USA Politics

[Azas]

All is fine, but what are your thoughts about concentration camps of Uyghurs in China? Oh, I understand, You will not comment on this issue, because china's big brother is watching. There's saying: To live with wolves is to howl like a wolf, or something along the lines. You will nitpick democracy no matter what, while living in autocracy.

 

[Perun]

This story reminds me the case against Golden Dawn in Greece, where justice had to prove and fast that GD was a criminal organisation to expel it from the parliament.
Nobody wants such a party inside the parliament and we finally kicked them out, but I never had any illusion that it wasn't a lawfare, even if the goal was noble.

Uh... I mean, I'm not from Greece, so I may have missed something, but from what I know the trial took five years (2015-2020) despite first charges being pressed and arrests made in 2013, Golden Dawn took part in two elections during this time and founded Ethniki Avgi in 2014. Doesn't sound rushed to me, but precisely like an investigation and a trial taking the time it needs to follow proper procedure. And this is exactly what's happening with Trump. Two to three years of investigation to build a case to press charges, followed by trials that will last God knows how long. It would be suspicious if it were any other way.

 

[Vaenyr]

I'm sorry @____no5 but you seem to have a severely distorted view of how legal matters and justice systems work, as well as the time frames necessary in such cases. As Perun correctly pointed out your example about Xrysi Avgi was not rushed, just as Trump's cases aren't rushed. How long do you think does it take to gather evidence and build a case? Do you think they did that in record time and then sat on it for months or years until he announced his candidacy only to serve the charges then? Or is it much more likely and reasonable that they went through the painstaking process of building rock-solid cases because it is unprecedented to charge a former president and they couldn't afford to make any mistakes lest the whole thing blows up in their face?

I didn't have the time searching for evidence moving inside airports, customs etc. I was hoping that for something as evident as the rushing of justice someone would pick it up for the sake of truth. Nobody did. The huge number of charges was an alright argument, so I brought that up instead.
Anyway, the charges might have been 3 years old, but only recently were filed.

Then search and present your evidence at your convenience whenever you have time, because while you claim there was a rushing of justice, it is far from obvious and actually sounds utterly delusional. As Jer pointed out, burden of proof and all that. There have been plenty of counter arguments that explain in detail why your position on this matter doesn't work. You seem to care about people being polite, so please be respectful of the members here and actually address what we are writing, our counter arguments and the lack of explanations for your claims.

Trump announced that he would run in November 2022, but of course it was known that he would run much earlier than that. Now look:

1. In the fall of 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil suit against Trump.
2. In March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg became the first prosecutor to bring felony charges against Trump.
3. Jack Smith filed charges for documents mishandling in June 2023.
4. Georgia case was brought up last August.

This does not support your point about lawfare, nor about rushing of justice. This is just a list of facts that show how Trump was charged for crimes he committed.

I don’t defend Trump. I just think it's the wrong path trying to get him out by all means, especially using justice to do so.

Can a president, in your opinion, commit whatever crimes they want and be completely immune? Yes or no.

 

[____no5]

Uh... I mean, I'm not from Greece, so I may have missed something, but from what I know the trial took five years (2015-2020) despite first charges being pressed and arrests made in 2013, Golden Dawn took part in two elections during this time and founded Ethniki Avgi in 2014. Doesn't sound rushed to me, but precisely like an investigation and a trial taking the time it needs to follow proper procedure. And this is exactly what's happening with Trump. Two to three years of investigation to build a case to press charges, followed by trials that will last God knows how long. It would be suspicious if it were any other way.

What they tried to prove since the start was that Golden Dawn was a criminal organisation, it wasn't all about murder. Only in this way they could kick them out from parliament. They were a Nazi party, but criminal organization, it felt biased since the start.

Now look how lawfare can intoxicate a democracy:
GD members are in prison and one of them creates a new party in 2020 which he declares from the start that is not a Nazi one. As it's obvious that they will enter the parliament in next elections, the government passes a law to make it illegal. Then the party changes its leadership 2 -3 months before the elections and puts a respected judge as frontman, and in less than a month government passes another law by which a committee would decide if a party is eligible for elections and of course this party (Hellenes the name) wasn't.

All the above had strong opposition from all the other parties as setting a very dangerous precedent and it does.

It was during the latter case that I realized how bad was to use lawfare to kick GD out. While it was happening I was happy, I was feeling that something is not right, but I was on board with it.
Thus I get why people support what I believe is lawfare against Trump, I was there too, but I hope at least they slightly feel something is not right deep inside no matter if they admit it or not.

This does not support your point about lawfare, nor about rushing of justice. This is just a list of facts that show how Trump was charged for crimes he committed.

Except that 3 out of 4 charges were pressed well after Trump announced he's running; and if you are still not convinced, I don't have something else to say this time.

Can a president, in your opinion, commit whatever crimes they want and be completely immune? Yes or no.

Of course not but I never said anything like that.

 

[Magnus]

Can a president, in your opinion, commit whatever crimes they want and be completely immune? Yes or no.

 

[Jer]

Except that 3 out of 4 charges were pressed well after Trump announced he's running; and if you are still not convinced, I don't have something else to say this time.

Trump announced his run in November 2022. Large-scale investigations generally take about 2-3 years to get to the point of a potential indictment. For crimes committed in November 2020 or later, the absolute earliest a large-scale investigation would be likely to secure an indictment would be November 2022, pretty much guaranteeing that any such investigation would meet your only criterion for supposedly corrupt “lawfare”.

Do you see the problem with your argument yet, or are you just going to ignore this and keep repeating yourself…?

 

[Mosh]

Trump announced an early run because he knew indictments were coming (he was already under investigation). Then when the indictments inevitably come, gullible propaganda eaters like 5 would eat it up when Trump cries politics, even though the initial announcement was pure politics. Fortunately so far anyone with actual power hasn’t fallen for that idiocy.

 

[____no5]

Trump announced an early run

That wasn’t quite late? I mean it’s not that he announced it immediately after he lost in 2020 we waited for a good 2 years.

Yet below post hints a perceived if well justified lawfare:

Generally a slow moving legal process is a good one, the problem is that this is a time sensitive case. The voters have the right to know whether the guy they're about to vote for to become president is going to be a convicted felon or not. Nevermind the fact that if Trump becomes president he will pardon himself for all federal crimes and will probably be able to argue successfully that the state trials against him in NY and GA are getting in the way of his presidential duties. That this all landed in an election year seems consistent with how the justice system typically operates, and maybe that will bolster Jack Smith's case in a roundabout way, although I wish this could have been litigated before the primaries began.

Trump announced his run in November 2022. Large-scale investigations generally take about 2-3 years to get to the point of a potential indictment. For crimes committed in November 2020 or later, the absolute earliest a large-scale investigation would be likely to secure an indictment would be November 2022, pretty much guaranteeing that any such investigation would meet your only criterion for supposedly corrupt “lawfare”.

Can you provide more data /proof on those please? We have 91 charges. Can you provide evidence of when each one started to build up?The burden's on you now.

Anyway, it's not all about proves and evidences. We must see what the other side says. In the case of Greece it was only the 10 -15% of voters, but in US case are almost half that don't buy in that 91 charges were pressed for justice only and it's not political.
Jer earlier talked about smell test, or Mosh about propaganda eaters. Well in a democracy feeling and perception is important, people cannot have all data -they don't even have the time. Thus optics and perceptions matter. If half the US thinks it's lawfare even if it isn't damage is done. And if they think this and Trump is kicked out, then damage is beyond repair.

And I'm someone who completely hated Trump in 2016 up to and including 2020 and was completely outraged about January 6th. And completely disappointed that he was not kicked out on the spot by his own party.
But this is different. I cannot prove that as lawfare and nobody can prove the opposite beyond any doubt.
91 charges against an ex-President and current front-runner for presidential nomination is hard to swallow. Most of them being released after his announcement. Doesn't stick well, no matter what.
Perceptions in a democracy matter. They matter in a big way, so do not discard them so easily.

I wouldn't argue if Trump was charged for the 4 January 6th cases. But 91? It looks as if some people do not want to leave any chance and that looks bad.

 

[Mosh]

No 5, the burden is on you. You’ve demonstrated a severe lack of understanding about how the legal/political system works in the USA. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. In the last post alone you question information that can easily be obtained by a google search or a high school civics class. If you’re not going to do the bare minimum to understand how the US works, it’s not up to others to spoon feed you. I’m not engaging further, but just a few areas where the correct information is easily obtainable:

That wasn’t quite late? I mean it’s not that he announced it immediately after he lost in 2020 we waited for a good 2 years.

Announcements typically come 1-1.5 years out from the general. According to the scatter plot in this article, Trump’s announcement was below the median announcement time. You can find plenty of political analysis from the time of announcement that suggests his early announcement may be due to looming indictments. Especially as a former president with 100% name recognition, getting in early did nothing to bolster his campaign.

I wouldn't argue if Trump was charged for the 4 January 6th cases. But 91? It looks as if some people do not want to leave any chance and that looks bad.

A charge has to be pressed every time a law is broken. In the case of the documents case, he legally needs to be charged for each stolen document. It’s not an arbitrary number.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/trump-charges-jan-6-classified-documents/

 

[Mosh]

So Iowa is upon us. For now, I'm going to say that I think the Des Moines register poll will be spot on as usual, but that some undecideds/independents/democrats will give Hayley a boost. I think she and DeSantis will beat their polls slightly, but the second place finish for Hayley is accurate. DeSantis will get out of the race after Iowa, Ramaswamy will stay to be an asshole, and the media might start treating this like a 2 person race for a few weeks.

Trump - 45%
Hayley - 23%
DeSantis - 18%
Ramaswamy - 7%
Everyone else - 8%

I know a lot of people are interpreting this as a practice run for 2028, but I cannot see DeSantis having a successful presidential run after this. His 2024 showing has just been one of the biggest embarrassments in recent history. Either Trump wins 2024 and his VP (or one of his kids) will cruise to the nomination, or Trump loses and you'll see Hayley + 2016 candidates like Cruz and Rubio getting in a crowded field (+ one of Trump's kids). I just don't see how DeSantis comes back from this.

 

[Vaenyr]

[Greek Stuff and fallacies]

Once again you just say and repeat factually incorrect things as if doing so enough would make them correct. Neither what happened in Greece, nor what is happening with Trump fits the description of lawfare and you still refuse to actually elaborate and explain your positions. You just say stuff hoping that we'll relent, but I promise you, your disrespectful attitude towards others (while ironically always accusing others of being impolite) will have me asking for you to explain yourself until you actually do.

Furthermore, the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy for a reason. Nothing that happened in Greece "intoxicates democracy". You keep spreading propaganda and lies in your comments, while at the same time, whether you like it or not, trying to give fucking fascists the benefit of the doubt. Unconstitutional parties need to be dealt with. The same thing is currently happening in Germany with the far right AFD that has actual Neonazis in there, various chapters have been categorized as unconstitutional and far right extremists, and large parts of the general population are getting fed up and want to see the fascists banned. You keep saying "lawfare" and at this point I know for a fact that you have absolutely no idea what that even means but keep using it because whatever media you choose to consume are doing so. It's absolutely exhausting.

Except that 3 out of 4 charges were pressed well after Trump announced he's running; and if you are still not convinced, I don't have something else to say this time.

So you admit that it wasn't rushed? If they came before his candidacy (which as Mosh pointed out he specifically announced early, because he was being investigated and he wanted to fool people like you), you'd cry rushed. Now, that they took their time and 3 out of 4 came afterwards it's "lawfare"? You are defending a criminal, while pretending to hate him.

Of course not but I never said anything like that.

Yet all of your comments here say exactly that. Trump literally committed multiple crimes. The justice system tries to do everything by the book and is careful not to make any mistakes in cases of such importance, and yet here you are constantly lying.

That wasn’t quite late? I mean it’s not that he announced it immediately after he lost in 2020 we waited for a good 2 years.

Take a look at when candidacies are normally announced. Take a look at how long it takes to build a case. You are severely misinformed on this entire situation.

Can you provide more data /proof on those please? We have 91 charges. Can you provide evidence of when each one started to build up?The burden's on you now.

Oi, cut your bullshit. You are being absolutely disingenuous and disrespectful. Multiple people have called you out on not supporting your claims with any evidence despite the burden of proof being on you and now you turn it around? You claimed lawfare. You are the one who pretends the 91 charges are unjustified when Trump has done enough in his presidency to result in literally hundreds, if not thousand of further charges. So you go ahead and provide evidence, data and proof for your claims.

Anyway, it's not all about proves and evidences. We must see what the other side says. In the case of Greece it was only the 10 -15% of voters, but in US case are almost half that don't buy in that 91 charges were pressed for justice only and it's not political.
Jer earlier talked about smell test, or Mosh about propaganda eaters. Well in a democracy feeling and perception is important, people cannot have all data -they don't even have the time. Thus optics and perceptions matter. If half the US thinks it's lawfare even if it isn't damage is done. And if they think this and Trump is kicked out, then damage is beyond repair.

Absolutely cowardly bullshit and you know it. Everything is about proofs and evidence; it's all we have. It doesn't matter at all what one side says when the side is fascistic. And in the US case it's not "almost half". That's another propaganda point used by fascists. It's closer to one third, which is still a big number, but a clear minority.

But this is different. I cannot prove that as lawfare and nobody can prove the opposite beyond any doubt.

If you can't prove it, it isn't. Thank you for finally typing it out. It is justice. Your concern trolling doesn't change that.

91 charges against an ex-President and current front-runner for presidential nomination is hard to swallow. Most of them being released after his announcement. Doesn't stick well, no matter what.
Perceptions in a democracy matter. They matter in a big way, so do not discard them so easily.

Again, bullshit and a lie once more. You claimed that you never said that a president can commit whatever crimes they want and be completely immune, yet here you are clutching your pearls at one facing justice. Again, he broke the law. In your mind I could go and start murdering and raping people and then run for president and it would be "lawfare" to try to imprison me. You are approaching this entire thing purely by emotions and not by reason. Your arguments make absolutely no sense.

I wouldn't argue if Trump was charged for the 4 January 6th cases. But 91? It looks as if some people do not want to leave any chance and that looks bad.

Jer asked you multiple times to read the indictments. Have you done so? I want you to explain in detail why the 91 charges in there are too much and why the number should be smaller.

 

[Vaenyr]

Haley was endorsed by Larry Hogan yesterday as well. I think the chances for her to stay in second place are looking better and better and if Trump were to get barred from participating she'd become the frontrunner.

Also agreed with DeSantis. He'll probably just stay in Florida in the future because he's been consistenly failing nationally.

 

[Jer]

Can you provide more data /proof on those please? We have 91 charges. Can you provide evidence of when each one started to build up?The burden's on you now.

Federal preliminary investigations for general crimes are authorized for 180 days, and may receive 90-day extensions up to 2 times. So they will generally last a half a year to a year. Federal preliminary investigations for enterprise crimes (racketeering, conspiracy, etc.) are authorized for 1 year and can be extended in 1 year increments as many times as necessary, so they will generally take at least 1 year. (Source)

Once the preliminary investigation is complete, a grand jury has to be empaneled to assess whether an indictment is warranted. Federal grand juries are generally seated for 18 months, but can be extended to 24 months with a judge’s approval. (Source)

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is 5 years, so any indictment has to come down within 5 years of the offense if it’s going to happen at all.

So, do the math:

• General crime: 0.5-1 yr investigation + 1.5-2 yr grand jury = 2-3 years to indictment
• Enterprise crime: 1-3 yr investigation + 1.5-2 yr grand jury = 2.5-5 years to indictment

Sometimes things can wrap up sooner if a case is simple and more or less a slam dunk, but when you’re considering dozens of charges and talking to dozens of witnesses it’s not reasonable to expect it to blow by quickly.

So, this shows that any federal investigation of criminal acts committed in November 2020 or later would likely not reach indictment before November 2022, after Trump announced, which means you would have considered any legitimate indictment to be “lawfare”. Is that proof enough for you?

Anyway, it's not all about proves and evidences. We must see what the other side says. […] in US case are almost half that don't buy in that 91 charges were pressed for justice only and it's not political.
Jer earlier talked about smell test, or Mosh about propaganda eaters. Well in a democracy feeling and perception is important, people cannot have all data -they don't even have the time. Thus optics and perceptions matter. If half the US thinks it's lawfare even if it isn't damage is done. And if they think this and Trump is kicked out, then damage is beyond repair.

So we should be held hostage by ignorant, misinformed opinions rather than following our own laws and letting the system do its work as intended? This is a horseshit argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the charges that you’ve been questioning. If you want to have a separate discussion about the social impact of idiots acting on misinformation, fine — but let’s finish this discussion first.

 

[____no5]

Hey Jer, thanks for those links. Previously while I was writing something to Mosh (which I didn't post), I realised how difficult is to convince somebody without any doubt that a case is a lawfare, or that is not. Obviously any such case have legal basis so all is left to explore the truth in a dialogue is common sense, respect, good will and utter trust for the motives and integrity between the engaging parties. And openness. Some of those ingredients do not exist yet and I too, have my fair share for that. I don't have anything else to add in this moment.

 

[Jer]

I realised how difficult is to convince somebody without any doubt that a case is a lawfare, or that is not.

Which is why the burden of proof is on the accuser, who in this case is you. There is no reason to believe that the justice system is being weaponized without a credible fact- and reason-based argument to defend that charge, which you have not yet made. It's not incumbent upon the accused party to have to prove a negative -- this is a false equivalency you're proposing, that if you somehow can't prove that it's not "lawfare", that that makes the pro-lawfare argument comparable in seriousness to the anti-lawfare argument.

You can't prove that I'm not a six-dimensional alien being who presents himself to the world with a three-dimensional human façade, so does that mean that this charge should be taken just as seriously as the argument that I am human...? You could test my DNA and see that it's human, but that still doesn't preclude the superdimensional alien scenario. Does that mean that you should believe I'm an alien, or that you should consider it equivalently likely to the possibility that I'm human -- or would doing either of those things make you an irrational crackpot?

There is a serious lack of critical thinking skill in the world today.

 

[Jer]

Although the Trumpless Republican debates get plenty of mainstream coverage, the same opportunities aren't being presented for the Bidenless Democratic debates. Here are a couple that have had to go to more fringe outlets:

Jan. 8, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson:

Jan. 13, Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson, and Cenk Uygur:

 

[Mosh]

The pessimistic take on Iowa is that Trump stomped everybody (as expected) and is going to cruise to the nomination.

The more optimistic take is that Hayley shouldn’t have even been close to DeSantis and the bad weather may have hurt her turnout. DeSantis did well enough to justify staying in, which is bad for Hayley and ultimately good for Trump.

 

[Diesel 11]

Well, Ramaswamy is gone. At this point I’m more than likely going to vote for Haley in the primaries if I can, because as bad as she is she’s a step above both Trump and DeSantis and I’d rather see her in the White House than those two clowns.

What is the likelihood that Haley wins the primaries and the vote ends up being split in Biden’s favor with Trump supporters writing him in? It’s going to be a wild election year without a doubt.

 

[Mosh]

I will vote for Hayley if it means anything by the time CO votes. Don’t know the schedule off hand but by the time it’s my turn to vote I expect Trump will have it locked up. If that’s not the case I will do everything I can to vote for Hayley and maybe bring a few friends too.

What is the likelihood that Haley wins the primaries and the vote ends up being split in Biden’s favor with Trump supporters writing him in? It’s going to be a wild election year without a doubt.

To even get there is such a wild ride that it’s impossible to say. I don’t think I would be too worried about a Trump write in campaign at that point because he would have to lose a pretty big chunk of support from the GOP base to lose the nom at this point. It’s also worth factoring in that Hayley would be his only chance at a pardon, so he might not be campaigning against her by then. But a Hayley nomination has a chance at taking WI and GA off the map for Biden while also putting New Hampshire, NV, VA, and even CO in play. It would be a completely different kind of campaign I reckon.

 

[Mosh]

DeSantis is out.