of the people taking those plea bargains are innocent, or that their “civil liberties are being violated” by lying cops trying to railroad them.

Their civil liberties are being violated by being pushed through a system that de-facto requires them to confess without trial, regardless of whether they are actually guilty or not.

I expect a not-insignificant amount of people were in fact innocent though. I was arrested for trespassing once, and urged to take a plea deal because they had video footage of me committing the crime. I knew they didn’t because I never committed the crime, but I was under enough pressure that I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in my shoes took the plea deal anyway.

There are many issues with the criminal justice system. Excessive leniency for actual criminals can be true at the same time as corrupt, aggressive prosecution against innocents. It’s the core of the whole idea of anarchotyranny.

Their civil liberties are being violated by being pushed through a system that de-facto requires them to confess without trial, regardless of whether they are actually guilty or not.

Nobody is forced to take a plea deal. If someone actually is totally innocent of the crimes in question - as in, there’s no murky questions of intent, evidence that could be interpreted either way, etc. - taking a plea deal strikes me as a very poor choice. The fact is that the vast majority of people who take plea deals do so because they are in fact guilty, or at least they’re adjacent enough to a crime that a reasonable jury could assess them as guilty.

I knew they didn’t because I never committed the crime, but I was under enough pressure that I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in my shoes took the plea deal anyway.

Why? It sounds like you didn’t take a plea deal because you were certain there was no evidence of your guilt. Why would someone in that type of situation take a plea deal, short of being a person who lacks good judgment?

"If you're not guilty you have nothing to fear from the system, even though they have already proved their lack of scruples by pressuring you."

"If you're innocent you have nothing to hide."

"Comrade Stalin, there must have been a mistake!"

"If you're not guilty you have nothing to fear from the system, even though they have already proved their lack of scruples by pressuring you."

How does that indicate a lack of scruples on the justice system’s part? If they believe that you’re guilty, and that getting you to take a plea deal is a more reliable way to ensure that you’re punished rather than risking the possibility that a sympathetic/gullible jury makes a poor choice, it’s entirely reasonable for them to lean on you to take the plea deal. This isn’t unscrupulous at all.

"If you're innocent you have nothing to hide."

This but unironically.

More comments

short of being a person who lacks good judgment?

This is most people in stressful situations.

taking a plea deal strikes me as a very poor choice.

Depends on the details. For example, I once took a deal to have something I didn’t do negotiated down to a fine. If I had been found guilty in court, 1/2 year in prison was the minimum. This seems to me like demanding money with the threat of prison if I exercise my rights.

Even if I had been found innocent, I likely would have been jailed for an unspecified amount of time, which would have been a larger hassle, and more costly, than the fine anyway.

Additionally, things which are a poor choice but alleviating in-the-moment stressors basically make up half the economy, and most people partake in them. The government should not be participating in such predatory behavior against its own citizens.

there’s no murky questions of intent, evidence that could be interpreted either way, etc.

This describes effectively 0 cases. If someone actually is totally innocent of the crimes in question. Any situation where you don’t have video evidence of you being somewhere other than the crime scene comes down to he-said-she-said, but one of you is a cop.

For example, in my trespassing case: - I was found on the sidewalk adjacent to the property I was supposedly trespassing on (I was going for a walk for no particular reason, far from my home)

  • I had been seen peering through the slots in the walls surrounding the property (it was a cool building and I am a curious soul).
  • A police officer claimed to see me climb the wall. (Honestly no idea where this came from)
  • There were scrapes on my arms/pants that looked like they were from climbing walls of that material. (They were, I regularly climbed over a wall of that same material that sat between my apartment and my apartment complexes pool/grill area so I didn’t have to walk around)

All this in a case where I was 100% factually innocent. The fact there even was a camera on the building is what saved me, or else I might have actually ended up in prison. This isn’t the only instance either. There have been at least 4 times in my relatively short life that I have been falsely accused by police, and one of those led to an arrest. I’m fairly good at navigating those situations, but there are many who I’m sure would fair worse

I have made it well into my thirties without ever being arrested nor ever even receiving so much as a traffic ticket. I live my life in an upstanding manner and do not involve myself in situations that could lead to me being suspected of criminal activity. The two times in my life that I’ve been questioned by police officers, I calmly and respectfully explained what was happening and allowed them full leeway to obtain all the information they needed in order to ascertain my innocence, after which they let me go on my way without issue.

For example, in my trespassing case: - I was found on the sidewalk adjacent to the property I was supposedly trespassing on (I was going for a walk for no particular reason, far from my home)

I had been seen peering through the slots in the walls surrounding the property (it was a cool building and I am a curious soul).

This is shady behavior. When taken in combination with the fact that you had visible scrapes on both your body and clothing consistent with having hopped a wall, I think it’s entirely reasonable and proper for the police to have arrested you and assumed your guilt.

There have been at least 4 times in my relatively short life that I have been falsely accused by police, and one of those led to an arrest.

I think you should probably consider making better decisions and acting less shady/suspicious.

More comments

Reminder that the USA has the largest incarcerated population in the world. Beating out even China and other such jail happy and/or third world nations.

In fact, at its height the USA has a greater prison population, at times, than the USSR under Stalin and GULAG. No, not just in raw numbers because the USA is bigger. In per capita rates too.

The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages.[25][26] This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies (i.e. about 714 to 892 imprisoned per 100,000 USSR residents, according to numbers from Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde).

If you really believe there are no significant innocent people caught between the cracks of the system. That such an idea is an impossibility. Would you bite the bullet and say the same of the Stalin's prison state? Or is it that Americans are just sooo much more criminal than Soviets or really anyone else.

What percentage of the population in the USSR or China is African?

If you really believe there are no significant innocent people caught between the cracks of the system. That such an idea is an impossibility.

How so? We live in an era wherein technological advances such as DNA testing, GPS tracking, and ubiquitous video surveillance have made the ascertainment of guilt trivially easy for most crimes. Certainly there exist crimes for which those technologies are insufficient for adjudicating guilt - for example, “date rape” where the physical evidence will allow for multiple competing interpretations based on testimony and subjective judgment - but such crimes comprise a very small percentage of what people in the U.S. are imprisoned for.

Would you bite the bullet and say the same of the Stalin's prison state?

The problem with the gulags wasn’t how many people were imprisoned; it’s what they were imprisoned for. Large numbers of Soviet prisoners were there because they criticized the government. That’s bad, and appears not to bear much resemblance at all to the American justice system. To the extent that the gulag system included a very large number of non-political prisoners - murderers, burglars, fraudsters, etc. - that’s a perfectly reasonable outcome of how large the Soviet population was.

Or is it that Americans are just sooo much more criminal than Soviets or really anyone else.

Yes, this is just manifestly true. America has a very large criminal underclass - mostly, but not entirely, non-white. Demographically alone, our country is so radically different from China and Europe to make such comparisons functionally meaningless. If anything our country has an underincarceration problem, wherein large numbers of individuals with long criminal records are out walking among us, instead of in prison or in the grave where they belong. If you’re freaked out by how large our carceral system is, you should join me in supporting a considerable expansion of the death penalty and its efficient usage.

I mean, I'm quite confident that Americans are much more criminal than Chinese.

Doesn't the US also have a much bigger problem with violence? I seem to recall lots of complaints about high gun violence rates. The correlation we want is between crime and prison.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/pdf

My impression is that cops usually pick minor criminals and use pressure and lies to inflate their charges. Just because it's not an angel who's going to prison doesn't mean it should be happening.

These minor criminals usually accept the plea deal offered to them and go to prison on minor charges. The real problem is that the police go after easy crimes and famously refuse to investigate other minor crimes like shoplifting.

What is the impression based on?

Don't take your political movement that's spent decades building a state with the power to imprison citizens on a whim

The reason Trump exists is because conservatives are dissatisfied with the fruits of the last decades of conservatism. Your post reads to me like, "Trump supporters claim to hate bad things, but if that were true, they'd hate these other things that are also bad!"

Nowhere did I address Trump voters, I specifically called out Republican Politicians.

Don't take your political movement that's spent decades building a state with the power to imprison citizens on a whim

The reason Trump exists is because conservatives are dissatisfied with the fruits of the last decades of conservatism. Your post reads to me like, "Trump supporters claim to hate bad things, but if that were true, they'd hate these other things that are also bad!"

Trump voters I know of speak glowingly of Nayib Bukele's law and order in El Salvador, which is to say, arbitrary roundups on police discretion.

Whether supporting uncuffing the police for crackdowns on violent crime can coexist rationally with opposing selective prosecution of political enemies is difficult to say. I'm not sure. It seems it should be possible to square those two stances, but I can see why @FiveHourMarathon sees it as obvious hypocrisy.

El Salvador went from a lawless shithole run by cartels to the safest country in Central America. What does locking away murderous criminal gangs have to do with what we're talking about? FHM's comment is about the growing power of the state to imprison anyone. The El Salvador case is simple, don't join a gang that kills people!

The point is that El Salvador achieved that by not stressing too much about absolutely proving that the people they were locking up were in fact murderous criminals.

I think that's a perfectly fine public policy choice - the old saw about "better to let ten guilty go free than punish one innocent" is a nice line but it's completely reasonable for a country with extreme crime problem to say "actually no, we're not gonna let the ten guilty go free".

But of course if you're happy to be gung-ho about locking up the people who seem bad and not being super-meticulous about making sure they get the absolute duest of process, it does seem hypocritical to complain when that standard gets applied to the con man heading your party.

But of course if you're happy to be gung-ho about locking up the people who seem bad and not being super-meticulous about making sure they get the absolute duest of process, it does seem hypocritical to complain when that standard gets applied to the con man heading your party.

I was with you, and then you lost me. There is obviously a world of difference between locking up a bunch of gangsters who run cartels that kill people in the streets, and supporting an FBI state that spies on everyone and arrests you for praying in front of an abortion clinic, or "mislabeling" records.

Besides, your characterization of Trump as a "con man" is doing a lot of work here. Which of your politicians do you want to hold up as honest and good? You know good and well what the double-standard is here, and that nobody else is being charged for these non-crimes. Maybe if Hillary and Obama and Biden were also facing jail for writing the words "legal expenses" you would have a point.

I think it is worth noting that both the Democratic President's son and a Democratic Senator are also currently being prosecuted. Many other Democrats have been prosecuted for crimes, often successfully. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was prosecuted in a case very similar to the one Trump has just been convicted in. So I don't buy any of this nonsense about how Trump has to get a free pass to make it fair.

Of course, it's entirely reasonable to think these prosecutions do not capture the full spectrum of criminal behaviour within the Democratic party, and I would agree with that proposition. I think it would be wise and just for state level officials or federal officials in a future republican government to aggressively investigate and pursue charges against corrupt Democrats. Politicians should be held to a higher standard rather than a lower one, and vigorous enforcement against them is a good thing. That goes both ways.

Hunter Biden had the DOJ doing everything they could to ward off actual crime (he clearly inter alia committed knowing tax fraud). It was so unusual we had IRS whistleblowers. The senator from NJ basically was getting bribed by a foreign government.

These are real crimes; not fake ones.

More comments

That and the gangs helpfully announce who they are by putting a bunch of distinctive tattoos on their bodies. I’d wager that for every 1000 incarcerated there might be one innocent person

There was an old trope on neoreactionary forums, I don't know if it was common in rationalist spaces, that went like this: First Peace, then Order, then Justice, then Law. They form a hierarchy, you can't have one without first having those that came before. Trying to have Law when you don't have Justice first doesn't work, for example, because without Justice the Law is just a series of rules. And likewise, you don't have Justice without Order, because how could any secure justice be acheived if people are fighting in the streets?

By this argument, I think it's perfectly fair to support draconian state brutality in El Salvador, and worry about state brutality in the US.

Totally agree.

Also, murdering anyone who wears those tattoos without going through the necessary gang initiations. I could see the false-positive rate being a little higher, and I'm skeptical that El Salvador's actual murder rate has dropped as far as the reported murder rate, but a lot of the due process concerns are... misplaced or based on poor understandings of the environment (or, conversely, what due process looks like in the United States).

Bryan Caplan speaks positively of Bukele’s “round em up” policy on the basis that given what is known about the gangs the false positive rate is crazy small and the gangs are very dangerous.

That criteria doesn’t appear here.

Yeah, the plain fact is that most of them don't care about civil liberties in a broad and principled way. They're not classical liberals or libertarians. They're conservatives. They're the kind of people who think that the government should be able to put me in a cage for putting recreational drugs in my body. A significant minority of them would probably institute peacetime conscription if they could because they like the idea of how being in the army transforms young men. In other words, they are social engineers, their primarily goal isn't individual liberty, it is to shape society on a large scale into their vision of it. It's just that their vision is different from the vision of leftist social engineers.

Thank you, AAQC’d. This is an outgroup-written description but it’s one I find myself agreeing with.

In a just world both conservatives and leftists would be forced to live each other's vision of society.

I think in a just world conservatives and leftists would live in their own vision of society absent of the benefits of the other's vision of society and suffer the consequences of their own beliefs.

As it stands you one can just blame all bad things on the other side and believe all good things to be from their side.

It's just that their vision is different from the vision of leftist social engineers.

Or in other words, they're temporally-embarrassed progressives (in the "Americans all believe themselves temporarily-embarrassed millionaires" sense.)

This is why I think a better name for this group is "traditionalist", to separate them from the classical liberals, since liberalism happens to find itself a conservative position but has different motivations for being that way.

I think they just have ideals but when facts meet reality of having a lot of people who can’t function in society change their views.

I don’t think a white nationalists would have problems running on libertarianism in a society that is all European. This is a big reason why the right doesn’t want immigrants because they can’t function in the society this nation was founded on.

Hot take: There's a very good chance this ends up mostly as a nothingburger. Trump will of course appeal the decision, kicking any possible imprisonment beyond November. Even then, he might not get actual jail time.

As I've stated several times before, the right won't rise up in some great rebellion over this (or almost anything else).

The analysis I've read seem to indicate the most likely outcome, since Trump is a first time offender and the felony is non-violent, will be some amount of probation.

I saw it recommended that Biden pardon Trump. I don't actually think that will happen or is in his interest, but it would be quite something.

Also, this'll be interesting in debates.

Do you think that Trump would still be likely to win after being convicted, jailed and released after being pardoned? It seems to me that if played right, such a move would be immensely emasculating - "you're only standing here because they took pity on you" - while also taking selectively taking some amount of wind out of the persecution narrative (which motivates the hardcore pro-Trump base) but not weakening the "he's a felon" narrative (which probably pushes at least some nose-holding establishment Republicans over the edge).

This would be the best possible outcome in my opinion. It disclaims the lawfare and de-escalates a potentially dangerous situation without rewarding Trump for being the human personification of "too big to fail." I don't love that I think it's also the best bet for Biden politically, but I can accept that as the price of walking us back from the cliff.

National Review is pretty much the mouthpiece of the Republican establishment. They are pretty against this prosecution even if they aren’t big fans of Trump.

NY Governor Hochul could pardon Trump.

Biden can't pardon Trump for state crimes. He could pardon Trump for the federal crimes.

we're now certain to cross 1000 posts on the weekly thread.

We cross 1000 posts virtually every week. From a quick search, there was a slow week in January with 929. Other than that, only the database crash week saw anything less than 1000.

This verdict will likely galvanize voters come November – leading to record turnout among Republicans.

I still think turnout from both sides will ebb from 2020 due to political exhaustion. There's barely a presidential campaign going on five months from election day. I also suspect that it's impossible for Republicans to retaliate with lawfare of their own, since the legal profession is strongly blue tribe.

The long term consequences of recent lawfare is that, if another Trump-like president ever gets elected in the teeth of the regime, they will not give up power as easily. Escalation from Tiberius to Gaius. Many such cases. This assumes the current red tribe remains politically relevant long enough for such an opportunity to arise.

Escalation from Tiberius to Gaius.

Because I haven't thought of the Roman Empire yet today... I initially thought you were talking about the emperors Tiberius and Caligula (known in his time as Gaius).

But of course you are talking about the Gracchi.

The fact that Donald Trump is a modern-day tribune of the people is what makes this prosecution seem so objectionable. For the same reason, I would oppose prosecution of left-wing equivalents such as AOC or Elizabeth Warren. At some point, if you get a large enough base of followers, the standards for legal action against you should be prohibitively high. You are a tribune of the people. Your person should be inviolate.

Of course, being tribunes of the people didn't save the Gracchi. When they angered the Senate (officially just an advisory body) their deaths were sealed. It's hard not to see a parallel between the Senate of ancient Rome and the deep state of today. The tribes may have the vote, but true power is held elsewhere.

The crime of the Gracchi was believing that the written laws of the land actually mattered. But, just like Donald Trump, they broke the unwritten laws, the mos maiorum. Swiftly, they found that it was naked power, not laws, which really mattered.

And in Rome, as everywhere else it was tried, naked power was eventually discovered to come from the same place as every other power- growing out the barrel of a gun.

naked power was eventually discovered to come from the same place as every other power- growing out the barrel of a gun.

And as history shows, pure quantity of guns quite often matters less than the organization and coordination between those wielding them (see German Peasants' War). And we know which side has more organization, more coordination, more people willing and able to take orders, as opposed to the side of hyper-individualists who insist on going it alone, that they "take orders from nobody but Jesus," and make comments about how anyone who talks about "organizing" is an enemy to be shot on sight.

I'm secretly hoping for Trump to be elected while being in State custody. What actually happens in the situation? Do Federal Marshals show up at the prison demanding Trump's release?

Bidens term ends at noon and Trump's begins

Amendment XX, Section 1.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

However, Trump as President can't DO anything until he takes the oath:

From Article I, Section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So who has the power to act as President? No one. Note that the old executive department head's terms do NOT end when the President's term does; traditionally they resign, but perhaps they'd refuse in this case. So while Trump's VP could try to invoke the 25th Amendment and become acting President, he'd need the majority of Biden's cabinet to go along. Otherwise, there's no President until Trump takes the oath, and (perhaps) Biden's cabinet can still act.

Leave it to the Nybbler to interpret the Constitution in the most unreasonable and negative way.

Honestly, the Founding Fathers could have used you at the convention. Your fertile imagination might have warded off some of the Constitution's most obvious flaws, such as the lack of a limit on the size of the Supreme Court.

But I still maintain there is no document (or for that matter any entity or concept) so robust that a Nybbler couldn't find a legalistic way to make it suck.

As annoying as @The_Nybbler's doomerism can be, you need to engage with the words on the screen and not turn it into digs at the person.

If a State is holding the President-elect in prison, with the passive assent of the current President, you will have a constitutional crisis. Why would you expect anything different? Where have I made an error?

I would expect that the secret service requires his attendance at the swearing in ceremony, regardless of whatever else is going on.

"my people rules-lawyer God, you never stood a chance"

I don’t think Nybbler is Jewish.

As @ArjinFerman notes, half Ashkenazi -- on my mother's side -- and half Italian. It's practically an ethnicity in NJ. I think I've even repeated a variant of that joke before.

Yeah, I shamelessly stole it from your post about Orthodox communities abusing welfare state bureaucracy with their rabbinic skills

I missed that one!

I'm pretty sure he's mentioned it before, and do you really think he'd be at this level without the +2 racial bonus to kvetching? He's too good.

(Edit: sorry, only a +1 bonus for half-jews, my mistake)

Half Jewish half Italian, from what I remember.

Huh!

Started to ask "but which half" and nearly died laughing that the question makes sense.

There’s no prescription on where the oath be taken. It could hypothetically be the Chief Justice answering a collect call from prison.

Correct, but perhaps NY will not allow him that. Even if they do, you now have the crisis of a President held in prison; they're not going to let him call Seal Team 6 (or the Border Patrol) to break him out.

Supremacy clause.

Supremacy clause.

And who enforces that? Through what means?

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, constitutional laws, and treaties are supreme over state laws. It does not make the person of the President inviolable. Senators and Representatives are privileged from arrest in certain circumstances; the President is not.

The constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws. The president being in Rikers due to state law interferes with his constitutional obligation and therefore supremacy clause.

Do you think that John Roberts will buy that rather broad interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

More comments

Or it could be Calvin Coolidge taking the oath in the parlor of his father's vacation home, before his father who was a justice of the peace.

I'm secretly hoping for Trump to be elected while being in State custody. What actually happens in the situation?

It makes for a banger anecdote in popular histories about the American republic 100 years from now.

Truthfully I am fed up enough. That I don’t care if Trump cancels the 2028 elections and just appoints himself Emperor. The system feels too rotten to save at this point.

Yeah. The mainstream media has been warning of imminent fascism since 2016. Time for him to shit or get off the pot.

I expect this loses Trump the normiecons/boomercons, who will "trust the jury", and thus also ensures an election loss. We'll also get a lot of talking head noise from media-appointed "responsible conservatives" who will excoriate Trump for "refusing to accept the verdict" the way he refused to accept the 2020 election result and blame him for "risking tearing the country apart".

Trust a New York City jury?

New York City couldn't be trusted to make picante sauce.

Your constant righty-blackpilling is the reasoning equivalent of always betting on black. The accuracy of your predictions are a coincidence of a feeling applied categorically, not the result of an astute perspective of the world. You hinder yourself in this habit.

The "normiecon boomers" who are still awake right now to talk in friendly confines are wondering when the shooting's going to start. They've been wondering this for months, with their little polite hedging of "It's a matter of time before someone shoots one of these judges/bureaucrats/politicians."

Trump has no support left to lose he didn't already lose 3 years ago. This doesn't move the meter left, it moves it precipitously right.

The "normiecon boomers" who are still awake right now to talk in friendly confines are wondering when the shooting's going to start.

And the answer, of course, is "never" because, as you note, it's always some unspecified "someone" who "shoots one of these judges/bureaucrats/politicians." Nobody's going to be the first to stick their own neck out; they're going to wait for someone else to get the ball rolling, and join in only once it looks like it isn't going to be nipped in the bud (which it would be).

Plus, to be anything more than useless lone-wolf terrorism would require organization — solid, pre-established coordination — and, as a Disqus commenter over at Instapundit put it, we've been breeding such things out of the Right (in favor of "I just want to grill" passivism and "don't tread on me", "I don't answer to nobody; if someone orders me to breathe I'll suffocate myself to death to spite them!" individualism) for decades.

Trump has no support left to lose he didn't already lose 3 years ago.

The example of Ted Stevens suggests otherwise.

Plus, to be anything more than useless lone-wolf terrorism would require organization...

I'm... not so optimistic. I think people here have spent too long in white-collar environments. While I'd expect that anything going hot will involve more garbage person emotional spasms than cold-blooded planning, a serious and dedicated red team attacker with even a moderate amount of certain infrastructure knowledge could cause massive amounts of deaths, infrastructure costs, and/or economic costs, and it only takes a couple highly-reported bad actors for the processes to become Common Knowledge as something that can happen.

That passivism and atomic individuality makes the low-capability people a lot more prone to They Kept Using Discord problems, but despite the increasingly common progressive assumptions, not everyone in that field is low-capability.

That's still not enough to take control over large geographic locations (or even a CHAZ), if that's what you mean, but not everyone's going to have the same idea of what 'winning' means. The sort that take shutting down large parts of New York City are just, you know, not mine.

certain infrastructure knowledge could cause massive amounts of deaths, infrastructure costs, and/or economic costs

All of which would turn everyone against them and bring further crackdowns upon the entire Red Tribe.

and it only takes a couple highly-reported bad actors for the processes to become Common Knowledge as something that can happen.

And all it takes is making sufficiently severe examples of those bad actors (and their family, friends, and general associates) to make it Common Knowledge as something not worth trying.

not everyone in that field is low-capability.

"Capability" is useless without coordination. The lone actor accomplishes nothing. Only large, well-coordinated groups can get anything done.

"Capability" is useless without coordination. The lone actor accomplishes nothing. Only large, well-coordinated groups can get anything done.

You gotta watch how finely you atomize the population -- small well coordinated groups can do a lot of damage, and there are quite a lot of those floating around the US. The kind that don't take in new members, and if moved to action are likely to motivate other such groups to (independently) do the same.

Everybody knows how terrorist cells work, and America is full of cells currently engaged in beer & fishing type activities -- ideally this can remain their focus.

small well coordinated groups can do a lot of damage

Define "small"

and there are quite a lot of those floating around the US

Not if you exclude the Fed honeytraps, there aren't. Small groups, yes, but meaningful coordination is something us Red Tribers are fundamentally, constitutionally incapable of. If a group is "well-coordinated," it can only be because someone on the Federal payroll is providing said coordination.

Everybody knows how terrorist cells work

Not my experience, given some of the myths I encounter people believing about Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

and America is full of cells

Only if you count a bunch of fat, out-of-shape beer-swilling losers who hang out occasionally as a "terror cell"

currently engaged in beer & fishing type activities

Because those are the only activities they're capable of, and always will be the only activities they ever engage in.

We're completely useless, powerless, and hopeless, and I've yet to see someone provide any believable evidence to the contrary.

Define "small"

Anything between two people and a platoon or so I guess.

Not if you exclude the Fed honeytraps, there aren't.

That's just it -- I'm talking about 'groups' of people in which everyone involved knows and trusts each other entirely, and new members are not invited. Former service members would be a good example, but for me there are single digit people that I've known since childhood who are definitely not feds and could be relied upon to help me out with whatever. 'Overturning the State' is not on our agenda, but I can well imagine social groups in which this might not be the case.

meaningful coordination is something us Red Tribers are fundamentally, constitutionally incapable of.

lol -- tell me you've never held a blue collar job without coming out and saying it.

Only if you count a bunch of fat, out-of-shape beer-swilling losers who hang out occasionally as a "terror cell"

I didn't say they were terror cells; they aren't, and it would be best to keep it that way. That's my whole point.

More comments

the BBC were reporting about how Trump was breaking norms with his conviction. like he was the one that was acting rather than the one being acted upon.

Well, usually a politician would have quit in disgrace before getting to this point. So kind of.

As in, a politician with grab her by her pussy, AND a few other stories would have given a speech about how he was stepping back from politics for the good of his family etc.

Now of course that is all part of Trumps brand, that he is different from a normal politician such that you can't just brief against him, you have to follow through. But arguably he is breaking the norm of not stepping down after a scandal. Warning shots don't work on him. If you think that norm exists to select out unsuitable candidates with minimal fuss thats bad, if you think its used by the deep state to filter out "unsuitable" candidates that is good.

I'd note Hillary did the same, though I think for different reasons, and mostly through the time honoured tradition of lying through her teeth. So you know, she kept to that norm.

Well, usually a politician would have quit in disgrace before getting to this point. So kind of.

Except that what's happening here isn't actually unusual. Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC got fined $100k by the FEC for the exact same thing (i.e., misreporting campaign expenses - in this case, the "Russia-gate" dossier - as "legal expenses"). The unusual thing is that state legal systems got involved (in cooperation with the White House and under the direction of former White House lawyers, for admittedly-political reasons.

Forget the legal stuff, I'm talking paying off porn stars while married and running for the family values party. That would sink most (but not all!) politicians.

But arguably he is breaking the norm of not stepping down after a scandal.

Usually politicians resign when a scandal comes out and they did something wrong. Politicians don't usually resign when a scandal comes out and they did nothing wrong. It varies, but a lot of politicians have successfully fought scandals on the grounds that they weren't really scandals at all.

Sure, as i pointed out, he is not alone. Bill Clinton as well. But even sticking to every one verified factually he probably has more very public ones than near any politician not named Kennedy.

Paying off porn stars, recorded crude comments etc. For most politicians that would have sunk them.

The Overton window shifted.

Boys use to be allowed to be boys but you did it respectfully.

We live in the social media age. Only fans exists. Sleeping with a porn star isn’t that big of thing (I’ve done it). But besides that grabby them by the pussy and screwing porn stars is normie compared to trannies on the White House lawn and gays banging in bondage in the Senate.

To say the obvious atleast Trump likes girls.

There was a Hollywood movie in the wake of the Clinton scandal, The Contender, about a woman who is chosen to replace a deceased Vice President. However, her confirmation becomes controversial when rumors of a college orgy surface. The Democrat-led argument 25 years ago was this private sexual conduct was wholly irrelevant.

Of course, the movie also pulls its punches by ultimately revealing the rumors to be baseless, drummed up by an Arlen Specter-like Senator played by Gary Oldman.

These are always arguments as kamikaze soldiers, to be used when convenient for maximum shock but with no real ideological committment to using them faithfully and responsibly.

Did you pay the porn star to fuck you? Or discover you’re dating a porn star and put aside your dignity?

I still think the average politician especially a Republican one gets asked to step down if it cones out they have been cheating with porn stars. The Overton window among boomer voters hasn't shifted that much for the average politician. But Trump is different.

Are we even sure he slept with Stormy? Her story sure changes a lot.

More comments

Such a classic British elitist attitude to employ. I would love to see a time-warp BBC covering the Irish Potato Famine; "Hibernian brutes act with unabashed lack of gentlemanly courage by not starving to death peacefully"

Surprisingly it was quite peaceful, the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 was just a single shootout and was the first uprising in 40 years, the real violence started from the 1860s on as the Irish in America never shed their bitter feelings. The American Civil War changed a lot too because from then on you see things like ex-Union captains being executed in Britain for killing police officers.

I wish we could have disposed of Trump in time to have a real conservative candidate this November.

The parties should be better gatekeepers, but they seem to be broken now in a desparate race to the bottom.

This just clarifies the system is broken. We need Trump to expose all the flaws. Peoples eyes were shut before. Now we can have the election on lawfare.

It will get more people fired up to do something. Pick Desantis to be VP. He can be like Stringer Bell - your get shit done street boss.

That being said I got this case wrong. Somehow I thought we could find a hung jury.

Erm, can you clarify how this works?

The US needs Trump to 'expose all the flaws'... how exactly? What specifically does Trump do that another populist Republican couldn't?

This just clarifies the system is broken.

How so? It seems to be working just fine at what seems to me to be its primary purpose — keeping the Blue Tribe elite solidly in power, and protecting Our Democracy from the horrible populist threat of the voters getting what they vote for.

It seems to me that it's worth bearing in mind that Trump lost the popular vote both times. 'The populist threat of the voters getting what they vote for' doesn't seem like a good description of Trump, since both times he ran for office the popular majority was against him.

There are cases where I think you can convincingly point to a Blue elite stepping in to overrule the clearly-expressed democratic will of the majority - Proposition 8 is an ageing example but a good one - but Trump, a candidate who has never commanded majority support, seems like a bad example of one.

Politicians campaign under the system as it exists. If the popular vote elected politicians, Trump (and Hillary) would have campaigned differently, and Trump could very well have won the popular vote in 2016.

Sure, it's possible that in a different system the results might have been different - but then you'd be hanging a claim about what the voters want, or what the voters voted for, on a pure hypothetical.

Something I've tried to be very conscious of recently is the way that ideologues construct 'the public' or 'the people' or 'the voters' in ways that agree with them, but in the absence of convincing evidence about what the people actually want or believe. This can be a communist believing that everyone will support the revolution, or a MAGA person believing that Trump in some way represents the popular will, or the way postliberal texts like Regime Change are premised on the assumption that most people on some level support the author's politics.

This is often just not plausible. We have polling on Trump over time as well, including from when he was president. He never broke 50% approval, and right now he clearly does not enjoy anything like majority support.

Like I said, there are issues where I think you can show an elite class stepping in to overrule the democratically-expressed will of the majority. But Trumpism specifically isn't an example of that. Majority popular support is something the man does not have and has never had.

I'm not always great at predictions and have a general tendency to catastrophize, but mark me down for this being the end of a good portion of the people who live in America playing nice. Stealing the election was one thing, that's practically an American tradition, but this is unchartered territory

This is like the mirror inverse of "this will be the end of Trump's campaign, says increasingly nervous man for the seventh time this year".

"Now, this time it's no more mr. nice guy!" Yeah, uh huh. Sure thing.

The only way that would actually work is if the right had a leader who had a clear vision for seizing power and was able to issue clear marching orders. J6 showed Trump really doesn't know what he's doing on that front. He wants something to happen, but he lacks the institutional capacity to do much more than simply lash out at random.

I should have been much more clear that I meant things like not tipping as much or returning their shopping carts, your point is very well taken (and also correct).

I do however think this is the 'this time' for a pretty good chunk of the country where they will decide everything sucks and 'quiet quit'

If the ultimate result of all the Trump drama is the end of tipping culture, that will make it worth it all.

A sentiment which I endorse 100%.

Fair enough.

"Last thing they did was tolerable, but current thing is beyond the pale!" seems like an ever-popular rhetorical device on all sides.

Things have always been horrible and will forever continue to be so in novel-seeming but probably recurring ways. We just get used to what we've already witnessed.

It tended to be a common rhetorical device in countries which actually slid into violence too.

Yeah, the punchline to Hrazdka's garbage person thesis is that you just need a few morons around hearing "current thing is beyond the pale!" at the wrong time, maybe thinking the wrong type of protest is Actually Allowed, and then whoops dozens or hundreds of deaths, and then it's too late for the pebbles to vote.

garbage person thesis

I'm familiar with the person, but not the thesis; do you have an explanation or a link handy?

I don't think he's written too much on it in one place, but basically this: a large portion of extremists (and especially violent extremists) are just generally miserable and unlikable (and "jarringly Not a Normal Person"), lashing out in an unstable emotional spasm rather than any serious plan (and sometimes with little real connection to their ideological alignment, to the extent they even have rather than wear ideological alignments).

They're extremely dangerous individually, despite or because of all that, but it's mostly important in how little they're tied to actual concrete positions or principles; the 'real' motivating factors are more Travis Bickle Lost His Job and the manifesto's are excuses.

Thank you! I think I partially buy that. The group I knew that became "radicalized" was partially deeply unhappy people who finally found something that they didn't have to ( = weren't told to) be unhappy for feeling good about, and partially people whose ethics had atrophied from disuse and chose instead to maintain social ties by mimicking whatever was in fashion. I'd only worry about violence from the more unstable members of the first part.

That already happened, on January 6. It turns out the state has the capacity to deal with it without much effort.

Yep. Before J6, I literally argued that the Red Tribe side at least wouldn't be riots, and that was a mistake, and I'm not gonna make the mistake of arguing that they'll keep managing to avoid killing people if it happens again.

Just because it'll slide into violence doesn't mean the people who have morons going first violent will win, or even that they won't be the ones most of the violence, in the long run, is aimed at.

B5 fan?

This week's feeling more like a Lando Mollari thing than a Kosh one, but yes.

Blood calls out for blood if we are quoting Londo.

Yeah, that's a good deal of what I'm worried about.

I don't disagree, and this was worth a hearty chuckle, you got me good.

But still. Trump is this weirdly out-of-history figure that has a power all to his own. His name was synonymous with success before he ran for president, and his running for president had been in the popular conscious for decades, and he 'picked the crown out of the gutter' with some very low hanging fruit (they have to go back, etc) and now he's going to Rikers Island.

Napoleon asked the army who was supposed to arrest him if they would really sink to shooting their own emperor, and they said no, we'll fight with you instead. Sometimes things do happen

You seem to be arguing that it's a barber pole. I'm pretty sure it's not a barber pole. There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago. Political division and social polarization will be significantly worse. There's a pretty clear trend here, and sooner or later that trend is going to run out of road.

There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago.

Again, "the institutions" don't need "trust," they only need obedience. And to get that, you need only escalate punishments for disobedience until every single person is either compliant or dead.

Political division and social polarization will be significantly worse.

So what? Increasing division and distinction between the two sides doesn't change which one is vastly stronger than the other, and thus which tribe is pretty much guaranteed to triumph.

There's a pretty clear trend here, and sooner or later that trend is going to run out of road.

And at the end of that road, the triumphant Blues completely erase the Red Tribe (as a culture) from the earth forever.

Edit: as further support, I'd like to add this quote from Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority:

I have suggested in this chapter that human beings come equipped with strong and pervasive pro-authority biases that operate even when an authority is illegitimate or issues illegitimate and indefensible commands. As we have see, individuals confronted with the demands of authority figures are liable to feel an almost unconditional compulsion to obey, and this may prompt them to look for explanations for why the authority is legitimate and why they are morally required to obey. People often defer instinctively to those who wield power, and there are even cases in which people emotionally bond with others (such as kidnappers) who hold great but completely unjustified power over them, adopting the perspective and goals of those who hold the power. Once a pattern of obedience has started, the need to minimize cognitive dissonance favors continued obedience and the adoption of beliefs that rationalize the authority’s commands and one’s own obedience to them. Due to a general status quo bias, once a practice or institution becomes established in some society, that practice is likely to be viewed by members of that society, almost automatically, as normal, right, and good.

None of this by itself shows that existing political institutions are illegitimate. But it strongly suggests that they would be widely accepted as legitimate even if they were not. Theories of authority devised by political philosophers can plausibly be viewed as attempts to rationalize common intuitions about the need for obedience, where these intuitions are the product of systematic biases.

You seem to be arguing that it's a barber pole. I'm pretty sure it's not a barber pole.

I'm not even sure what the barber pole represents.

It's the election theft being discounted as a minor offence compared to yonder verdict that prompted my comment.

not even sure what the barber pole represents.

Shorthand for something that's always arriving and never arrives. See also: Shephard Tone.

I'm arguing that this pattern does arrive. People react to each successive event differently. At each event, some portion lose faith in the system. I'm saying they don't appear to get it back, and so the portion gets larger over time, driving the increasing extremism of our political culture. At some point, that portion hits critical mass, and then things go badly. We will be significantly closer to critical mass in six months than we were six months ago.

At some point, that portion hits critical mass, and then things go badly.

And I still have little idea what this is supposed to look like, and everything that's suggested seems rather implausible to me. The only remotely plausible "critical mass" outcome, in my view, is a parallel to the German Peasants' War; and even that requires a level of unrest I find implausible. A bunch of Wacos and Oklahoma Cities — the latter followed by prosecutions and crackdowns — seems more likely.

"Not with a bang, but a whimper" and all that.

Less trust on the right, more trust on the left... but the right is dying, so that's more trust overall.

There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago.

This seems inevitable, sadly. I don't expect fireworks, but I do expect a lot more quiet quitting. Cops stop enforcing the law, people stop joining the military, that sort of thing.

Instead of focusing on what's best for the country, interest groups will fight to get handouts. In fact we're already seeing that with the student loan bailouts.

Cops stop enforcing the law, people stop joining the military, that sort of thing.

So you just replace them with people who will.

I'm reminded of when Curtis Yarvin was on the Good Ol' Boyz podcast some time ago, where he first claimed that he "loves the 'chuds'," but then went on to argue that those same Red Tribe chuds are "worse than Morlocks" because the Eloi at least needed the Morlocks to maintain the machinery that supported their comfortable lifestyles, while "you can be entirely replaced with immigrants and automation," and just who do you think he was talking about warehousing in the Matrix in his "Virtual Option"?

And if you stop working, people eventually stop paying you, and then how do you keep your family fed and a roof over their heads?

Agree. Once you decide the ship really is going down, you stop showing up to fix the leaks and keeping the rudder straight .... and just start looting the supply stocks, picking out your life raft, and hope some ditzy redhead leaves you some room on the door.

My thoughts exactly. Defection may be about to get a lot more popular. I think it did after 2020, too.

Defection may be about to get a lot more popular.

Defection to where, exactly? And why would they want said "defector" anyway?

Defection against the common weal. One's fellow Americans.

More comments

Christ, I miss the Cold War

I might even vote for the old rascal myself as I view this lawfare as both morally wrong and deeply destabilizing.

How can you restabilize a situation in which an active participant has committed to destabilizing it by propagating myths about a stolen election?

  • -24

Not by inventing novel legal theories to convict your main political opponent over.

Let’s not rehash the stolen election thing here. A lot of us believe he was directionally correct and if you go back thru the files it’s well litigated.

I think 'directionally correct' in this case roughly translates to 'motte and bailey'. Or perhaps it's worse - perhaps it functions just to sanewash Trump.

That is, I can see an argument that systemic media bias, tech oligopoly, deep state institutions, etc., made the overall political landscape so distorted in the popular consciousness as to make a free and fair election impossible. That makes sense, and I have some sympathy for it as a position.

But that's a motte - that's a sanewashed, 'directionally correct' version of what the stolen election claims actually were.

The actually-existing version of StopTheSteal, the one that Trump endorsed, is not that. The Trump position was not "systemically slanted media landscape", but "literally cheating" - ballot dumps, fake voting machines, you name it.

The sanewashed version might be true! There's an argument that goes something like: "Democratic legitimacy is not merely a result of voting, but rather depends on robust norms of civic participation and deliberation, which must be resourced and facilitated by civic institutions. Such institutions include both public and private bodies, including media such as newspapers, television, radio, online social media, internet news and search, and so on. They also include the sources of information for public debate, such as academia, think tanks, or 'experts' broadly construed. In the United States, however, civic institutions are dominated by the left - by a silent, unspoken but nevertheless well-understood consensus - to such an extent that it is genuinely impossible for conservative or right-wing viewpoints to have a fair hearing in the public square. Such viewpoints can only be expressed in cordoned-off areas of conservative media, which by virtue of their isolation are unable to facilitate the kind of robust deliberation that democracy depends upon. Under these conditions - the total domination of the civic sphere by left-biased authorities - the very notion of democracy is degraded, and large sections of the population are effectively frozen out of democratic participation. No election held under circumstances such as these can be considered 'fair'."

I think that argument is probably true! I think it's not the whole story, but as far as it goes, it's true and it points to the crisis of American democracy.

It just doesn't get you to the stolen election claim that was actually made.

I find it kind of condescending that your idea of sanewashing reads like a struggle session excerpt.

I think once the Dominion CEO demonstrably perjured himself by claiming that Dominion voting systems don't have modems in them (photographically, demonstrably false) and then again by claiming they weren't connected to the internet (demonstrably false again per the dominion records leaked by Dar Leaf), I decided that voting machines are completely ridiculous and no one should ever assume an election in which a voting machine is involved is fair. If there's one thing that absolutely should not be networked in any way and for any reason, it's election systems. I understand there's some potential benefits like poll book cross checks, but I have a corporate lab full of half-patched decades-old Windows appliances with network ports on them, and the vast colonies of malicious, firewalled, outbound-requesting viruses they host are an object lesson in why you never, ever connect any of this junk to any network, ever, even if you think it's a secure network. Credentialed VPNs, firewalls, even semi-isolated networks like FirstNet are just giant high-value attack surfaces full of old hardware waiting to be exploited. In a post-SolarWinds universe, I have zero confidence in the security setup of any nation-wide government networks. I have no idea what kind of security setup is established for voting machines, because I can't actually audit them myself and no one will tell me on account of "trade secrets". As far as I'm concerned, they are mysterious black boxes with labels that say "trust me bro".

This is, of course, not evidence of election fraud! But the only way to get this evidence is by hand-auditing the entire system to confirm things like:

  • All the registered voters who voted actually exist, and weren't fake people electronically added to the poll books, quietly, steadily, and continuously up to election night to pre-register sufficient margin to commit fraud
  • All the ballots tabulated were actual ballots, printed by the registered manufacturer, with the correct markings, and not printed in a shed by some random asshat and populated with all those fraudulently added names and no-shows in the poll books after we stopped the counts on election night due to a water leak or whatever
  • All the precinct reports match the hand count totals; All the county totals match the (verified) precinct reports; All the state totals match the (verified) county reports
  • The totals everywhere do not demonstrate ludicrous, impossibly large record-breaking >90% turnout/registered ratios, anomalous to the last six decades of ~50% turnout/registered ratios
  • The exact source code, BOM, schematics, and system logs of all machines used on election night are fully audited by third parties, verified for consistency and correctness before and after deployment, not significantly impacted by supply chain security, etc (we're actually pretty close to compliance on BOM, schematics, and supply chain, at least on paper; but source code audits are functionally impossible, particularly when staff are live-updating source code on election night as per some of the published dominion emails. Some people even tried to do an independent audit of some source code a while back, I think in one of the Carolinas for ES&S, but got jerked around by the legal system and eventually restricted so heavily by complaints of trade secrets that the fraction of the source code audit they would be able to conduct was effectively pointless.)
  • Every action taken with one of these machines is clearly observable to partisan observers who can contest wrongdoing quickly and efficiently
  • All configurations and audit logs from election night are completely preserved and backed up before any kind of maintenance is performed to prevent wiping auditable data permanently

Anyway, this is a total fiction that we will obviously never achieve. But I'm supposed to trust some risk-limiting audits that don't actually come out right until a technician can do some kinda firmware update, and assume every machine works correctly. And no hand-recounts allowed, including when I pay for them and state law compels you to conduct one. And half my issues are, by judge's orders, thrown out on standing. Sure.

Hand counts get you 80% of the way to achieving all of the above, partially by omission of needless complexity, partially by design. Some other low-hanging fruit like Voter ID could probably clean up a lot of the remainder (provided you trust the ID checking process).

Look, maybe I can't prove fraud because I lack standing or the judge decided that state law says a risk-limiting audit is a hand-count or whatever. But given how basically every voting system in the nation is out of compliance with standards set forth by HAVA's VVSG, and given how the standards in VVSG are entirely voluntary and there's zero federal action taken against anyone for having joke-tier state standards that fall dramatically short of VVSG (which should be considered the bare minimum from a security standpoint), and given how SolarWinds had the whole government's ass hanging out in the breeze for ten months before anyone noticed, and given how the CEO of a major voting system company is lying under oath about internet connectivity even existing on their machines... Why should I be required to jump through a billion hoops to credibly allege election fraud when I can credibly validate 80% of my concerns with a single hand count? And in that case, why the hell use the machines at all?

Without Trump alleging all kinds of stupid shit, I wouldn't have really considered any of this. This isn't some weak sauce "the media is mean to us and so democracy is broke" sob story borne because Trump kicked and screamed and threw a tantrum when he lost. At least as I understand it, "directionally correct" means "how the fuck does anyone with any working knowledge about computer security believe any of this isn't pwned six ways to Sunday". I don't think I'm alone.

This is getting too long, but I'll briefly mention there's other tranches of how-the-fuckers who are equally annoyed by things like all the COVID-related legislative exploits, the ballot harvesting zuckerboxes in Georgia with the videos of dudes stuffing ballots, that one truck that got stolen after dropping off something that allegedly looked like ballots in Pennsylvania, the various dozens and hundreds of ballots registered to random empty lots in the Arizona audits, that one county in CO that paid for a hand recount per state law but got a risk-limiting audit and sued and lost, that one Democratic primary where the only way they allowed a hand recount was because somehow a candidate (who went on to win) got zero votes the first time and she knew she voted for herself (just a weird mistake with the scanners whoops wowee how did that happen - find me a hand count where this could happen)... Doubtless not all of this constitutes election fraud, some of it might even just be sore loser whining like you describe, but some of this is shady middle finger wagging backed up by porous arguments and judges not wanting to step in it, and I have no doubt that there are some people on this board who raise a directionally-corrected eyebrow at this stuff, instead of rolling their eyes on instinct.

I'm not particularly inclined to argue voting machines. As it happens I actually agree that voting machines and electronic votes in general are a terrible idea, and I feel glad that my country exclusively deals in paper ballots.

But I'm not sure how that specifically addresses the issue? Again, the StopTheSteal argument was premised on a number of specific claims of fraud. Moving from those claims to a generic argument that voting machines are a sub-optimal way to run an election - well, sure, I agree, I'll let you have that motte, but boy, that is a large and expansive bailey you've just vacated.

You can argue that no election conducted with voting machines should be considered legitimate. Sure - like I said, I don't like voting machines at all. But if so, then that also goes for 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996... in fact, over a century of American elections would have to be thrown out. (Half that if you restrict to computerised voting, but still, a long time.) That is not, however, the argument that StopTheSteal made.

I just did a search for "dar leaf dominion emails" and didn't find anything substantial. Care to share what you found?

There's a lot of documents, and it looks like the guy has been excerpting individual records as he encounters them to show them to various politicians. The whole tranche is currently up on his Twitter: https://twitter.com/SheriffLeaf/status/1769561564993192198

The documents show:

  • Source code modifications being made during deployment periods during an election - some firmware version needed to be changed, or some extra component needs to be attached at the last minute, or they suddenly need to disable parallelism on the SQL instance to keep concurrency bugs at bay, or whatever... They also talk about the software being able to receive OTA updates in places.
  • Serbian nationals accessing election infrastructure on election night (Dominion has had an office in Serbia for over a decade, where they employ many programmers; however, Serbia does not allow certain rigorous US background checks that should be standard for such employees. Presumably the access is related to bugfix work)
  • Emails that seem to indicate someone made an unauthorized access to Dominion backend systems several months before an election, from a suspicious location, on a company device or IP (extent or severity unknown, but may constitute a significant security breach?)
  • Some of the Serbia machines are behind on SQL server vulnerability patching by as much as two years (sort of a problem since their systems and testing would heavily utilize the affected SQL variants)
  • Numerous references to machines with modems installed, including some that failed acceptance testing for not having modems installed (again, plenty of good reasons for this in practice, but again, perjury)
  • The Serbians discuss sending election data over the internet as one of the use cases in a conversation about certificates
  • A long email chain showcasing the firmware programming process with a Taiwanese OEM (most computer manufacturing takes place in China or Taiwan, including firmware programming, so this isn't unusual, but it's laughably insecure)
  • Eric Coomer suggesting no VPN usage in Cook County systems for technical reasons (I like the proposed explainer where they talk about using unlicensed trial version of something and wiping the machine every 30 days to keep it installed) - seems like they eventually got a VPN up at the end
  • Eric Coomer opining on how Antrim county is full of angry conspiracy theorists, and also, gee whiz, how did that RTR misidentify the cartridges, I thought we fixed that
  • Testimony from some expert witness describing the aforementioned RTR misidentification, and how it could be utilized in conjunction with SQL database management software to trivially edit tallies without privilege escalation and avoid discovery at the end unless a total hand count was kept alongside the results (see https://twitter.com/SheriffLeaf/status/1769745766703374401)
  • Lots of "oh no, disaster, we suck" and "how can we paper over this mess to sell to customer" that I'm sure anyone in a customer-facing role at a tech company recognizes as business-as-usual
  • Numerous small firefighting cases where something didn't work right and Dominion has to cook up an explanation, occasionally beclowning themselves in front of the customer in the process, while everyone stands around waiting for the numbers to add up - a particularly noticeable instance revolved around some weird data duplication issue

It doesn't look like everyone (or anyone, really) at Dominion is twirling their moustaches and cackling as they disenfranchise the American people. It looks like they run like a standard tech company, which is to say all over the place, constantly fighting fires and doing the needful to get their sales. I'm sure 2020 was a complete nightmare scenario for these guys, where suddenly all their customers are radically transforming their deployments and doing novel, untested, gigantic-scale absentee and mail balloting.

But very clearly they're held together with duct tape and prayer in a lot of cases, which is about the opposite of what I'd like to see from critical election infrastructure. The glimpses of the architecture they have put together with all of these machines raises some significant doubts about the security of the enterprise, particularly if rank-and-file technicians can just go pop open the database manager and flip the counts around - surely this is the kind of thing that could be trivially accomplished if one could land a zero-day on any of the long-dated Windows 7 machines floating around in their customer base.

I'm told, with no particular means to corroborate this, that ES&S is about the same.

Thanks. I'll take a look. This sounds like another one of those data dumps that tries to impress by volume but which really contains very little actionable information. But the mere presence of it with the suggestion that it's important convinces motivated bystanders who never scrutinize it themselves. You would think that if there were damning evidence inside, someone would already be highlighting it, specifically.

It doesn't look like everyone (or anyone, really) at Dominion is twirling their moustaches and cackling as they disenfranchise the American people. It looks like they run like a standard tech company, which is to say all over the place, constantly fighting fires and doing the needful to get their sales. I'm sure 2020 was a complete nightmare scenario for these guys, where suddenly all their customers are radically transforming their deployments and doing novel, untested, gigantic-scale absentee and mail balloting.

Since I got downvoted for this skepticism, I think this is key part of the above explainer. Yeah, it sounds like routine software company patchwork, but it's a big leap from there to actionable claims of fraud. "Stop the Steal" is as dumb a mantra as "Most Secure Election Ever." They aim to convince through emotional appeal backed only by weak insinuations. For the kind of election fraud claimed by Stop the Stealers, you do need to find a couple of moustache-twirling villains intentionally changing vote counts through illicit means, not just the implications-without-accusations listed above.

“Directionally correct”

The man has been lying for years about election fraud, even when he won (and didn’t mount an investigation).

Trump is an embarrassment to conservatism, morally and politically, and should have been jettisoned by the GOP years ago. He makes things worse by inflaming progressivism and turning away moderates/centrists, and the sooner he’s gone from political life the better.

Sure, this state-level prosecution was targeted/politically motivated, which I consider bad, but the man is a constant liar with no regard for rules/laws/norms, so he set himself up for this kind of thing.

He has amazing instincts. He gets everything right.

I do agree he is of lower moral fiber. But maybe we need a guy like him. The system is broken as witnessed by this trial. He’s like the sin eater. Takes everything they throw at him and keeps moving forward.

Litigation of conspiracy theories by conspiracy theorists are uninteresting.

It sounds to me like when you say "directionally correct" what you mean is "wrong in every factual respect."

Concerns about the US electoral system aside, Trump did not win the 2020 election. There was no substantial voter fraud.

I like being both directionally and factually correct. For instance: Trump is a convicted felon.

Trump is a convicted felon.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Our current treatment of felons is very unjust and needs reform: e.g., they should all have their voting rights reinstated for a start. Personally I’m proud and excited about the prospect of voting for a convicted felon in November. Perhaps it will help signal that we’re ready to start easing the stigma surrounding convicted criminals.

It would be far better if we only convicted those who were properly stigmatized.

by propagating myths about a stolen election?

Although 2020 was probably an outlier in the volume of shouting and shenanigans about stolen elections, I'm pretty sure partisans, even moderately respected ones, have made "stolen election" claims about every presidential campaign since at least 2000.

Not like Trump did. He refused to concede and he and his close associates pushed all manner of blatant nonsense that failed to get any traction because of a stark lack of evidence.

As with many things, it’s not that no one else in politics has ever done Bad Thing, it’s that Trump finds a way to take things to a new level.

  • -13

he and his close associates pushed all manner of blatant nonsense that failed to get any traction because of a stark lack of evidence.

Like Mrs. Clinton's ginned-up "collusion" theories in 2016? Those managed to derail half a presidential term.

This is a hilariously weak whataboutism.

The evidence for election rigging was nonexistent.

At least Russiagate had enough evidence to put a few people in jail.

“Derail half a term”

Oh come on. What derailed a whole term is that Trump is an incompetent leader and he ran a clown show. Trump was the biggest setback for Trumpism.

As with many things, it’s not that no one else in politics has ever done Bad Thing, it’s that Trump finds a way to take things to a new level.

This rhetoric is indistinguishable from the rhetoric we get served by the media about every Republican candidate every election.

Except this time it’s true.

And one can prove that by ignoring the media rhetoric and listening only to longtime Republicans and former Trump officials who have condemned Trump for a very long list of his personal and professional failings.

It’s funny because one thing so many Trump fans like about him is that he isn’t like normal politicians and doesn’t comply with various norms that supposedly made regular GOP politicians weak. Problem is, some of norms Trump has violated involved actual breaches of the law.

If Trump really believed the election was stolen he would have launched a civil war.

if you come for the king, you best not miss. the only legitimate challenge to an election result are the ones that succeed otherwise you are a threat to democracy

It is true that if it is a legitimate challenge to an election result, there would be ways of knowing this. The existence of people who believe false things does not mean those false things are true.

It is true that an illegitimate challenge to an election result is a threat to democracy. Illegitimate challengers are criminals, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

  • -15

I don't believe it was the 'most secure election ever' but pandering to the crybabies does not make them stop crying.

It's in everyone's interest that we secure our election from crybabies who believe that crying about their boomer's election defeat is an acceptable political strategy.

Punish defectors. It is the path to stability, whatever the defectors would have you believe.

  • -20

As a counterpoint to the other response, if it weren't for your first clause, I'd think you were talking about the 2016 election. #NotMyPresident #TheResistance

A true-blue commissar speaks to TheMotte.

Do not engage in this kind of sneering, low-effort personal attack.

How do you heal?

Stop escalating.

Trump was summoned into existence by the media. Their hate just makes him grow that much larger.

If Biden had been a gracious victor, he'd be coasting to a second term and would go down in history as a uniter. Instead, he decided to go all-in on hate. His speeches lately (e.g. at Morehouse) have been some of the most negative and hateful I've ever seen from a President. In the words of Donald Trump: sad. It didn't have to be this way.

No president would get re-elected in an environment of high inflation after trust in institutions was permanently lost after footage of them transparently lying to justify losing their nutty over the chink virus.

losing their nutty over the chink virus

This is unnecessary.

Thanks for telling us all you got vaccinated, smart move

  • -16

You've been spamming threads with these kinds of snide remarks, and the last time you did this you ended up getting banned and told to knock it off. Once again I am telling you to knock it off, and banning you for three days. If you have a point to make, make it clearly and directly. Stop attacking people (not just me, you've been attacking people almost at random for the past couple of days). Your contributions so far seem to be nothing but low effort and obnoxious. Keep it up and you will be permabanned.

If you have a point to make, make it clearly and directly

How could I have possibly been more clear or direct

No president would get re-elected in an environment of high inflation after trust in institutions was permanently lost after footage of them transparently lying to justify losing their nutty over the chink virus.

Sure they can. If nothing else, you can just make up election results saying they won from whole cloth, declare those "the official result" and punish any "election denier" who dares to claim those numbers are anything but 100% true and accurate.

But, like @The_Nybbler says below, you almost certainly don't need to go that far. Just use control of the media and the institutions to ensure enough of the peasant masses are marinaded solely in your official narrative, and enough of them will go along. Particularly if the other candidate is currently rotting in a cell somewhere.

Unless of course the media keeps telling people there's no inflation, to trust in the institutions, and never mind about Fauci's lies, COVID is so 2020, we've moved on. Which of course is exactly where we are.

People don’t believe the media to nearly the same extent as they did pre-2020.

I'm not sure this is true. It's just that believe different media.

to nearly the same extent as they did pre-2020.

Yes, but even though that belief is smaller, there's still enough to get Biden through, particularly given all the ovine Boomer Republicans who aren't going to vote for "a convicted felon".

Curious if that’s actually a large constituency and not just a handful of columnists.

and not just a handful of columnists.

I'm talking about people I know personally, fellow Alaskans, who acted similarly in the Ted Stevens case — including one person who argues that if you vote for "a convicted felon" God will literally damn you to hell for it.

More comments

Trump was summoned into existence by the media.

Incorrect. Trump was summoned into existence by his followers. The media reported on his crimes.

If Biden had been a gracious victor, he'd be coasting to a second term and would go down in history as a uniter

If Trump had been a gracious loser, he might be worth nominating for another term. But he went all-in on hate. It didn't have to be this way.

  • -27

Trump was summoned into existence by his followers.

His "followers" didn't give him $2 billion of free media coverage during the 2016 cycle. When Trump declared, he was only polling 10% in the GOP primary. He didn't break 40% until March of 2016. He was lucky enough to be running against a weak and numerous slate of wooden neocons who hadn't seen which way the wind was blowing and couldn't get out of each other's way. When Ben Carson is your closest competition, you know things are pretty dire.

"he might be worth nominating for another term"

Do you sincerely believe that? If Trump had been a gracious loser, would you have personally voted for him? If Trump had been a gracious loser, do you think that would make him a better candidate than Biden? (After all, Biden hasn't been a gracious winner).

If not, I must call this out as a false equivalence. I don't think you're being sincere in this statement.

The fact of the matter is that the small group of American leftists who dominate our media and communications is consumed by its hatred for the right wing. The airwaves and Internet are controlled by a small group of people who cannot restrain themselves from broadcasting their irrepressible hatred for half the population 24/7, and that's exactly why we're all in this mess. There is no peaceful future as long as that nonstop firehose of visceral hatred keeps flowing through every media outlet.

For there to be peace, the media class needs to let go of that hatred.

What sort of demographics describe the composition of this small group of American leftists dominating the media?

I feel like you're trying to lead into some kind of "da joos" point, but if anything prominent Jews in the media have been unusually likely to break ranks lately. Between the increasing emphasis on race and the heating up of the Israel/Palestine conflict it's been a difficult few years to be a high-profile left-wing Jew.

Demographically I would say the people I'm talking about are disproportionately white women, but aside from that they tend to be pretty ethnically diverse.

Impossible to say

Impossible to know, or impossible to say?

I now firmly believe there was active vote alteration (before i thought it was limited to an unfair process)

I now firmly believe there was active vote alteration (before i thought it was limited to an unfair process)

What changed your mind?

Can you explain what changed your mind? I'm agnostic on the topic.

I don't wish to add fuel to conspiracy theories about the 2020 election by engaging you in disagreement.

  • -40

If you don’t intend to engage in argument, then go back to your echo chamber. Smug drive by posts are useless.

It's a small pond here at TheMotte. Don't need to worry about some wild take here swaying politics to any significant degree. You can safely drop your concerns and have some fun, bucko.

I respect that moderating intense disagreement is difficult and that the rules prohibit wild takes at another's expense.

It is a matter of fact that there exist conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. It is a matter of fact that I am not interested in adding fuel to them.

If you don't want to have that argument for the sake of the mods, then bless your little heart! But then maybe don't act like you're doing a public service by refusing "to add fuel to conspiracy theories" for rhe benefit of some broader forum or general epistemic hygiene.

Despite your good intentions and best efforts here (I'm sure), your participation has probably already hardened and refueled said conspiracy theories. Seems like a failed strategy.

Ask Hillary?

  • Content

    • Avoid low-effort participation.
  • -29

Quite.

Between the backseat moderation and the general antagonism, you've made it very clear that you'd rather wage political battles than understand them. You've done so by breaking a number of rules, but more importantly, you're missing the point of this forum. Do you think you'll convince anyone by sniping away instead of defending your bold statements? Do you think you or anyone else will learn something from it?

Take a day to cool off.

Your post implied that voting for Trump could not "restabilize" anything because he "propogated myths about a stolen election". But so did Hillary! It's extremely relevant because it undermines the implied argument. Put another way, why use many word when few word do trick?

That seems to me to be a deflection rather than an argument proper.

I am against propagating conspiracy theories because I believe in facts and logic. Otherwise people will make things up.

I'm talking about punishing convicted felon Trump for his crimes. I'm not talking about Hillary.

Are you trolling me?. Hillary is extremely relevant to the conversation about "propagating stolen election myths". She said 2016 was stolen. That's not a conspiracy theory. You cannot pontificate about Trump as some unique denier of elections in this case. You either need to refine your argument or make a concession.

The fact that you're not talking about Hillary is the problem.

...myths?

I don't wish to add fuel to conspiracy theories about the 2020 election by engaging you in disagreement.

  • -39

Don't put words in my mouth.

You can label it as you like, but the pipe did 'burst' in Atlanta, the poll watchers were sent home in Phoenix, etc

That you deny it happened doesn't make it not so

Those sound like conspiracy theories to me. I don't buy it. I don't think anyone should buy it.

Trump is a convicted felon. Convicted felons lie.

I guess I don't really understand. This seems to me like one of the more straightforward cases against Trump, right up there with the classified documents.

1. In 2016 Michael Cohen committed several crimes to which he later pleaded guilty, including making an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign by paying Stormy Daniels.

2. Trump reimbursed Cohen for that payment to Stormy Daniels (in furtherance of Cohen's crime) from one of his businesses.

3. The payments to Cohen claimed to be pursuant to a retainer agreement that did not exist and pursuant to legal work that never occurred.

4. The reason for the description of the payments was to conceal Cohen's crime. Trump could hardly put "Reimbursement for unlawful campaign contribution" on the checks!

So we have (1) business records that were (2) falsified for the purpose of (3) concealing another crime. The theory of the case seems pretty straightforward? According to the evidence some of the checks were signed by Trump himself. Seems hard to argue he didn't know it was happening or approve of it.

What strikes me in all this is how this all could have been avoided if Trump were less of a cheapskate. According to Cohen's testimony Trump kept trying to put off paying Daniels until after the election (presumably to stiff her) and she kept threatening to call off the agreement and go public. Eventually Trump tells Cohen and Weisselberg to figure it out. Weisselberg claims not to have the money so Cohen goes and gets a HELOC (lying to his bank in the process) to pay Daniels (the unlawful campaign contribution). I'm pretty sure if Trump had just cut Daniels a check everything would have been fine. Candidates are allowed to spend as much money as they want on their own campaigns. Instead Cohen commits several crimes to pay Daniels and then Trump commits several crimes to reimburse Cohen. There was a less criminal way to do this!

  1. The reason for the description of the payments was to conceal Cohen's crime. Trump could hardly put "Reimbursement for unlawful campaign contribution" on the checks!

Do you think Trump would intentionally commit a crime to help Cohen? If so, you hold him in higher esteem than I do.

making an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign by paying Stormy Daniels.

The reason for the description of the payments was to conceal Cohen's crime.

Why is this Cohen paying off Stormy Daniels with hush money so she doesn't hurt Trump's reputation for campaign an illegal campaign contribution?

I'm trying to wrap my head around how the actual spirit of the law was violated here. In a post Citizens United world I thought it was decided money is free speech (which I find astoundingly stupid and wrong), and effectively there's no such thing as too much money spent or proper use anymore, so long as certain bullshit forms are obeyed. If Cohen declared himself a PAC would he not be able to spend money on Trump's "mistresses" on his behalf? Is the special code words weren't evoked the problem? Frankly why can't trump pay off women as a campaign expense? What about a personal expense?

Politicians spend hundreds of thousands paying and being paid in wine and dine influence sessions, speech engagements, etc. all the time - as is my understanding. We all know this. It's not illegal. But a politician forwarding money to silence someone to protect his reputation is suddenly an unconscionable use of money in campaign/politics? Why?

Why is this Cohen paying off Stormy Daniels with hush money so she doesn't hurt Trump's reputation for campaign an illegal campaign contribution?

Because it was undertaken with the purpose of influencing the election and in coordination with a candidate in that election.

If Cohen declared himself a PAC would he not be able to spend money on Trump's "mistresses" on his behalf?

If he had done so without any coordination with Trump then probably. PACs aren't supposed to coordinate directly with campaigns, that could be its own violation.

Is the special code words weren't evoked the problem? Frankly why can't trump pay off women as a campaign expense? What about a personal expense?

He arguably could pay them off as a campaign expense. If Trump had paid Daniels directly, out of either campaign or personal funds, that would likely have been legal. If Cohen made the payment and Trump reimbursed Cohen out of campaign funds that also might have been legal (it converts Cohen's campaign contribution into an operation expense). But if Trump did any of that he'd have to report the payment to the FEC, which he didn't want to do.

If Trump had paid Daniels directly, out of either campaign or personal funds, that would likely have been legal. If Cohen made the payment and Trump reimbursed Cohen out of campaign funds that also might have been legal (it converts Cohen's campaign contribution into an operation expense).

Hilarious, especially because this story keeps changing, depending on where we are in the argument. Most people used to say that if Trump reimbursed Cohen out of campaign funds, that would have been illegal use of campaign funds. The FEC says that there is an "irrespective" test, and so if Trump would have wanted to keep Daniels quiet irrespective of the election (quite plausibly), one would even say that it would be illegal for him to pay her from campaign funds. How do you see significant daylight between "Trump pays Daniels directly out of his personal funds," and, "Trump pays Daniels indirectly out of his personal funds," for purposes of campaign finance law? Statutory cites would be ideal, but even an FEC interpretation would be interesting.

Like, surely there are plenty of hypos here where you would agree. Trump doesn't have his wallet on him, so Cohen buys him lunch, then Trump pays him back later out of his personal funds. Surely, you would agree that this is not a campaign finance charge, yes? What then converts it into a campaign finance charge? Suppose Trump/Cohen were at a vendor, planning to complete a sale of a bunch of red TRUMP 2024 yard signs that Trump plans to distribute. Trump's plan is to pay for this from his personal funds, but he forgot his wallet, so Cohen pays for it, and Trump pays him back when they get back to his house. We have Supreme Court precedent that Trump is allowed to pay for election-related things from his personal funds. The FEC says very little about this, because they basically don't touch expenditures of personal funds by candidates. They have plenty to say about things like extending credit when you're paying it back via campaign funds (or a PAC), because that is directly about the use of campaign funds (or PAC funds). This is about personal funds.

To be clear, here are my thoughts on how this could have been structured lawfully. My reference is the FEC guidance on contributions and the FEC's definition of expenditures.

1. Trump pays Daniels himself. If Trump paid Daniel for the purpose of influencing the election it's an in-kind campaign contribution from the candidate to the campaign. The campaign has to report it in their FEC filings but this is otherwise legal. If Trump would have paid Daniel whether or not he was campaigning for president he doesn't have to report anything.

2. Cohen pays Daniels. If Cohen would have made this payment independent of the election (ignoring the crimes Cohen committed to get the money) it would be legal. If Cohen made this payment to influence the election I'm not sure there's any way to do it legally. The FEC guidance indicates individual in-kind campaign contributions can be converted into campaign operating expenses by reimbursement but also says they are considered in-kind contributions until the reimbursement happens. Since the contribution was way in excess of the limit it would seem to be an unlawful contribution from the beginning.

How do you see significant daylight between "Trump pays Daniels directly out of his personal funds," and, "Trump pays Daniels indirectly out of his personal funds," for purposes of campaign finance law? Statutory cites would be ideal, but even an FEC interpretation would be interesting.

It depends on what is in the "indirectly." If the indirect payment involves someone else making an unlawful in-kind campaign contribution it would be a campaign finance violation (though not for Trump). Trump isn't charged with any campaign violations in the instant case anywyay.

Trump doesn't have his wallet on him, so Cohen buys him lunch, then Trump pays him back later out of his personal funds. Surely, you would agree that this is not a campaign finance charge, yes? What then converts it into a campaign finance charge?

If the lunch was a campaign expenditure and they did not report it or the amount was in excess of the legal maximum it could be a campaign finance charge.

Suppose Trump/Cohen were at a vendor, planning to complete a sale of a bunch of red TRUMP 2024 yard signs that Trump plans to distribute. Trump's plan is to pay for this from his personal funds, but he forgot his wallet, so Cohen pays for it, and Trump pays him back when they get back to his house.

If the initial amount of the payment was in excess of the legally allowable maximum for in-kind contributions I think this would be a violation as I describe in (2). If it were below that amount I believe Trump's reimbursement converts Cohen's in-kind contribution into a candidate in-kind contribution.

If Trump paid Daniel for the purpose of influencing the election it's an in-kind campaign contribution from the candidate to the campaign. The campaign has to report it in their FEC filings

I'm already off the train here. I don't think this is true or supportable. Can you find any language to support this claim? Candidates are free to spend their own money, and it is not a campaign expense or contribution. Nor do I believe that there is any statute, guidance, or caselaw that would require this to be reported. EDIT: For example, if Donald Trump took a five dollar bill out of his own pocket, money that has never been given to the campaign, has never touched the campaign books in any way, it is his money from his own personal income, and spent it on a lawn sign that he puts on the lawn in front of his own house, I do not believe that this would trigger any reporting requirements. Do you agree/disagree?

If Cohen would have made this payment independent of the election (ignoring the crimes Cohen committed to get the money) it would be legal.

Agreed.

If Cohen made this payment to influence the election I'm not sure there's any way to do it legally.

Binding Supreme Court precedent says the opposite (unless you have something further that you meant to imply but didn't actually state). For example, I could take money out of my pocket right now and spend it on something that I think would influence the election (e.g., a lawn sign promoting a candidate), and that is absolutely legal.

Trump doesn't have his wallet on him, so Cohen buys him lunch, then Trump pays him back later out of his personal funds. Surely, you would agree that this is not a campaign finance charge, yes? What then converts it into a campaign finance charge?

If the lunch was a campaign expenditure

What would make it a campaign expenditure? You need to spell out what the test is. Not an "if", because that is the precise question that I'm requesting an answer to and the crux of the issue.

candidate in-kind contribution

There is no such thing as a candidate in-kind contribution. There can be campaign in-kind contributions (and PAC in-kind contributions for another example), but there is no such thing as a candidate in-kind contribution.

The FEC has a whole page discussing in-kind contributions to campaigns from candidates.

Candidates can pay for campaign expenditures with personal funds. When these expenditures are not to be reimbursed, the committee reports them as in-kind contributions from the candidate. The committee also reports ultimate payee (i.e., the vendor) for the expenditure.

...

For example, if Donald Trump took a five dollar bill out of his own pocket, money that has never been given to the campaign, has never touched the campaign books in any way, it is his money from his own personal income, and spent it on a lawn sign that he puts on the lawn in front of his own house, I do not believe that this would trigger any reporting requirements. Do you agree/disagree?

That is correct, but that's because there is a minimum dollar amount of $200 before candidate campaign expenditures become reportable in-kind contributions.

Binding Supreme Court precedent says the opposite (unless you have something further that you meant to imply but didn't actually state). For example, I could take money out of my pocket right now and spend it on something that I think would influence the election (e.g., a lawn sign promoting a candidate), and that is absolutely legal.

I should have clarified, if Cohen makes this payment in coordination with Trump and his campaign it is unlawful. If Cohen did this spontaneously, of his own volition, it would be no issue.

What would make it a campaign expenditure? You need to spell out what the test is. Not an "if", because that is the precise question that I'm requesting an answer to and the crux of the issue.

I did not have a specific hypo in mind but the FEC page on day to day operations gives meals as something that can conditionally be a campaign expenditure.

Candidates can pay for campaign expenditures with personal funds.

Bolded the key part.

minimum dollar amount of $200

Ok, so let's say Trump pulled two crisp hundred dollar bills out of his pocket to buy a YUGE sign that he put on his own lawn. Reportable? Criminal?

the FEC page on day to day operations gives meals as something that can conditionally be a campaign expenditure.

Aye, this again contributes to the claim that there is a distinction between a "campaign expenditure" and things that are not campaign expenditures. For example, Trump can take his campaign staff out to lunch and pay for it all using campaign funds, and this is a campaign expenditure. On the other hand, Trump can take his buddies from the golf course out to lunch and pay for it using his personal funds, and it is not a campaign expenditure... even if he thinks that this lunch has the possibility to in some way increase his chance of winning an election (e.g., he thinks that he will be incredibly charming and that they will be positively influenced to independently support his candidacy).

This is an obvious case where there is the possibility of mixed motives, which has been a huge thorn in the side of most arguments on several Trump-related topics. If Trump takes his golf buddies out to lunch, he may both have a motivation that they're going to like him and that it will increase their chances of doing business with him, so he has personal/business motivations. He may also have motivations that this same positive emotion might inspire them to support his candidacy. It is extremely difficult to tease these apart, which is why most of the rules try to avoid touching on these issues. They try desperately to avoid it (and they never bring such questionable cases, due to risk that SCOTUS will strike down larger swaths of campaign finance law than they would like), because there are obvious legal theory and constitutional issues. Even questions for things like lunches are a bit vague on this, likely precisely for this reason. Therefore, this is why they would have to build a case that the lunch is, indeed, a "campaign expenditure", but this requires facts, context, and argumentation. It's easiest and most clear to just identify the ultimate source of the funds - if it's coming from actual campaign funds, it's reportable. If it's not campaign funds, but a candidate took out all his campaign staff, in the same way that he would normally take them out and use campaign funds, but he used personal funds this time? Really hard case, though I doubt anyone would bring it unless they had a vendetta against the candidate. The candidate takes out his golf buddies, pays with personal funds, and maybe has some mixed motive that it might help his candidacy, too? Highly doubtful.

More comments

Like, surely there are plenty of hypos here where you would agree. Trump doesn't have his wallet on him, so Cohen buys him lunch, then Trump pays him back later out of his personal funds. Surely, you would agree that this is not a campaign finance charge, yes? What then converts it into a campaign finance charge?

Lunch was not bought for the purpose of influencing the election. Not that there's anything wrong with trying to influence an election, that's what campaigning is. But the campaign finance rules attach.

Suppose Trump/Cohen were at a vendor, planning to complete a sale of a bunch of red TRUMP 2024 yard signs that Trump plans to distribute. Trump's plan is to pay for this from his personal funds, but he forgot his wallet, so Cohen pays for it, and Trump pays him back when they get back to his house.

My reading of the law is it would depend how much the signs cost. A payment made on behalf of a candidate counts as a donation to that candidate, and as far as I can tell this is true regardless of whether the money is paid back later or not. So the question is whether or not the amount comes in below the threshold that Cohen is allowed to donate to Trump for campaign purposes.

You’ve ignored the mixed motives question which is the whole ball of wax here.

According to the jury instructions, the way the law handles mixed motives is as follows:

Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.

Citing that as the law is fucking hilarious. Dude is a lowly biased state trial judge. Scalia made the comment that FECA is the most highly complex law that is hard for SCOTUS justices to parse.

So here we have a biased judge who never in his life had to look at this law (ie is a complete noob) and who is a trial judge in general (ie not appellate and therefore not probably the best person to articulate the law) in one of the hardest areas in US law, but you are citing his fucking jury instructions as if that sheds any light on the law? Especially when a former head of the FEC (appointed by Bill Clinton) is saying otherwise.

I don’t know if you are doing that because you are just naive here because you’re Australian or otherwise but it just shows such a lack of knowledge.

More comments

What about it being a loan from Cohen, instead of a donation? Does that work?

I don't think that makes a difference. Otherwise you would have a loophole where a billionaire supporter goes and "loans" his preferred candidate some enormous sum of money on "pay it back when you can (aka never)" terms.

A payment made on behalf of a candidate counts as a donation to that candidate

No. A payment made on the behalf of a campaign counts as a donation to that campaign. (This would be the case if the campaign reimbursed him from campaign funds.) Similarly, a payment made on behalf of a PAC counts as a donation to that PAC. (Again, this would be the case if a PAC reimbursed him from PAC funds.) This was a payment made on behalf of an individual, in his personal capacity. Please cite any statute or FEC interpretation that regulates this behavior as a criminal matter.

§30116(7)(B)(i):

expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate;

The context of that is that it is a campaign expenditure. You’ve stolen a base assuming it is a campaign expenditure.

You should read what Brad Smith wrote about mixed motives and campaign finance law. Your view seems to be that subjective intent matters but then you create a wholly ungovernable and dangerous scheme for candidates.

Imagine there is a debate coming up. Candidate wants to look sharp so goes to buy a new suit. Well his motive is to look good for campaign purposes so should he use campaign funds? If he does, then he opens himself up to claims that he improperly used funds to pay for the campaign because after the debate he still has this fancy suit (ie there is a mixed use).

Let’s say his proud mother buys the suit for him. Did they run into a campaign finance problem because subjectively it was for the benefit of the campaign? Or was it? Was it just a proud mom having affection for her son and proud of where he was?

Let’s say the candidate is friends with Person X. X regularly has lunches with Y and Z and routinely brings other interesting people to lunch. X brings along the candidate because he wants Y and Z to vote for him but also thinks the candidate is interesting and it would make for an enjoyable lunch. X pats for the expensive lunch. Campaign contribution? If so, does the candidate have to pay for brunch with campaign funds? Now you created jeopardy in that case.

All of these hypos show why mixed motive cases should not be policed because they create untenable and unknowable catch 22 situations for candidates. It is why Brad Smith believes the rules are bright line.

So I think, much like the Colorado case you got dreadfully wrong, you aren’t thinking about the havoc your interpretation of the rules would wrought. Once you think about that, then it becomes clear it can’t be what the system was intended to do.

To be clear, this isn’t a resurrection of the church of the holy trinity. But it is asking in dense texts with hard to understand meanings “does this interpretation create such a crazy system that we don’t think ambiguous phrases should be constructed to lead to such a crazy result.” That is, it is a clear statement principle somewhat similar to the major questions doctrine.

More comments

Ok, let's walk through a hypo to see why the FEC's guidance documents walk a tightrope between interpreting this in a way that lets them get at serious concerns and using this language in a more direct way that runs the risk of jeopardizing the entire edifice of the statute.

Let's say Trump pulled two crisp hundred dollar bills out of his pocket to buy a YUGE sign that he puts on his own lawn. Is that a "contribution to a candidate"? A "contribution to a campaign"? Reportable? Criminal?

More comments

The kind-of-arbitrary rule the system has somehow decided on is that you can limit contributions to candidates, but you can't limit people speaking their own mind. So you can donate unlimited money to a PAC but that PAC can't coordinate with the candidate.

So in the hypothetical where Cohen declared himself a PAC he would have violated election finance laws by coordinating his activities with Trump.

I thought the only thing that was illegal was that the campaign contribution was not reported. I didn't think the payment itself was illegal.

It seems like a bit of stretch to call this campaign contribution just because it makes him look good. Is them anything you do to make yourself look good a campaign contribution? Alao, reporting the contribution would defeat the purpose of the payment, which was to conceal information. Is it now illegal to conceal information about yourself to make yourself look good while running for election?

The big issues:

  • Cohen campaign finance violations were part of a plea bargain about some much more serious charges; on top of the normal limitations of using a plea bargain (or the National Inquirer non-prosecution agreement) as evidence, there's a unusually steep chance that Cohen plead to it whether or not it was a crime he actually committed rather than face much more serious charges and as part of his pivot to go after Trump. ((This is a pretty common issue in more normal criminal law, where prosecutors will hammer on whoever they think has the least spine to get a plea that implicates the people they're really after, whether or not any of them were breaking the law.))

  • The scientier requirements would normally require not just that Trump did something that concealed a crime, but that Trump be aware that he was concealing a crime; this is one of the few places in criminal law where ignorance of the law could well be a defense.

  • And it requires that Trump intend his false statements conceal that crime; if Trump believed no one was going to look at the records and care, than it couldn't be fraud.

  • There's also some messiness in that Cohen plead to a federal campaign finance charge. It's not clear that's what the jury (or part of the jury) considered the underlying crime, but if they did, this raises serious questions about whether a state can bootstrap a misdemeanor into a felony by relevance of a federal law. It's... not clear that's how that works.

  • There's a variety of other process issues, from whether judge's family's financial interests would justify a recusal (contrast), or whether Cohen's plea and testimony should have gotten more serious disclaimers given everything going on with them, to some goofiness about Wiesselberg being required to testify or plea the fifth.

((It's also very unclear Trump cutting Daniels a check would have avoided legal scrutiny, here; there are also federal laws against using campaign funds for personal expenses, and if Trump had written it down as a campaign expense, well, how do you know he was using his pot-of-money rather than the campaign-pot-of-money.))

Those are avenues for appeal, but they aren't all good avenues for appeal. Keep in mind that I haven't read a full trial transcript and my knowledge of the specific laws involved is limited to what I read in the news. To go one by one:

  • This isn't really an issue since Cohen testified. Even if an appellate court were to rule that the specific evidence of the plea bargain was inadmissible, the fact that Cohen outlined his actions in detail for the jury with the defense being given an opportunity to cross-examine likely puts this in the harmless error category. There is the fact that in New York they can't convict on accomplice testimony without corroboration, but the jury was properly instructed.
  • I'm not familiar with the specific scientier requirements in this case, but as long as the jury was properly instructed of them, an appellate court is loath to contradict their findings.
  • See above. It's another "the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove x" arguments that don't usually go anywhere. Again, I haven't read the full trial transcript, but as long as there was some reasonable basis for which the jury to reach their conclusion, an appellate court isn't going to set aside the verdict.
  • This goes back to the first point. Cohen plead guilty to a Federal charge. IIRC, there were state charges involved as well, and if his testimony implicated state law violations, the bootstrapping argument is moot.
  • The Appellate Division already ruled on the recusal issue, and I doubt the Court of Appeals will take up the issue. The Wiesselberg thing is moot because the defense didn't protect the record. If they had a problem with the prosecution relying on his statements without calling him they could have called him themselves. The fact that they didn't want him anywhere near that courtroom may be good trial strategy, but there are tradeoffs. I usually load up my witness lists with people I have absolutely no intention of actually calling for the simple reason that if things go sideways and the case goes to trial and some odd reason arises where I need to call them I don't want to get the "He wasn't on the list" argument from Plaintiff's counsel and deal with the subsequent malpractice suit.

For the interest of completeness, I have no idea whether Trump personally cutting a check would have avoided legal scrutiny, but the ambiguity doesn't really bother me, because I don't like the idea that someone trying to be President would blatantly hide information from voters. Hell, at least have the foresight to do it before you're actually running so there's no campaign money to speak of.

I think you're missing a lot of details specific to the case.

Even if an appellate court were to rule that the specific evidence of the plea bargain was inadmissible, the fact that Cohen outlined his actions in detail for the jury with the defense being given an opportunity to cross-examine likely puts this in the harmless error category.

Cohen testified, and was allowed to testify, at length not just on his actions, but that his actions violated federal law, while limiting the ability of the defense to cross-examine on matters of law. The latter is fair; the former is not harmless error.

I'm not familiar with the specific scientier requirements in this case, but as long as the jury was properly instructed of them, an appellate court is loath to contradict their findings.

Yes, if the jury were adequately instructed. The disclaimers here, like the curative instructions, might have been usable for the typical case, but they're woefully incomplete for one here. For the matter of "INTENT TO COMMIT OR CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME":

For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

Again, I haven't read the full trial transcript, but as long as there was some reasonable basis for which the jury to reach their conclusion, an appellate court isn't going to set aside the verdict.

There's some question about whether they are, but more seriously, the jury instructions did no adequately that jurors needed to find that the intent. Again, see above link.

Cohen plead guilty to a Federal charge. IIRC, there were state charges involved as well, and if his testimony implicated state law violations, the bootstrapping argument is moot.

The state campaign finance challenges were New York election law 17-152, which itself in turn requires an 'unlawful means'; there's no swappero between federal and state campaign finance laws for this conviction.

The underlying crime that the state theorized were some combination of federal campaign finance laws, state laws about false business records, and state tax record laws. If the jury convicted based on state tax record or false business record statutes... well, there are other issues, but it would avoid the federal question. But the judge did not require all jurors to record what theory they signed onto, or even to agree on what underlying theory; if even one juror convicted on the federal campaign finance laws, the issue remains relevant and is a reversible error.

And because the unlawful means must promote or prevent the election of a candidate to be usable for 17-152 (which neither internal business records no state tax records are likely to do), it's very plausible that the jurors convicted on a FECA theory.

The Appellate Division already ruled on the recusal issue, and I doubt the Court of Appeals will take up the issue.

I mean, I doubt the New York Appellate Division or Court of Appeals would take up any issue seriously.

The Wiesselberg thing is moot because the defense didn't protect the record. If they had a problem with the prosecution relying on his statements without calling him they could have called him themselves.

I think it's something more specific to the false tax records theory not having sufficient evidence for a jury to convict, and that Wiesselberg is out of the defense's control (as he's a) in Riker's and b) would almost certainly plead the fifth), but I'll admit it's definitely a less plausible matter and you're right that the defense avoided calling him more because he's a weasel and this would limit his utility in an appeal regardless of whether by strict precedent it 'should' matter.

I have no idea whether Trump personally cutting a check would have avoided legal scrutiny, but the ambiguity doesn't really bother me, because I don't like the idea that someone trying to be President would blatantly hide information from voters. Hell, at least have the foresight to do it before you're actually running so there's no campaign money to speak of.

That might be nice as normative matter, but as a descriptive one, the current sitting President coordinated with a large number of both intelligence agency spooks and tech companies to excise a negative story right before the last election. So there's your first problem.

But the more serious one is that we are supposed to live in a country of law, not a country of whatever laws someone can stretch to cover something kinda if you squint and have a really friendly judge and jury. You are not going to see a sudden outbreak of convictions for blatantly hiding information from voters, nor would any competent lawyer have informed people that it was illegal.

I didn't read the entire transcript, but I scanned Cohen's testimony, and I couldn't find any instances where he's asked to draw legal conclusions. The only thing approaching that that I could see, as you said in your initial comment, was that he admitted to having plead guilty to certain Federal crimes. The defense never challenged the admissibility of this testimony in general. They filed a motion in limine to prohibit the prosecution from using those pleas as evidence that the underlying crimes were committed, and they won that motion. The evidence of the pleas was admitted so that the jury could evaluate Cohen's credibility, and the judge gave a limiting instruction as soon as they came up. The defense's motion conceded that the plea evidence was admissible for that purpose. They never tried to get the evidence out entirely, and it wasn't in their interest to, either, because without the evidence of the pleas, it would seriously hinder their attempts to discredit Cohen. Given the limited nature of what Cohen actually testified to on direct, the prosecution probably wouldn't have even opposed a defense motion to keep the plea evidence out entirely, since the defense would have had much less to work with.

Beyond that, I don't want to get into too many details, but inadequate jury instructions and insufficiency of evidence are usually long shots when it comes to getting an appeals court to overturn a jury verdict. I argue in another post somewhere that intent (most of the time) doesn't require knowledge that the action is illegal. As for that last bit, it wasn't so much about hiding information from voters as it is hiding expenditures from voters. Laws requiring disclosures were created with the express intent of creating a certain transparency in election-related spending. I was reacting to the commenters here who were saying that Trump was in a kind of Catch-22 because there was no way he could have made the payment without drawing the scrutiny of the FEC. This clearly isn't true; if I were Trump's attorney I would have told him that if he wants to be completely safe he should pay it out of his personal funds and report it as a campaign expense. Alternatively, he could pay it out of his personal funds and not report it because unless it's obvious that sort of thing is rarely punished. Paying it out of campaign funds and reporting it isn't recommended but at least it makes it look like he's on the up and up. What I wouldn't tell him to do is to have a third party make the payments so they can't be traced to him, and then create phony documents to obfuscate the reimbursement.

The only thing approaching that that I could see, as you said in your initial comment, was that he admitted to having plead guilty to certain Federal crimes.

And that he hadn't lied about it, and that he was guilty of it, and so on. That's not saying 'x was a violation of Y statute", but it's obviously saying that 'x is a crime'.

They filed a motion in limine to prohibit the prosecution from using those pleas as evidence that the underlying crimes were committed, and they won that motion. The evidence of the pleas was admitted so that the jury could evaluate Cohen's credibility, and the judge gave a limiting instruction as soon as they came up.

I can't find any text of the actual request, but the 'limiting instruction' as delivered was just to say that the pleas do not "constitutes evidence of the defendant's guilt and you may not consider them in determining whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes". As a matter of law, it may not be sufficient problem to be reversible error -- SCOTUS caselaw on sufficiency of limiting instructions is thin and messy -- but the pretense that the prosecutors were bringing it up to evaluate Cohen's credibility, rather than to show that there was a FECA violation for Trump to have hidden, doesn't pass the sniff test, and it's not a small part of the trial.

I argue in another post somewhere that intent (most of the time) doesn't require knowledge that the action is illegal.

"(most of the time)" is doing a lot of work, here. The law generally does not require that you know the specific text of the law you're violating, but even that has its exceptions. When the law prohibits 'doing illegal things' the exceptions grow: Liparota is the standard example, here, where a statute about "knowingly uses... in any manner not authorized by [the statute] or the regulations" required the defendant to be shown to know it was actually not authorized, even though that was strictly a question of law. And that has applied in business records cases, such as Ratzlaf most famously Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States.

Now, the statute in Liparota made clear that it required a high level of mens rea, where (unsurprisingly, given the different ages of the statutes and models for state law) the New York statutes are more vague. But, under both federal law and New York law, where no specific level of mens rea is in the statute does not automatically produce a strict liability crime, either! And in this case, the stapling-together of various statutes only elevates the normal concerns.

To be clear, the motion in limine never asked the court to preclude all testimony relating to Cohen's guilty plea. It only asked to prohibited the prosecution from arguing that it was evidence of a violation. The defense even made it clear in their motion that they intended to ask Cohen about his convictions on cross. The defense never claimed the limiting instruction was insufficient. I don't see anything here for an appellate court to work with.

As for your second argument, I wasn't trying to argue that this is a strict liability crime! I was simply trying tease out the general principle that "intent" isn't necessarily as specific as some seemed to think it was , partially due to confusion between the FECA requirements and the requirements of the law Trump is actually being prosecuted for. I'm not going to reproduce the jury instructions here, but they go in at some length about what constitutes intent for the purpose of the New York statue. Bringing up cases from a different jurisdiction that involve a different standard don't do much to bolster arguments about intent requirements in this case. In any event, I can't find anything in the pleadings to suggest that the Defense ever raised this issue or had any problem with the jury instructions that were ultimately given.

I think the ultimate problem here is that the jury came to a conclusion some people disagree with. You don't think Trump had the requisite intent? That's fine, but the jury heard the evidence presented and came to a different conclusion. It's okay to disagree, but thinking the jury got it wrong isn't grounds for an appeal.

I mean, I've quoted -- in this very thread, just a couple comments up! -- those same jury instructions. It's not like the FECA part is better, and both the jury instructions and trial transcript point out the fine details of the terms for that, either.

I think I've made it very clear that I'm arguing about the law, not the jury's determinations on facts. I get that you're trying to juggle a lot of conversations, here, but just repeatedly asserting that the question of intent papers over any questions of what the law does or can prohibit this way isn't very compelling or engaging well with my claims.

More comments

A few responses:

  1. The issue is the defense objected to allowing Cohen to even discuss his campaign violation plea. The prosecution wanted it in to impeach their own witness. Of course, the real reason was to imply “yes, there was a FECA crime” and that is surely super prejudicial despite the curing instructions. This is all the more galling when the court wouldn’t allow Trump to even offer up the evidence that the DOJ and FEC looked at this case and determined not to bring any civil or criminal charges. That would’ve truly cured the fake i peach meant but it would put a lie to the whole trial.

By the way, the whole thing was made worse by the prosecution stating in closing that it was a fact that Trump committed a campaign finance violation. You put all of that together and it sure looks like reversible error to me.

  1. Re scienter there is not a single piece of testimony that Trump even thought about FECA violations. There was testimony that he thought about the election and wanted the payment for the election (which the prosecution argued and the judge accepted—probably incorrectly—as a campaign finance violation) but literally zero that he wanted the books a certain way to cover up the campaign issue. That is fatal because the government has the burden and it proffered to my knowledge zero evidence.

  2. The bootstrapping point is not moot. The “unlawful means” appears to be a FECA violation IN THIS CASE. That means effectively Trump was convicted because NY law prohibits false bookkeeping if it was intended to cover up federal election law rules. That is…far from obvious.

If Trump paid back Cohen, then Cohen no longer made a campaign contribution since he was acting as Trump’s agent… it also isn’t close to clear that cohen made a campaign contribution

It seems really weird you are arguing Trump exposed himself to criminal liability to try to help Cohen…

Also you have zero evidence connecting Trump to this scheme except the partial testimony of Cohen (he doesn’t even testify to all needed elements) with no corroboration. So you are using the word of a serial perjurer to send someone potentially to jail.

If Trump paid back Cohen, then Cohen no longer made a campaign contribution since he was acting as Trump’s agent… it also isn’t close to clear that cohen made a campaign contribution

This is not how the FEC understands campaign contributions:

Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

Now, a campaign can transform an in-kind contribution into an operating expense by reimbursing the person making the in-kind contribution, but the Trump campaign never did that. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump organization instead.

It seems really weird you are arguing Trump exposed himself to criminal liability to try to help Cohen…

I mean, it helped himself too. Otherwise Daniel (or Cohen) might have gone public much earlier to unknown effect.

Also you have zero evidence connecting Trump to this scheme except the partial testimony of Cohen (he doesn’t even testify to all needed elements) with no corroboration. So you are using the word of a serial perjurer to send someone potentially to jail.

This is not correct. Trump himself signed some of the reimbursement checks to Cohen.

This is not how the FEC understands campaign contributions:

We could have had testimony on how the FEC understands these things, but Judge Merchan explicitly ruled that Brad Smith couldn't testify to anything substantive on that front, because allegedly only the Court had jurisdiction to rule on legal interpretations like the meaning of statutes and regulations - even ones outside the Court's proper jurisdiction, apparently.

Except for you know allowing Cohen to offer testimony on it.

I will respond to the others when I have time but with the latter signing a check is not the same as saying Trump had a scheme to book things a certain way because they were worried about campaign finance laws. All it says is that Trump agreed to pay money to Cohen presumably in part as reimbursement.

It doesn’t at all go to scheme.

It means that Trump knew about the reimbursement Cohen. Coming from his business. And presumably how it was booked. If there was also no retainer or other legal work Cohen had done (and Trump knew that) it goes to his intent to commit fraud.

See you use words like “presumably.” There is zero evidence of Trump knowing how or why it was booked a certain way. You are making a leap.

And Trump is saying Cohen worked for years on an oral retainer. No evidence to the contrary to my knowledge.

And again none of that goes to the point that that says zero about Trump’s intent to commit the predicate.

1)There was a person at the trial who could have provided insight on Trump's intent - Donald Trump. He and his defence team elected not to have him testify.

2)When you sign cheques, you are responsible for understanding where you are sending the money.

Okay. You don’t believe in civil liberties. Got it. You also don’t believe in the burden of proof.

(3) concealing another crime

Nope. There's no other crime being concealed. That someone somewhere plead guilty to a non-crime as part of a package deal rather than vigorously defend the position that it was a non-crime in the courts (where they would have won) does not actually make it a crime. You still need to show that it's a crime, but that's going to run into serious legal theory problems, not least of which includes the first amendment. This result is remarkably easy to see if you've spent any time reading the Supreme Court's first amendment/campaign finance cases.

This will... eventually... come back on appeal to the courts that actually give a shit about legal theory. It is unlikely to come back before the election, so perhaps the damage to democracy is irrevocably done.

I mean, maybe there's an argument Michael Cohen could have made that his conduct was not criminal, that the statute criminalizing it was unconstitutional. I am skeptical any court is going to get into that matter separately.

But again, whatever happens/happened with Michael Cohen's legal case is completely irrelevant for Donald Trump's legal case. When Donald Trump appeals his conviction, specifically on the grounds that there was no other crime being concealed, the courts will get into that issue. There is nothing "separate" about it.

I guess I'm wondering what this looks like. Is the idea that the NY prosecutor is going to have prove Cohen guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Skeptical that's the actual standard.

No. Donald Trump says, "That's not a crime," and when they check how it is possible for the mostly uncontested facts to comprise a campaign finance crime, they will see that it is, in fact, not a crime. Like, have you ever read an appellate decision? ...have you ever read one where they do this sort of thing? Where it's like, "Yeah, this is what happened, and that is what the law says, but if we're going to read this law in any way that comports with the Constitution, it cannot possibly make this set of facts a crime." This happens regularly, even in the circuit courts. Maybe even just start with Citizens United. It has the campaign finance/first amendment angle, too. The court was definitely all, "Yeah, this is not a crime."

But Citizens United was about whether those particular defendants had committed a crime. The analogy is Cohen appealing his conviction. What's the citation for a case where some person A is appealing their conviction and a court decides some other person B has not committed a crime they pleaded guilty to?

The court doesn't have to decide anything about Person B's case. For the third time, Cohen's case has nothing to do with it. They have to decide whether the underlying facts comprise a crime, for Trump's case. Cohen's plea is literally the least persuasive authority possible for whether it is a crime. It would be slightly more persuasive if he was convicted at trial, but that's still nowhere near binding on the appeals courts. If Cohen had appealed his case on the grounds that it's a non-crime, and the appeals court in question ruled that it was, after all, a crime, that would be significantly more persuasive, but not binding unless it was the same appeals court. And of course, Trump's case could go all the way to SCOTUS, which means that unless Cohen had vigorously protested on his own that it was, indeed, a non-crime all the way to SCOTUS, himself, and then had them tell him that it was actually a crime, they can do the same damn thing they've done in many cases and just say, "Nah, dawg, that ain't a crime."

Cohen's plea has literally nothing to do with it, and no court has to decide anything about Cohen's legal situation.

More comments

But your theory of the case is that Trump conspired to his Cohen’s guilt. That wasn’t what the government argued and honestly itself is not shown by the facts.

No, they'll consider the issue already decided by Cohen's plea, and not subject to re-litigation by Trump. The legal system is full of sneaky little gotchas like that.

I find this utterly implausible. For the record, I find it completely plausible that various courts could find some way to rule against Trump, but this one will simply not be there. Higher courts know that there are plenty (not in percentage terms) of people who are in prison for non-crimes, especially as parts of plea deals, that would be found to be non-crimes if contested appropriately. It would be one thing if Donald Trump had plead guilty to the requisite non-crime; I could absolutely see a court viewing that as settling the matter. But I cannot possibly believe that someone else pleading guilty to a non-crime settles the matter in the case in front of them. In fact, I imagine the court records are full of people appealing (some successfully) their convictions for things that are non-crimes, even though they had accomplices who plead guilty to those very same non-crimes. I challenge you to find me one example of a court simply rejecting any possibility of such an appeal based solely on a third party's plea agreement.

making an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign by paying Stormy Daniels

Why is paying Stormy Daniels a campaign contribution? Why doed Cohen pleading guilty prove Trump committed a crime too?

Trump reimbursed Cohen for that payment to Stormy Daniels (in furtherance of Cohen's crime) from one of his businesses.

So we have (1) business records that were (2) falsified for the purpose of (3) concealing another crime.

Please note that campaign finance violations are the FEC's wheelhouse and they neglected to pursue charges because no crime occurred. Besides, this is circular reasoning: Trump committed a crime because Cohen committed a crime because Trump committed a crime. Under this logic, any politician who has ever paid to bury a story has committed a crime.

According to Cohen's testimony

That's another thing, Cohen is a perjurer and also admitted to stealing money from Trump on these checks -- apparently, according to Cohen's story, Trump knew intimately the details of the money given to Stormy Daniels, but not that intimately!

Instead Cohen commits several crimes to pay Daniels and then Trump commits several crimes to reimburse Cohen. There was a less criminal way to do this!

Right, that's the thing: this is a totally normal thing that happens to powerful people all the time, only New York blew it up to try to make it a get Trump case. There is no case here.

Why is paying Stormy Daniels a campaign contribution?

Because the purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign. According to the FEC

Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

...

Why doed Cohen pleading guilty prove Trump committed a crime too?

Perhaps I have not followed the trial closely enough but it is not clear to me, from reading the actual NY law at issue, that the crime being covered up has to also have been committed by the person doing the covering up. If A enters false business records to cover up B's crime it seems to me that would be covered. It does not seem to be required that A's false business records cover up A's own crime, but I could be wrong about that.

Please note that campaign finance violations are the FEC's wheelhouse and they neglected to pursue charges because no crime occurred. Besides, this is circular reasoning: Trump committed a crime because Cohen committed a crime because Trump committed a crime. Under this logic, any politician who has ever paid to bury a story has committed a crime.

This is not correct. Cohen committed a crime (an illegal campaign contribution) and then Trump committed a crime (falsifying business records) to cover up Cohen's crime. As I note in my comment if Trump had paid Daniels himself it likely would not have been a crime, because candidates are allowed to spend as much as they want on their own campaigns.

Right, that's the thing: this is a totally normal thing that happens to powerful people all the time, only New York blew it up to try to make it a get Trump case. There is no case here.

I think that depends on what you mean by "this." I do not think it is that common that powerful people get their lawyers to commit bank fraud and FEC violations to help them get elected, then commit further crimes to try and cover it up. Heck, if Trump had paid Cohen back out of his own pocket (rather than his business) that probably wouldn't have been a crime either! Or at least it wouldn't have been this crime.

There is no IRS claim here. If he recorded this as a business expense instead of a personal expense then there would be tax implications. No such case exists.

Honestly the lack of a tax charge is completely confusing me on what he was misrecording.

The fact the FEC reviewed this and said no crime also seems like a big issue for NY to say a crime occurred.

It does seem like there ought to be further tax charges, under either NY or federal law. Not sure what you mean with the FEC review. The FEC definitely thought Cohen committed a crime but I don't think there's an allegation that Trump's conduct was an FEC-enforceable violation.

Then why didn’t the FEC charge Cohen? The underlying crime which makes what someone wrote in excel a felony is that there is an underlying crime.

That crime is under the jurisdiction of the FEC. They never charged anyone.

Because he pleaded guilty? You can read all about the FEC violations he committed in the contemporaneous DOJ release. What was left to charge him for?

This isnt really accurate. He was being investigated for tax fraud and they threw it in (basically working with a Clinton attorney) as part of the plea.

More comments

I think that depends on what you mean by "this." I do not think it is that common that powerful people get their lawyers to commit bank fraud and FEC violations to help them get elected, then commit further crimes to try and cover it up.

You don't think that powerful people cover up crimes all the time? I think this is incredibly naive, in an age when regulatory choke means everyone is breaking technicalities all the time.

Moreover: this is an extremely dubious technicality. Your argument is that Trump definiteky committed a crime which wouldn't have been a crime if he'd made one simple bookkeeping change. This is really your idea of a slam-dunk solid case of crime?

Yes. Lots of things can be a crime if entity A does them but not if entity B does them. If Trump had paid Daniels (and maybe Cohen) out of his own pocket there would have been no crime. The crime is entirely in how he went about it.

Then when Hillary and the attorneys at Perkins all get convicted of the same thing over the Russiagate dossier then I'll update as this is legitimate.

Hillary Clinton was fined 100k for improperly reporting expenses on the dossier as legal expenses.

That's my point. Business as usual is fining a campaign some token amount years after the election.

Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month

If either Trump's 2016 Campaign or 2020 Campaign organizations were similarly fined no one would be up in arms. When she and the attornies who assisted her in that are all personally convicted on criminal charges that's an indication of similar treatment.

I really would like to through and prosecute everyone and their attorneys whose been given a misreporting campaign expenses fine with criminal fraud charges. Would go a long way to actually draining the swamp.

More comments

Yes, a fine is the typical response to misclassifying campaign expenses, not a felony.

More comments

This is crazy! Why would Trump go out of his way to do things the illegal way if it were already legal? Apparently, Michael Cohen paying something on Trump's behalf becomes a campaign contribution, which means Trump paying Cohen back becomes cover-up. That's ridiculous!

That's not a serious legal theory, which is why it's never been used on anybody before now. That's the rationalization made up to explain why Trump was guilty. If it weren't that, it would have been something else.

This is crazy! Why would Trump go out of his way to do things the illegal way if it were already legal?

Part of the problem with this whole thing is assigning intent to a guy who seems to wing it on instinct and never really bothers to do due dilligence to make sure he's doing things the proper way -- and who hires shitty, sleazy lawyers who are also incompetent at covering the legal bases. Trump is sloppy. Contrary to the memes, he's barely playing 1-D Chess. He follows the straight line from his desires to his ego. It's entirely possible given his apparent modus operandi that no one thought to check if there were any legal issues with anything related to the FEC or any other set of regulations, and "legal services" was written on the checks because Cohen was a lawyer, making anything he does "legal services."

I don't doubt that Trump is guilty of hundreds (if not more) of compliance violations, because he generally holds all rules and official processes in contempt. Felony convictions for details he likely never bothered to consider or understand seems harsh; but it does make a good case for why political parties should screen their candidates with a more serious sense of purpose.

But that’s the entire point. You needed to do it with an intent to defraud and commit another crime. If he wasn’t thinking at all about that, then that is proof he didn’t commit the crime.

The prosecution has to argue he was thinking about it, there was in fact a legal method, and Trump was like “fuck that, I want the criminal way. Leeeeeeeroy Jenkins.” That just isn’t reasonable.

More comments

If Trump were really sloppy as you allege, prosecutors would have been able to find more serious charges to bring against him. Ten years of political spotlight and they can only get him on charges that have literally never been used against anyone ever before. You don't doubt that he's guilty of hundreds of similar crimes? Then why haven't they brought anything forward? That's the sloppy thinking here.

More comments

Because the purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign.

According to who? The prosecution?

This is a novel argument: personal money you spend on personal causes makes you a better candidate, so it counts as a campaign contribution! There is no limiting principle here, because it's a silly argument that has never been used before. Even your quotation of the SEC shows the distinction: according to the prosecution, the payment wasn't made by Trump's campaign but by Trump himself.

According to who? The prosecution?

The prosecution, yes, but also according to Cohen, Packard, and others who were negotiating the deal at the time.

This is a novel argument: personal money you spend on personal causes makes you a better candidate, so it counts as a campaign contribution! There is no limiting principle here, because it's a silly argument that has never been used before. Even your quotation of the SEC shows the distinction: according to the prosecution, the payment wasn't made by Trump's campaign but by Trump himself.

Let's not get confused. There are two payments here. Cohen's payment to Daniels was an unlawful campaign contribution by the FEC definition. It exceeded the allowed limits and was made on behalf of and in coordination with the candidate. If Trump had made that payment himself it would not be a crime because he can spend as much as he wants on his own campaign. Trump's payments to Cohen may also not have been problematic if Trump made them directly, but he paid them through his business instead and lied about what they were for.

You have the basic factual problem that both Stormy and Cohen have coronated that Stormy’s story was shut down in 2011 putting a lie to Cohen’s belief that it was solely about the campaign. Indeed Cohen’s evidence (if you believe that POS) was that Trump didn’t give a shit if Mrs. Trump found it therefore he only cared about the campaign. Cohen seems to think it is binary. But maybe Trump would care about how his son with Mrs Trump would care? Maybe Trump was bluffing about Mrs Trump to not appear pussy whipped?

Paying off a mistress sounds like a fairly normal thing for a private banker or rich guys personal fixer.

So does paying a grifter to go away if they sign an NDA with a huge clawback clause.

It was tried once before re John Edwards. It was crushed and everyone moved on. It is why Brad Smith was willing to testify.

John Edwards was accused of the opposite, using campaign funds for his personal needs. That happens sometimes and politicians do occasionally get convicted for it. That's what makes the Trump case so egregious.

His mortgage on his primary residence counts as a campaign contribution because people are less likely to vote for a homeless person. /S

Because the purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign.

I still haven't seen a decent theory for why this payment is specifically for the campaign, while it would seemingly be perfectly legal any other day of the week for a Totally Upstanding Well-Known Businessperson and Public Figure.

Is it shady? Absolutely, but "running for office limits your otherwise-available personal publicity campaigning" seems a bit questionable under the generally-favored strict scrutiny for free speech questions. Which is part of why Citizens United came down the way it did: the government claimed then-extant election funding rules allowed them to ban books.

I still haven't seen a decent theory for why this payment is specifically for the campaign, while it would seemingly be perfectly legal any other day of the week for a Totally Upstanding Well-Known Businessperson and Public Figure.

My understanding is that the motivation for it was specifically the impact it could have on voters, especially so close to the election (the payment was in late October). Rather than some general concern about Trump's image. I believe this specific concern is memorialized in contemporaneous communication by Cohen, Packard, and others.

Is it shady? Absolutely, but "running for office limits your otherwise-available personal publicity campaigning" seems a bit questionable under the generally-favored strict scrutiny for free speech questions. Which is part of why Citizens United came down the way it did: the government claimed then-extant election funding rules allowed them to ban books.

As I mention in my original comment the manner in which Trump went about it is probably the whole issue. If he had decided to pay off Daniels out of his own funds there is probably no crime.

Isn’t the big problem for you that Trump seemed to try to keep this from coming out in 2011! That proves his motivation was not solely for the campaign.

And even then, see Brad Smith’s view on campaign contributions (ie he believes per se it isn’t a campaign contribution)

His motivation doesn't have to be solely the campaign for it to be a campaign contribution. If Cohen made a campaign expenditure on behalf of or in coordination with a campaign, then it was a campaign contribution.

Brad Smith former FEC chairmen appointed by Clinton explained that campaign expenses are things that a person (not the candidate) would only spend on an election (eg polls, fees directly related to the campaign). It would not include things like a nice suit even if the candidate purchased it solely with campaign in mind.

At best the law here is very convoluted. But we are to believe Trump and Cohen connected this scheme to try to keep Cohen out of hot water that may or may not exist even though Cohen didn’t testify “Trump did it for that reason.” Literally zero evidence on that point meaning per se the prosecution loses. But it doesn’t bother you?

If it was so straightforward, how were there 34 separate charges?

But that's besides the point. I honestly don't know or care if he's guilty. The bigger issue is the political motivation of the trial. No one really believes that Trump would be prosecuted if he wasn't Trump. Biden is no doubt guilty of many felonies himself. The Clintons are as well. Yet they have not been prosecuted and for good reason. It is destabilizing. And even though Trump is being hoisted on his own petard here (lock her up!), it's still wrong to use the legal system to persecute your political enemies.

Political show trials are a feature of corrupt Latin American democracies. It's not a good sign that they have come to the U.S.

Is being someone's political enemy supposed to make you immune to the legal system?

Bob Menendez clearly hasn't made enough enemies.

Honestly, I'd be great with applying the Trump standard to EVERYONE in Washington DC for a few decades.

Biden is no doubt guilty of many felonies himself. The Clintons have as well. Yet they have not been prosecuted and for good reason.

Uhh, those are some bold statements. Bill did get himself impeached for lying about his affair.

Trump has flagrantly played fast/loose with the law for years. He literally refused to cooperate when the feds said “please give the classified documents back.” His brazen approach was going to catch up with him.

Because Trump paid Cohen in 11 checks, in response to 11 invoices from Cohen, which generated 12 ledger entries in Trump's business. Each fraudulent record is a separate charge.

This verdict will likely galvanize voters come November – leading to record turnout among Republicans. I might even vote for the old rascal myself as I view this lawfare as both morally wrong and deeply destabilizing.

Prediction: it won't. Everybody who thinks Trump is being unfairly persecuted was already going to vote for Trump. Grillo-centrists have never heard the term 'lawfare' and will react to news that a politician got convicted of financial misconduct with "sounds about right".

To make a prediction closer to home, we're now certain to cross 1000 posts on the weekly thread.

Prediction: the mods will quarantine it in a separate thread.

Guilty verdict's not a huge surprise: even before the trial started, the best Trump could really hope for was a hung jury.

Sentencing is set for July 11th (hilariously, less than a week before the RNC). There's a lot of procedural messiness here -- even by the low standards of state trials, this was a clown show, and that's before you get to the Biden campaign (!) sending Robert DeNero(?!) to argue for conviction in front of the courthouse -- but appeal is going to be a clusterfuck just as a matter of timing. Trying to get an appeal in the four months between sentencing and the election is unlikely, the first two levels of appeal will still be dealing with New York judges, SCOTUS doesn't like taking appeals directly from a trial court (might do it anyway?), and even if everything lines up perfectly, most avenues for success on appeal still only kicks the case back down.

In the short term, it's not really clear that appeal matters. Given the Carrol verdict being reported as Trump being 'found guilty of rape', I dunno that many people even considering voting for Trump will care that he's a felon; anyone who does won't care or notice about a technical appeal remand a month before the election. Republican bloodlust for lawfare aren't going to be sated, whether Trump wins or loses, by an admission of legal oopsie, whether before or after the election. Supposedly there's an array of moderates that will "kick and scream and shake my fist impotently at the sky before casting a meaningless vote against" Biden in the case of continued escalation, but I'm not holding my breath. I guess if Trump loses by anything less than an absolute landslide and the conviction is overturned after the election (or worse, after January 20th!), it'll radicalize people more?

Yay?

Longer-term... this is gonna get messy. There is very little argument to Republicans against goose-for-gander here, and while professional Democratics think they're much less vulnerable to criminal lawfare (and that the Republicans that were get elected won't be willing to risk it), whatever extent that's true today, it's not going to stay that way for long: there's no way someone can campaign against the platform of going against various scuzzy Dems. And while Dem politicians are sure that they can avoid stepping into Texas, the phrase 'conspiracy jurisdiction' is going to become Very Interesting in the next five or six years.

There is very little argument to Republicans against goose-for-gander here,

Except the only one needed — it won't work. Because they lack the power of the left, lack the means to strike back. It's like arguing that an unarmed man being shot at should "shoot back" at his attacker with the gun he doesn't have.

The Dems have all the power, all the institutions. We on the right are an already-defeated remnant, doomed to feeble, pointless lashing out as we go to our inevitable doom.

(Maybe it would be better to just spare ourselves the suffering and end it all, like the equally-doomed Sicarii at Masada.)

That's an argument that it will not win; it's not an argument against doing it. Indeed, if actually sure you're really doomed, a lot of arguments against escalation -- what happens with the next step on the wheel, what if we could delay or bargain -- become a lot less compelling. Even doomed lashing out can be expensive, and there's a lot of self-defense arguments about how dangerous 'unarmed' people can be.

I don't think we're there, yet, though I'll admit the last week has not been encouraging.

That's an argument that it will not win; it's not an argument against doing it.

So, what, does the unarmed man of my analogy point his finger and shout "pew, pew" then?

Trump’s preferred AG is literally Ken Paxton.

Suffice to say, if he’s re-elected, things could get interesting for democrats real fast.

Suffice to say, if he’s re-elected,

Except this has now guaranteed that won't happen.

things could get interesting for democrats real fast.

How so? An Attorney General is only one man; how much could he do with the entire rest of the Justice Department (and probably much of the court system) actively opposing him?

Venue shopping, high level personnel replacements, etc are games that two can play at. Legal personnel might lean blue, but it’s not like the pool of conservative talent is literally zero.

And a nakedly political prosecution isn’t going to stop people from voting trump. The ‘but he’s a convicted felon’ brigade wasn’t going to vote for him anyways.

Venue shopping, high level personnel replacements, etc are games that two can play at.

I dispute this. When the opposing team is cheating, trying to "cheat back" does no good when the referees are on the opposing team's side.

And a nakedly political prosecution isn’t going to stop people from voting trump. The ‘but he’s a convicted felon’ brigade wasn’t going to vote for him anyways.

Again, Ted Stevens says otherwise. And even after Stevens's conviction was overturned on appeal, that just changed some people's views from "convicted felon corrupt politician" to "convicted felon corrupt politician who 'got off on a technicality.'"

(Indeed, that's how some people view the entire appeals process — "overturned on appeal" = "scumbag who got lawyers to get him off on a technicality," and if a person were really innocent, they'd never have been convicted in the first place. At least for some, it seems to come down to a mental model of systems accuracy wherein a system can only ever err "on one side" or "on the other" — that is, it either produces only false positives, or only false negatives, never both. And since guilty people obviously go free quite often — that whole "better ten guilty men go free" — thus our justice system is "too lax" — makes false negatives — and so cannot simultaneously be "too harsh" and convict innocents.)

To make a prediction closer to home, we're now certain to cross 1000 posts on the weekly thread.

Damn the numbers have fallen. I remember times when the thread would cross 1000 comments by Tuesday morning.

Some of our best people like TracingWoodgrains (who is apparently a furry) and Kulak (who is apparently a very attractive woman? wtf) are now posting on twitter for Muskbucks and some like Hlynka have just been banned by overzealous overlords seeking to 'guide' the community

Kulak is a man.

Kulak is not a woman. I think he's trying very hard to create a fake woman thirst trap persona.

It's entirely possible their onlyfans preview pics are AI

But if not, they're either a man with a top notch boob job and naturally pretty feet (also entirely possible) or a woman

Kulak wrote a long essay about why Supreme Commander Forged Alliance was the greatest RTS ever made. On pure probabilities, interest in niche decade-old RTS games has to be amongst the most manly topics. Just look at his twitter and substack: war, evolutionary psychology, Hitler, motorcycles and libertarianism!

I think he hired a chick to play him and terribly read his scripts.

Listen to him on a bailey podcast episode from back in 2020: https://thebaileypodcast.substack.com/p/e016-the-banality-of-catgirls-f65

He has claimed that he used to use a voice modulator to sound male to prove that "she" could make it without being a thirst trap. But that's just track covering. 2020 is before Kulak was down this influencer wanna be rabbit hole and that's just a dudes voice. And it has absolutely no resemblance in cadence or speech patterns to "girl" kulak

Also, no woman ever wrote like Kulak writes ever.

He has literally recruited an OnlyFans model to pose for pictures that he then passes off as himself on Twitter. Kulak himself looks nothing like this woman.

That is the funniest possible possibility, and had not even occurred to me. So the gal in the onlyfans is like a billboard?

She’s partially a billboard/catfish to try and pull in gullible Twitter/Substack subscribers looking to interact with a “right-wing e-girl” and partially just a prop for an extended bit he’s engaged in for his own amusement (and possible self-closeted autogynephilia).

I was under the impression that Kulak, like most people with avatars of attractive women online, is actually a man.

Very well may be, but kudos to the tit doctors if so because s/he has a fantastic rack

Like that hot girl who keeps asking for money, one suspects his pictures are not real.

Kulak (who is apparently a very attractive woman? wtf)

Wait, what? This would shock me if true.

First time I ever opened an onlyfans link in my life just because of the shock

https://onlyfans.com/adelynmoore

I’ve heard his voice before on the podcasts, he’s clearly a spergy man (like most of us here.).

Thank God. My world model can sustain many shocks, but Kulak being a woman would require me to start over from scratch.

I left because I was tired of being downvoted for expressing doubt about Trump. There is groupthink here and it's not necessarily good.

  • -11

From Maxium Lott on Twitter

Very interesting betting market situation... PredictIt, Betfair, Smarkets all moved significantly after conviction (Trump fell several percent.) But crypto traders at Polymarket haven't moved. Suggests diff world models on diff exchanges.

This verdict will likely galvanize voters come November – leading to record turnout among Republicans.

That would be nice, but, I'm not holding my breath.

I view this lawfare as both morally wrong and deeply destabilizing.

I do too. But not everyone thinks the way we do. A lot of people don't care at all (or at least, they don't care beyond whatever their personal opinion of Trump is).

I'm planning a post that touches on the notion of people acting on principle vs people acting out of raw personal interest, and this topic dovetails nicely with that. Sometimes people really do act on pure principle alone, even though that can be difficult to recognize when their principles are foreign to you. But there's two sides to that. Sometimes they don't act on principle - sometimes they just act on self interest, or vindictiveness, or whatever. And it can be segmented from issue to issue - someone can have sincerely held convictions on one question and complete indifference towards another.

How many average people off the street actually have a sincerely held stance on the injustice of overt political lawfare? I don't know. Probably not that many. I wouldn't want to wager any serious stakes on it.

How can you tell the difference between overt political lawfare and the conviction of a felon by a jury of peers?

Wouldn't the assumption that any criminal punishment of a political candidate be considered 'lawfare' make it impossible to punish criminal politicians?

  • -12

I'd say that when the incumbent prosecutor's election campaign was run on the basis of his experience going after that same candidate as part of a highly-politicized state AG's office, you have a pretty big tell that subsequent cases are more likely to be lawfare than legitimate.

Yes, the prosecutor ran on getting Trump and then went and did it. But none of that is relevant to the court system; the courts assume the integrity of the prosecutors and of the lower courts, and arguing that they lack integrity is a losing argument (even it it doesn't get you a contempt citation, which it might)

Yes, I’ll bite the bullet and say that the leading candidates for major office shouldn’t be prosecuted for procedural crimes.

How can you tell the difference between overt political lawfare and the conviction of a felon by a jury of peers?

It'd be nice to start with :

  • A law that is regularly and consistently applied, in this context, against normal people, for this level of sentence.

  • A judge that either does not have a record of donating significantly to the political opponent of That Politician, and does not have immediate family who fundraise against That Politician Specifically.

  • A prosecutor that did not campaign on finding the crime for the man.

That's circumstantial evidence of bias.

This is why it's important that they convinced 12 jury members.

I trust the jury to make the right decision, and they convicted Trump of felonies because he's a criminal.

That's interesting, I just got this notification around June 1 23:00 EDT.

The actual post you made, not so interesting. Is this supposed to even be a response to or defense of the question you sent to start? Or is it just the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club, and no conviction by a jury could possibly be overt political lawfare?

A great day, showing that even the President is not above the law in the United States of America.

  • -18

Trump isn't the President, though. Ex-Presidents being convicted of crimes prove only the alternative statement "either the system is impartial or those currently in power don't like the ex-President" - but since we know the latter half of that is true, it doesn't prove anything.

Loyal Soviets said the same thing as they sent former commissars to the gallows.

We should never celebrate a kangaroo court, even if they give us the outcome we desire. Surely everyone, even former Presidents, deserves due process. The prosecutor and judge were both vocal political enemies of Trump.

Trump declares anyone who does anything he finds vaguely annoying to be a political enemy.

He accused Ted Cruz's dad of killing JFK.

Guess he'll have to default on the debate if he's under house arrest.

Dark day. There will be nothing more destabilizing for democracy and American government than making every president a Caesar who either crosses the Rubicon or dies in jail.

Trump will win on appeal and this case is such nonsense it will boost his election prospects. But the precedent is set and we will reap it someday.

There will be nothing more destabilizing for democracy and American government than making every president a Caesar who either crosses the Rubicon or dies in jail.

Why would a Democrat president need to worry about "dying in jail" under his Democrat successor? And you won't have to worry about a Republican president becoming a Caesar to avoid that fate when there's never going to be another Republican president.

Permanent Dem rule is here. There is no lawful, nor even non-violent, path left for Red Tribe. And I've expressed my doubts about the effectiveness of violent measures, so, once again, I conclude we're doomed.

How will he win on appeal? The NY courts are against him (or they would have stopped a lot of this stuff with interlocutory appeals) and there's no substantial Federal question.

It seems to me that it is better to set a precedent that criminals get convicted of crimes over a precedent that politicians cannot be convicted of crimes.

  • -21

American politicians get convicted of crimes all the time. Convicting governors is my home state's official pastime. Convicting Trump is not a red line except in the eyes of Trumpists.

  • -13

Probably not a bad time for a gut check about if you have similar feelings toward the "Trumpists" as the Spaniards did toward people who thought Franco wasn't an asshole for trying to stop the communists from taking over

Just sayin

Can you clarify what you mean? I don't really see the connection between Trump's crimes and the Spanish Civil War.

You bet, that is not unsurprising, and was kind of my point

You stated blandly that 'convicting governors' was your 'home state's official pastime'

Okay? Even in America which is the best country ever, most things have still kind of sucked most of the time. Governors are corrupt. Elections get stolen. Stuff happens

But there's a difference between those 'normal' things and taking the president to Rikers Island in chains to be strip searched. At some point, sometimes, someone does go too far and break the norms. And even though things have always kind of sucked most of the time, that destruction of norms can sometimes introduce profound change to an otherwise stable environment. And you get something like the Spanish Civil War

But isn’t it worse when innocent politicians are convicted of political crimes?

Trump was convicted by a jury of our peers. I trust their judgment. He's guilty.

He's a guilty politician convicted of a crime. A felony.

He's a convicted felon.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

  • -43

Ok, you let twelve people from Manhattan do your thinking for you. What's your point?

Make it less personal and less condescending, please.

OJ Simpson was exonerated by a jury of our peers. I trust their judgment. He's not guilty.

Even if the case of OJ Simpson was a mistake, that does not mean that Trump's conviction is a mistake. This is Simpson's Paradox.

This is a very narrow appreciation of the case and zero appreciation of the context.

Prosecutorial discretion is employed literally everyday in America. And it is up and down the socioeconomic chain and goes left and right. In Baltimore, they sometimes decide not to prosecute multiple felons on gun charges because ... racism or something. When it comes to campaign finance laws, as I understand it, it's close to impossible to run a national level campaign without accidentally breaking the laws a few times - which is why these are almost always handled by the FEC with, at most, fines and public disclosures.

Alvin Bragg wanted to shoot his shot with this case and he did. As @jeroboam said, no one believes this case would've been brought against any other politician besides Trump.

So, while what happened inside the narrow walls of the courtroom may be all on the up and up (which, right now, I believe more than I doubt) ... and while a good deal of blame here should be on Trump's defense team for going full retard ... the facts are that targeted prosecutorial discretion brought a case into a courtroom that would've never made it off a legal pad in any other context. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Mr. Shapiro.

It's rare to see someone run afoul of the building consensus rule, but "no one believes..." is a clear example.

You're otherwise being reasonably level-headed, so I'll simply request--please don't make a habit of it.

Mods gonna mod, so I'm not mad about that.

But, is this selective enforcement?

Here's the post that I cited that uses the same language: https://www.themotte.org/post/1019/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/217119?context=8#context

Probably because I saw your post and reported it but did not notice or report the other post.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were directly quoting.

I'm not seeing any reports for @jeroboam's version, so either it was cleared by another mod, or it never came to our attention. Either way, the request applies to him.

As @jeroboam said,

Mod fail. Nobody’s perfect.

The judge allowed testimony (Cohen’s plea deal) heavily prejudicial to Trump because the prosecution wanted to impeach its own witness (sure Jan) but wouldn’t allow Trump to introduce evidence that the DOJ and FEC looked at the alleged violation and passed. That seems on the up and up?

Or how there is literally no evidence that Trump was even thinking about the so called predicate literally none in evidence. Which means there should’ve been a directed verdict.

You seem to have more detailed awareness of the case, I'll admit that.

I'd like to point out I think we're on the same side, my guy.

Yes we are. My background is in law (though not litigation let alone criminal) so this has interested me greatly. Couple that with time on my hands due to paternity leave…I’ve gotten obsessive.

As @jeroboam said, no one believes this case would've been brought against any other politician besides Trump.

I believe this case would have been brought against other politicians besides Trump. A very similar case was brought against John Edwards. That case failed to secure a conviction, but it was nonetheless brought.

Unfortunately, I think citing the Edwards case proves my point ... it is very similar to the Trump case for a lot of not good reasons

Many in the Democratic Party legal establishment were baffled by Breuer’s decision to green light the case, particularly because of suspicions that partisan politics played a role in the aggressive pursuit of Edwards by federal prosecutors in North Carolina.

...

That unit came under protracted public criticism in recent years over what the Justice Department found was prosecutorial misconduct in the pursuit of then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on charges he filed false ethics reports by omitting the value of gifts and renovations to his home.

...

As a result of failures in the Stevens case, which was brought during the Bush administration, Holder changed much of the Public Integrity Section’s leadership and ordered new training for prosecutors across the department in their responsibilities. Two prosecutors were also ordered briefly suspended after an internal probe.

...

Jurors also got an up-close look at the prosecution’s star witness, Andrew Young, the aide who falsely claimed paternity of Edwards’s and Hunter’s child. Records showed Young diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Edwards donors to pay for his own expenses and a pricey new home he was building in North Carolina.

...

The Justice Department said in 2009 that it would pursue criminal campaign finance cases only where there was “no doubt” that the FEC agreed the “underlying conduct” was illegal. No such finding appears to have ever been made in Edwards’s case, and at least one current commissioner said publicly that he doubted Edwards’s alleged actions were illegal.

...

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles excluded most evidence about the FEC’s views of Edwards’s case. However, jurors did hear the Edwards campaign’s compliance officer testify that she saw no requirement to report the payments related to his mistress and never heard from the FEC that they needed to be reported. The jury also heard a former FEC chairman say he’d never heard any discussion of whether payments to or for a mistress could be considered donations.

And this insane "history rhymes" banger:

Another problem that may have tripped up prosecutors: proving that Edwards knew his alleged actions were illegal, something the government must show to get a conviction in a campaign finance case.

It disproves your claim that the case would not have been brought except against Trump, which is the claim I was contesting.

More comments

That sounds like a just-so story brought by someone who is sad that their felon got convicted.

  • -10

Stop posting low effort comments like this. I'm actually happy to see someone defending the verdict and pushing back on what's clearly a dominant opinion here (this is completely orthogonal to what I personally think of the verdict) and it's unfortunate that the only pushback is coming from someone whose responses can mostly be summarized as "Neener neener."

He said as he was made to kneel and shot in the back of the head by one of the roving gangs who have dominated public life for most of human history because men have realized again that attempting to succeed by 'following the rules' amidst anarcho-tyranny is fruitless

  • Courtesy

    • Make your point reasonably clear and plain.
  • -26

Bruh moment - I will just say the same thing again

Roving gangs have dominated public life for most of human history.

This is likely to be the case again, as men realize that attempting to succeed by 'following the rules' amidst anarcho-tyranny is fruitless.

Attempting to succeed by 'following the rules' is obviously fruitless because one of the most powerful, richest, successful, handsome, men on the planet was just convicted of 34 made-up felonies in a 'novel' theory of prosecution that only worked because the government can apparently convince most anyone to do anything these days, like convict the president of made-up crimes, or take multiple rounds of an untested gene therapy that at best doesn't work

Handsome?!

I’m really drawing the line at handsome. I think this is hyperbolic. Trump has money, but he also had to declare bankruptcy on a casino and had several failed business including Trump University and Trump Steaks. He’s mostly a showman, PT Barnam shilling real estate and later red hats.

I'm unsure how to convey sincerity and gravity on the internet these days, but I'll try anyway. It is extremely wrong and prima facie unintelligent for anyone to pretend like Trump is not handsome and successful

He is still handsome, but here was his high school yearbook photo for reference - https://www.recordonline.com/gcdn/authoring/2016/04/15/NTHR/ghows_image-TH-3feabe0f-1a87-4175-82bd-def54ded6388.jpeg?width=440&height=660&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

Here is an incomplete list of his companies that he owns and operates (the full list would be more than 500):

Sentient Jets LLC (Now/Known/As Trump Jets LLC) T International Realty LLC (dba Trump International Realty) The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Inc. The Trump Corporation The Trump Follies Member Inc. The Trump Equitable Fifth Avenue Company Trump 106 CPS LLC Trump 55 Wall Corp Trump 767 Management LLC Trump 845 LP LLC Trump 845 UN GP LLC Trump 846 UN MGR Corp Trump 846 UN MGR LLC fka 845 UN LLC Trump AC Casino Marks LLC Trump AC Casino Marks Member Corp Trump Acquisition Corp. Trump Acquisition, LLC Trump Books LLC Trump Books Manager Corp Trump Brazil LLC Trump Briarcliff Manor Development LLC formerly Briar Hall Development LLC Trump Canadian Services Inc Trump Canouan Estate LLC Trump Canouan Estate Member Corp Trump Caribbean LLC Trump Carousel LLC Trump Carousel Member Corp Trump Central Park West Corp Trump Chicago Commercial Member Corp Trump Chicago Commercial Manager LLC Trump Chicago Development LLC Trump Chicago Hotel Member Corp Trump Chicago Hotel Manager LLC Trump Chicago Managing Member LLC Trump Chicago Member LLC Trump Chicago Residential Member Corp Trump Chicago Residential Manager LLC Trump Chicago Retail LLC Trump Chicago Retail Manager LLC Trump Chicago Retail Member Corp Trump Classic Cars LLC Trump Classic Cars Member Corp Trump Commercial Chicago LLC Trump Cozumel Corp Trump Cozumel LLC Trump CPS Corp Trump CPS LLC Trump Delmonico LLC Trump Development Services LLC Trump Development Services Member Corp. Trump Drinks Israel Holdings LLC Trump Drinks Israel Holdings Member Corp Trump Drinks Israel LLC Trump Drinks Israel Member Corp Trump Education ULC Trump Empire State, Inc. Trump Endeavor 12 LLC Trump Endeavor 12 Manager Corp Trump EU Marks Member LLC Trump EU Marks Member Corp The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC (fka Trump University CA LLC) Trump Ferry Point LLC Trump Ferry Point Member Corp Trump Florida Management LLC Trump Florida Manager Corp. The Trump Follies LLC Trump Fort Lee LLC Trump Fort Lee Member Corp Trump Golf Acquisition LLC Trump Golf Coco Beach LLC Trump Golf Coco Beach Member Corp Trump Golf Management LLC Trump Home Marks Trump Home Marks Member Corp Trump Ice LLC Trump Ice Inc Trump Identity LLC Trump Identity Member Corp Trump International Development LLC Trump International Development Member Corp Trump International Golf Club LC Trump International Golf Club Scotland Limited Trump International Golf Club Inc. Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium Trump International Hotel Hawaii LLC Trump International Hotels Management LLC Trump International Management Corp Trump Kelowna LLC Trump Kelowna Member Corp. Trump Korean Projects LLC Trump Las Olas LLC Trump Las Olas Member Corp Trump Las Vegas Corp. Trump Las Vegas Development LLC Trump Las Vegas Managing Member LLC Trump Las Vegas Managing Member II LLC Trump Las Vegas Marketing and Sales LLC Trump Las Vegas Member LLC Trump Las Vegas Member II LLC Trump Las Vegas Sales & Marketing Inc. Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas Unit Owners Association Trump Lauderdale Development 2 LLC Trump Lauderdale Development LLC Trump Management Inc Trump Marketing LLC Trump Marks Asia Corp Trump Marks Asia LLC Trump Marks Atlanta LLC Trump Marks Atlanta Member Corp Trump Marks Baja Corp Trump Marks Baja LLC Trump Marks Batumi LLC Trump Marks Batumi Member Corp Trump Marks Beverages Corp Trump Marks LLC Trump Marks Canouan Corp Trump Marks Canouan LLC Trump Marks Chicago LLC Trump Marks Chicago Member Corp Trump Marks Cozumel Corp Trump Marks Cozumel LLC Trump Marks Dubai Corp Trump Marks Dubai LLC Trump Marks Egypt Corp Trump Marks Egypt LLC Trump Marks Fine Foods LLC Trump Marks Fine Foods Member Corp Trump Marks Ft. Lauderdale LLC Trump Marks Ft. Lauderdale Member Corp Trump Marks Golf Swing LLC Trump Marks Golf Swing Member Corp Trump Marks GP Corp Trump Marks Holding LP (FKA Trump Marks LP) Trump Marks Hollywood Corp Trump Marks Hollywood LLC Trump Marks Istanbul II Corp. Trump Marks Istanbul II LLC Trump Marks Jersey City Corp. Trump Marks Jersey City LLC Trump Marks Las Vegas Corp Trump Marks Las Vegas LLC Trump Marks LLC Trump Marks Magazine Corp Trump Marks Magazine LLC Trump Marks Mattress LLC Trump Marks Mattress Member Corp. Trump Marks Menswear LLC Trump Marks Menswear Member Corp Trump Marks Mortoaoe Corp. Trump Marks Mtg LLC Trump Marks Mumbai LLC Trump Marks Mumbai Member Corp Trump Marks New Orleans Corp Trump Marks New Orleans LLC Trump Marks New Rochelle Corp. Trump Marks New Rochelle LLC Trump Marks Palm Beach Corp Trump Marks Palm Beach LLC Trump Marks Panama Corp Trump Marks Panama LLC Trump Marks Philadelphia Corp Trump Marks PhiladelPhia LLC Trump Marks Philippines LLC Trump Marks Phil ippine s Corp Trump Marks Products LLC Trump Marks Products Member Corp Trump Marks Puerto Rico I LLC Trump Marks Puerto Rico I Member Corp Trump Marks Puerto Rico II LLC Trump Marks Puerto Rico II Member Corp Trump Marks Punta del Este LLC Trump Marks Punta del Este Manager Corp The Donald J. Trump Company LLC The Trump Marks Real Estate Corp Trump Marks Real Estate LLC Trump Marks SOHO License Corp Trump Marks SOHO LLC Trump Marks South Africa LLC Trump Marks South Africa Member Corp Trump Marks Stamford Corp Trump Marks Stamford LLC Trump Marks Sunny Isles I LLC Trump Marks Sunny Isles I Member Corp. Trump Marks Sunny Isles II LLC Trump Marks Sunny Isles II Member Corp. Trump Marks Tampa Corp Trump Marks Tampa LLC Trump Marks Toronto Corp Trump Marks Toronto LLC Trump Marks Toronto LP (formally Trump Toronto Management LP) Trump Marks Waikiki Corp Trump Marks Waikiki LLC Trump Marks Westchester Corp. Trump Marks Westchester LLC Trump Marks White Plains Corp Trump Marks White Plains LLC Trump Miami Resort Management LLC Trump Miami Resort Management Member Corp Trump National Golf Club Colts Neck LLC Trump National Golf Club Colts Neck Member Corp Trump National Golf Club LLC Trump National Golf Club Member Corp Trump National Golf Club Washington DC LLC Trump National Golf Club Washington DC Member Corp Trump Ocean Manager Inc. Trump Ocean Managing Member LLC Trump Old Post Office LLC Trump On the Ocean LLC Trump Organization LLC The Trump Organization, Inc. Trump Pageants, Inc. Trump Palace Condominium Trump Palace/Parc LLC Trump Panama Condominium Management LLC Trump Panama Condominium Member Corp Trump Panama Hotel Management LLC Trump Panama Hotel Management Member Corp LLC Trump Parc East Condominium Trump Park Avenue Acquisition LLC Trump Park Avenue LLC Trump Payroll Chicago LLC Trump Payroll Corp. Trump Phoenix Development LLC Trump Plaza LLC Trump Plaza Member Inc. fka Trump Plaza Corp. Trump Procida Fort Lee LLC Trump Productions LLC (former Rancho Lien LLC) Trump Production Managing Member Inc Trump Project Management Corp. Trump Properties LLC Trump Realty Services, LLC (fka Trump Mortgage Services LLC (03) & Tower Mortgage Services LLC) Trump Restaurants LLC Trump RHF Corp Trump Riverside Management LLC Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC Trump Ruffin LLC Trump Ruffin Tower I LLC Trump Sales & Leasing Chicago LLC Trump Sales & Leasing Chicago Member Corp Trump Scotland Member Inc Trump Scotsborough Square LLC Trump Scotsborough Square Member Corp. Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium New York Trump Soho Member LLC Trump Toronto Development Inc Trump Toronto Hotel Management Corp. Trump Toronto Member Corp. (formaly Trump Toronto Management Member Corp) Trump Tower Commercial LLC Trump Tower Condominium Residential Section Trump Tower Managing Member Inc Trump Village Construction Corp. Trump Vineyard Estates LLC Trump Vineyard Estates Manager Corp. Trump Vineyard Estates Lot 3 Owner LLC (fka Eric Trump Land Holdings LLC) Trump Virginia Acquisitions LLC (fka Virginia Acquisitions LLC) Trump Virginia Acquisitions Manager Corp Trump Virginia Lot 5 LLC Trump Virginia Lot 5 Manager Corp. Trump Wine Marks LLC Trump Wine Marks Member Corp. Trump World Productions LLC y LLC Trump World Productions Manager Corp Trump World Publications LLC Trump/New World Property Management LLC Trump Castle Management Corp Trump Marks White Plains Corp Trump RHF Corp The Donald J. Trump grantor Trust – DJT is the Trustee Successor – Trustee is Donald J. Trump, Jr. The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust

I will just say the same thing again

But clearer, and plainer. Thank you for abiding by the rules.

This is likely to be the case again, as men realize that attempting to succeed by 'following the rules' amidst anarcho-tyranny is fruitless.

This sounds to me like saying "we need to return to roving gangs in order to escape anarcho-tyranny." I reject the choice to return to roving gangs that you are espousing.

Attempting to succeed by 'following the rules' is obviously fruitless because one of the most powerful, richest, successful, handsome, men on the planet was just convicted of 34 made-up felonies

This is false. The felonies weren't made up. A jury of our peers convicted Trump of real felonies. He is a convicted felon. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I am not obligated to indulge your desire to return to roving gangs because your pet politician committed a crime. I'm against returning to roving gangs. Criminals should be punished in the court of law. That's what happened today.

If Trump had committed any, maybe I would agree with you. What's your opinion about Caesar?

The beginning of the Imperial era in Roman politics led to civil war over the imperial seat which was the true cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Authoritarian dictators are an inherently incompetent and violent form of government, and anyone who aspires to return us to savage government is factually incorrect about an important section of human history.

  • -20

The beginning of the Imperial period was marked by an unusually long period of peace and prosperity thanks to the long reign of Augustus. By contrast, the end of the Republican period was dominated by Romans fighting Romans in a series of bloody civil wars. It turns out that having one military strongman in charge of the polity works a lot better than having two competing military strongmen fighting over the polity.

The violence of the late Republic started long before the Imperial period. It started when extremist Roman partisans decided that their political ideologies were more important than unity and started using whatever means necessary to win - like exploiting the criminal justice system to attack their political opponents. Sound familiar?

Dictators really aren’t that bad. Rome was great under the emperors for very long periods of time. Assad was better than before. Franco was better than the communists. China has done fairly well. The Saudis are the most functional country in the ME outside Israel. Singapore. It’s heavy America propaganda that dictators = bad.

Yeah, most of the Asian Tigers were driven by what would be considered dictators in charge and have since had larger struggles when going towards manifesting democracy in the 80s/90s

The beginning of the Imperial era in Roman politics led to civil war over the imperial seat which was the true cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Authoritarian dictators are an inherently incompetent and violent form of government, and anyone who aspires to return us to savage government is factually incorrect about an important section of human history.

Dictators provide no benefit over a temporary executive. Removing a bad dictator requires a civil war which cripples a polity for an entire generation.

This is just functionally wrong. Whether dictators are net good is an interesting question.

But they do provide benefits. Internalizing deadweight costs is one thing they do better than Democracies.

The other area they can do better is not all societies have intellectual capabilities to implement a Democracy. You need a certain level of intelligence to succesfully monitor leaders in a Democracy.

The people will seek an emperor when they figure out that the oligarchy bureaucracy is uncontrollable otherwise.

Authoritarian dictators

Spoken like a true Roman. They don’t have monarchs dictators-for-life, they have Caesars, which is totally different.

The people will seek an emperor when they figure out that the oligarchy bureaucracy is uncontrollable otherwise.

Anyone who aspires to return us to savage government is factually incorrect about an important section of human history.

I'm not arguing for Caesar. I'm arguing that throwing politicians in jail for nothing crimes will create Caesar.

You seem to believe this was a "nothing" crime in which case I believe your opinion is motivated reasoning.

Felonies are regarded as a special class of crime.

Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Politicians who commit felonies should be punished for them.

Otherwise I think you are advocating for politicians who are able to commit felonies and escape punishment.

It seems to me that you are either in denial about the seriousness of the crime that Donald Trump, convicted felon, has been convicted of by a jury of our peers, or you want Trump to be immune from prosecution for serious crimes: you are arguing for Caesar.

Please explain what is so serious about the crime of which Trump was (unjustly) convicted.

I just honestly cannot fathom this.

  1. It isn’t clear that the retainer / legal expense description was inaccurate. The prosecution never explained why Trump would pay more money to Cohen.

  2. It isn’t clear that Trump even knew how the expenses were recorded / supposed to be recorded. The evidence for this is Cohen’s testimony (with no corroborating evidence ). Cohen is a serial perjurer. How could you accept his testimony beyond reasonable doubt?

  3. There is literally zero evidence in the record that Trump was doing this because he was worried at all about campaign finance law. The prosecution was basically able to argue incorrectly the payment violated FECA and therefore the scheme was to hide this allegation. But there was zero evidence that anyone had even thought about campaign finance laws meaning per se the burden of proof was not met.

  4. The judge’s actions were beyond awful including allowing cohen to basically state what FEcA law is but not a literal former head of FEC.

It isn’t clear that the retainer / legal expense description was inaccurate. The prosecution never explained why Trump would pay more money to Cohen.

It is in fact clear that the payment to Cohen was to reimburse him for paying off Stormy Daniels. Trump confessed on twitter.

This is why every lawyer advises their client to shut the hell up.

The payment to Stormy was for about 135k. Trump paid Cohen around 420k. So no it wasn’t solely reimbursement.

Fortunately, there were handwritten notes explicitly laying out what the money was all for. Exhibit 35 has you covered.

It was $130k reimbursement for Stormy Daniels, $50k reimbursement for Red Finch, that 180k total got doubled to make Cohen whole for the income tax he would need to pay, and then they gave Cohen an extra $60k as his profit for doing this.

Yes my point. It wasn’t solely reimbursement. Instead it easily could be described as legal expenses under a retainer.

Okay, so what? The prosecution did not claim it was solely reimbursement.

If I pay you $100 for a stick of chocolate and some cocaine, the fact that it's legal to buy and sell chocolate does not mean that I can't be prosecuted for purchasing the cocaine.

The big difference is that reimbursement is not illegal (unlike cocaine). Paying for legal services and reimbursing your lawyer for payments he is making on your behalf is perfectly encapsulated as a legal expense. Could they have broken it down further (ie legal expense for service and for reimbursement)? Sure. But that doesn’t make the overall category (ie legal expense) fraudulent.

Again, that would have been an interesting argument for Trump to make, but he did not make it. His position was that Cohen was lying by claiming to have been reimbursed.

It's very easy for a jury to conclude that "legal fees" do not encapsulate reimbursement in a case where the defendant is continuing to maintain that they do not.

More comments

they gave Cohen an extra $60k as his profit for doing this.

Sounds kind of like legal expenses, him being Trump's lawyer and all.

If I hire a contractor to build me a deck, then log the total bill as 'building expenses', am I committing fraud for not putting down 'lumber', 'nails', 'wages', and 'contractor margins' on my own books?

I certainly wouldn't recommend arguing in court that the contractor built your deck of his own accord and that you didn't ask him to do it.

Interestingly there was a case like this in BC awhile back -- it seemed like some contractors were trying to curry favour with the premier (who they knew personally), so they built him a deck and then refused to send him a bill!

I don't think it ever went to court, although he did get voted out over it. (among other things)

In this situation, I suppose cutting the guy a cheque for what you think the services were worth (whether he likes it or not) is kind of the right thing to do -- otherwise it looks like a bribe.

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.

What would you call a monthly retainer for one of your lawyers creating an NDA if not "legal fees"?

It would be an interesting defence to say that the reimbursement was in fact legal fees while still being a reimbursement, but that's not the defence Trump chose to raise. He chose to argue that Cohen paid Daniels $130k of his own money with no agreement to be repaid.

You could convict any important person of a felony if you pierce attorney-client privilege and prosecute hard enough. "Three felonies a day" isn't literally true, but my guess is most billionaires commit at least three felonies a year.

That sounds to me like a laymen interpretation of the case. I trust the jurors to come to a decision about whether or not a crime was committed.

  • -29

What an absurd response. You don’t respond to anything. Basically just said I disagree.

it's better to just report/downvote the troll, don't feed them.

I did after he kept or she keep going on

I do disagree, and I don't believe that every opinion or argument is worth the trouble of addressing.

You're a layman. Speaking speculatively. Engaging in motivated reasoning.

Trump is a convicted felon.

He was convicted by a jury of our peers.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Not a lay person but keep on keeping on

I'm perfectly sure you can fathom this if you imagine that the cashier at the convenience store playing with their phone while pissed off when you ask for your receipt was on the jury. People in general are just not very smart, well read, worldly, or in any way aware of their surroundings.

'The government knows better than me and spent a lot of time and energy on this, so they're probably not wrong. Also, I've heard many times that Trump was a bad guy. So he must be guilty'

It is more that I am shocked our system stooped so low.

We fought a civil war and killed each other en masse because some lady who'd never been to the south wrote a book about slaves

Our system has always been low

But yes this is not good, agreed

The Civil War was good because it ended slavery.

The verdict against Trump is good because crimes should be punished even if they are committed by people with political power.

There was some absolute fuckery involved in the jury instructions in my opinion. I'm curious for some of the lawyers who post here to weigh in. As I understand it:

In order for there to be a felony conviction in NY, there has to be a modifier to the "falsifying business records" charge. So you have to falsify business records in pursuit of another crime.

There were three possible modifiers here for Trump to go from a misdemeanor charge to a felony.

  • falsifying other business records
  • breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act
  • submitting false information on a tax return

The slimy part (from my understanding) is that the judge said that they didn't actually have to agree on which of these modifiers he committed. You just had to get 12 people to agree that he had done something. So you could do 4, 4, and 4 all voting on each of the 3 options, with a majority disagreeing that he was actually guilty of the modifier.

Wild stuff.

AP seems to keep updating this page, which is very annoying, but it does explain the jury instructions: https://apnews.com/live/trump-trial-jury-deliberations-updates#0000018f-c551-d5ca-abff-d5fda72d0000

Interestingly, they say this is "fact check: false", and then go on to explain exactly what it is true, lol.

I’ve noted before the similarity of America’s adversarial justice system to the scientific process: a theory must be proposed, all evidence (experimental, forensic, eyewitness) must be logged, all reasonable alternative explanations must be falsified, and only then do we consider it proved, and thus, known.

But there’s a well-known way around the scientific method.

A focus on novel, confirmatory, and statistically significant results leads to substantial bias in the scientific literature. One type of bias, known as “p-hacking,” occurs when researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant.

The judge told the jury to break into groups of four, and that each group only had to find one of the three modifiers to be true — and they didn’t have to be the same modifier. Judge Merchan has p-hacked misdemeanors into a felony!

The slimy part (from my understanding) is that the judge said that they didn't actually have to agree on which of these modifiers he committed. You just had to get 12 people to agree that he had done something. So you could do 4, 4, and 4 all voting on each of the 3 options, with a majority disagreeing that he was actually guilty of the modifier.

This is accurate though, isn't it? As long as all 12 agree that "Trump falsified business records in pursuit of a crime" then he's guilty of that. The bigger question is how they could agree he did so in pursuit of a crime without him being indicted for that crime. This is the same whether there are 3 potential crimes or just 1. Is it a crime if he was never indicted? Sounds like it's a poorly worded law (maybe intentionally so) which was used to throw the book at him.

If twelve people agree that X and Y murdered Z and W, but they cannot by any means come to agree on whether X murdered Z and Y murdered W or converse, should they convict?

(Claude Opus says no, GPT-4 says yes.)

Isn't this kind of situation the whole justification for 'felony murder' provisions? Like if two people beat another guy to death but you can't prove who landed the killing blow, they both go down for felony murder anyways.

I would say so, sounds like a group of 2 people murdered another group of 2 and the details are being debated.

I think it's okay to say "if you charge someone with 34 crimes it's not because they committed 34 crimes"

Anyone remember that young black guy who leapt on the old lady judge and went to town on her before they pulled him off? He got charged with fucking everything, almost the definition of having the book thrown at him. Expulsion of bodily fluids toward a government official is one I remember in particular because he happened to let some spit out of his mouth while he whaled on her for a few seconds.

Now, there are few people on the planet earth that are more against young black criminals whaling on old ladies than me. But the fact he was charged with 57 crimes instead of 1 felony assault charge for the assault he actually committed is a gross and obvious miscarriage of justice. It's absurd. It's banana republic shit to charge a guy with 57 felonies for jumping on an old lady and hitting her for a few seconds before being pulled off.

Oh, absolutely. I'm sort of a law anarchist at this point--the text of the law matters very little. Judges and lawyers have proved over and over again their willingness to creatively interpret laws to get whatever outcome they want, without consequences. Why should honest judges voluntarily limit themselves and abide by rules which other judges routinely ignore?

Trump legitimately did commit those crimes as far as I can tell. If he didn't, New York certainly has the power to write new laws which he is guilty of. To what extent must Trump abide by the legitimate rule of law of one state?

So far as I know, there is no law which prevents any state from writing a law intended to jail a presidential candidate. However, everyone recognizes this would be a terrible thing to do, so doubtless the supreme court would step in and fabricate some legal reasoning interpreting such a law as unconstitutional. It's harder to do so when, as in this case, the state does have a pretty good legal pretext to justify its legal decisions, and it's not extremely clear to everyone that the law was meant specifically to target one person.

We ceased to be a country of law a long time ago.

So far as I know, there is no law which prevents any state from writing a law intended to jail a presidential candidate

Legislative lawfare is prohibited (or at least made difficult) by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

Very easy to circumvent. Just pass a very broad law and only prosecute political enemies (perhaps along with a host of other undesirables).

Which, again, I'm sure would be ruled unconstitutional somehow, but not in any principled way.

Action starts at about 30 second mark

  1. His vertical is impressive
  2. "Nah, fuck that that!" is equivalent to "Leroy Jenkins!" as a call to immediately do something crazy.

Homeboy was like a flying squirrel, should've sent his ass to the paratroopers instead of prison

No, because they can't say what the crime was. We don't convict people on "vibes", or at least we aren't supposed to.

In the worst case, you could have 8 people, a majority, thinking that he was innocent of the modifier. This should nullify it.

Not really. If 4 say he did X and only 4, then there is reasonable doubt he did X since 8 disagree. Same with Y and Z.

All 12 in this scenario agree that "Trump falsified business records in pursuit of a crime" though. I agree that if they disagree on what the crime was, that should be reasonable doubt, but legally I don't think it is reasonable doubt.

How far down the rabbit hole should they have to go for it to be the "same" crime? What if there are two separate alleged incidents that both fall under the same legal citation? Is that the same crime? Should that count? If half of the jury thinks that crime X happened on Monday, and the other half thinks that crime X happened on Thursday, should that count?

I totally agree, which is why I think the relevant factor is whether he's indicted for the crime. My point is that the choice between 3 options is just one failure mode of the law. The worse failure mode is that generally people can be punished for crimes without those crimes ever being prosecuted in court.

If only it were that simple.

There were 34 counts and Trump was found guilty on all 34. It's unbelievable that the jury could even understand the charges, let alone have a responsible deliberation on all 34 charges.

They are 34 iterations of the same charge. (12 monthly payments to Cohen, each of which involves a chequebook stub, a cancelled cheque, and an entry in the ledger, all of which are false business business records. Not sure why 2 of the 36 were not charged). This is stupid, but it is SOP when you are trying to try a case in the media (because it makes the charges look more serious) or trying to scare an unrepresented defendant into a plea bargain (because you can multiply the jail term you are threatening by 34, even though real criminal sentencing doesn't work like that).

You don't need to be any smarter than the average juror to understand this when it is explained to you. Absent a technical issue with one of the pieces of paperwork, the correct verdict is obviously the same on all 34 charges. Charging all of them does nothing except waste a small amount of the jury foreman's time saying "Guilty" over and over.

I don’t think there was much evidence proffered to suggest there was any intent to falsify any other document or tax fraud.

I think that rationale there was so when Trump argues on appeal that such other crime can’t be federal election law the government could argue “guilty might not be because of election law.”

Regardless I expect overturned provided the defense didn’t waive too many arguments.

Who can Trump appeal it to who might overturn it?

Appeal to Heaven

Ultimately some of the issues could get to SCOTUS

He would probably have to make a 14th Amendment deprivation of due process claim to get it into federal court.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats