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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think this post is wrong on many levels.
Cohen was dead to rights on much more serious tax violations and taxi medallion schemes. They threw in the FECA violation late and he plead to it (lesser crime). There is very much a dispute as to whether Cohen violated FECA and whether Trump knew about FECA.
Second, obtaining an NDA is legal work so hard to see how it is non existent. Moreover even if it were the sole person tying Trump to it is Cohen. Cohen stole 60k from Trump which Cohen viewed as “self help.” This guy would clearly lie, steal, and cheat if it could help him in any way. You don’t convict based on a guy like Cohen.
Third, FECA requires willfulness. Trump and Co had to know it was wrong; not just intend to do the actions that are prohibited. Your theory of the case then is that Trump and Cohen knew that by Cohen doing it that it was a FECA violation even though if Trump did it himself it would not be a violation. Since Cohen was solely acting as a middle man he wasn’t key to the scheme. There was no need to go through all this “scheming” to protect Cohen when Trump could’ve just done it himself. Trump has been looked at for years and they haven’t found crimes despite being a NY real estate developer. Do we think he knew option A was criminal and option B was not, both would get him what he wants, and he choose A? It just doesnt make sense.
I understand what you're saying but these are questions of fact for a jury. To take it individually:
Whether Cohen violated FECA is irrelevant since the New York law doesn't require that the predicate act actually be committed, only that intent exists to cover up a violation. Whether Trump knew about it is a question of fact for a jury.
Whether or not the invoices were legitimate is a factual question, and ultimately an irrelevant one, since it wasn't raised as a defense. Cohen certainly isn't the most credible person, but the credibility of a witness is an issue for the jury to determine.
Again, what Trump knew or didn't know or intended to do or didn't intend to do are core factual issues in a case like this. You're entitled to think that the jury got it wrong, but simply disagreeing with the jury isn't grounds for an appeal (at least not good grounds; you could theoretically argue that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence and ask the trial judge for reconsideration, but judges in general are loathe to second guess juries).
I agree that judges are loathe to second guess but if there was ever a case…here is one. There are many other legal problems including numerous rulings by Merchan. So we don’t need to get to the facts to overrule and fully suspect this case will be tossed eventually. But in the court of public opinion it is more than fair to say yeah the facts here stink to high heavens and a biased jury pool was led by a board judge to make a biased ruling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link