X Close

The naked persecution of Donald Trump American democracy is no stranger to thuggery

'Why is this night different from all other nights?' (Andrew Kelly-Pool/Getty Images)

'Why is this night different from all other nights?' (Andrew Kelly-Pool/Getty Images)


April 5, 2023   3 mins

The legal system, though constituted under the rubric of Justice, can only be an agglomeration of human beings. That is, the foolish, the misguided, the self-interested, the careerist and the idealist — the same admixture found in you and me.

Hamlet lists one of the screaming tragedies of life as “the law’s delay”. All of the affronted have anguished that “surely there must be a better way”. And there may, but if it has been previously discovered, that knowledge is lost to us.

Those who have served as jurors realise: “Oh. There’s nobody here but us chickens…” We’re instructed to put prejudice aside, and rule on the facts as presented under the stringent rules of jurisprudence. But we are flawed and prejudiced, and many of the procedures we are instructed to follow are, of course, absurd. Again, the question presents itself: can’t we find a better way? Are we really going to set this depraved murderer free because of a technical error? Do we actually have to deprive this mother of her child because of some ancient statute? And so on.

Any who have experienced the jollity of the court in any capacity know that all parties, ourselves included, will scheme to exploit the absurdities, technicalities and ambiguities of the system to our benefit. We are constrained from too obvious transgression by fear of discovery and punishment; but all decisions, even by the Righteous, if such there be, will involve a calculus of the cost of an over-nice obedience to The Law.

Back in Vermont, in the Sixties, the Old-Timers used to refer to a fellow’s lawyers as His Liars — a designation in which there is more truth than fiction. At what point does a shading of evidence, or the gentle preparation of a witness, tick over from a healthy prosecution or defence into misconduct?

The determination of that point is the lawyer’s main job, for success in which he’s lauded. That’s the Adversarial System, which in America’s case is what we got, which is the survival of trial by combat. Opposing attorneys, given the same rules of procedure, fight it out, and, consciously or not, we accept that the chance of the more just cause prevailing is perhaps equal to, but finally independent of, the actual merits of the case — should the victor stay within the rules, which is to say, escape discovery of their violation.

The Old Texas Verdict had it: “not guilty, but don’t do it again”. We know its application was not limited to Texas, for the law can free both Jean Valjean and Teddy Kennedy, and isn’t life like that? Where there is law, there is injustice. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

What of overt and unapologetic prosecutorial misconduct? The aim of the current legal thuggery is suppression of a politically threatening individual by an administration usurping power. Our democracy is no stranger to it. Gene Debs, the Socialist leader, was jailed in 1918 by the Wilson government for his opposition to participation in the First World War. He was convicted under the Sedition Act, which criminalised expression of opinion questioning our involvement. The act was passed under President, elected in 1916 with the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of the War”.

Power is arrogant, and none of us is immune to its intoxication. Each of us knows not only the bully, but the meek narcissist who bludgeons us through his passivity, ineptitude, or unassailable good will. The first recorded acts of humankind are crime and disgrace. Eve broke the one law she was given, and Adam denounced her to mitigate his sentence. He blamed his wife, and his wife blamed the snake, but the snake blamed no one. What was the snake doing in the Garden? God put him there — he represents that portion of our human depravity which is not ashamed to sin.

More recently, some pedestrians strolling outside the Capitol on January 6 were imprisoned, and many are still held without charge. It’s a tough world out there, and the Government isn’t unaware of the delights and uses of power; little has changed since ancient Sumer.

But, as Passover is here, we might ask: “why is this night different from all other nights?” Answer: the indictment of President Trump demolishes the line between prosecutorial sharp-practices and naked persecution. The fig leaf of judicial probity is, granted, often transparent. But its glib removal yesterday announces an advance past that last firewall against thuggery: shame.


David Mamet is an American playwright, film director, screenwriter and author. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Glengarry Glen Ross.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

165 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Whenever I see a politician, judge, or prosecutor trying to weaponize the legal system against their enemies I cannot help but think about that scene from A Man for All Seasons.
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“During More’s chancellorship, six people were burned at the stake for heresy”. Hardly a saint then. But doubtless he was just doing his job and enforcing the law.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

..and St.Paul persecuted and killed early Christians and still became one of the Church‘s greatest Saints.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Presumably St Paul repented. He certainly changed his views. Did More ever repent ?
Let’s just remember that those he condemned to death – and a needlessly painful death – were protesting against corruption in the Catholic church. They were killed for “thought crimes”. Just obeying orders is no defence.

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

No, they weren’t. Right or wrong – and nobody today would see it as right – they were condemned for heresy, fundamental rejection of doctrine, way beyond protest against institutional corruption.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  David Giles

There really is no such crime as “heresy”. And never should have been. It’s just another class of “thought crime” along with blasphemy and “hate crime”. It’s just another tool of totalitarian regimes. Good riddance. This is the same sort of nonsense we’re faced with every day now with so-called “progressives” trying to turn the clock back on free speech because their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot tolerate dissent.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  David Giles

There really is no such crime as “heresy”. And never should have been. It’s just another class of “thought crime” along with blasphemy and “hate crime”. It’s just another tool of totalitarian regimes. Good riddance. This is the same sort of nonsense we’re faced with every day now with so-called “progressives” trying to turn the clock back on free speech because their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot tolerate dissent.

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

No, they weren’t. Right or wrong – and nobody today would see it as right – they were condemned for heresy, fundamental rejection of doctrine, way beyond protest against institutional corruption.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago

When killing Jews who had converted to Christianity, St Paul was being zealous. According to Jewish law, worshipping false gods, idolatry, was punishable by death. The Jews did not believe Christ was God incarnate, consequently the Jewish Christians were idolaters.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank God the wonderful Romans intervened!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank God the wonderful Romans intervened!

george villeneau
george villeneau
1 year ago

interesting that i haven’t come across that in my bible reading. Maybe it’s not true !

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

You may want to read a bit more.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

You may want to read a bit more.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Presumably St Paul repented. He certainly changed his views. Did More ever repent ?
Let’s just remember that those he condemned to death – and a needlessly painful death – were protesting against corruption in the Catholic church. They were killed for “thought crimes”. Just obeying orders is no defence.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago

When killing Jews who had converted to Christianity, St Paul was being zealous. According to Jewish law, worshipping false gods, idolatry, was punishable by death. The Jews did not believe Christ was God incarnate, consequently the Jewish Christians were idolaters.

george villeneau
george villeneau
1 year ago

interesting that i haven’t come across that in my bible reading. Maybe it’s not true !

Roger Sponge
Roger Sponge
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

More is remembered for his death. Not his life.

Chris Mackay
Chris Mackay
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Sponge

…. and Utopia. Which took slavery as a given.

Chris Mackay
Chris Mackay
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Sponge

…. and Utopia. Which took slavery as a given.

Rob Nock
Rob Nock
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Important to remember that the real More was very different to the More from ‘A Man for all Seasons.’

George Venning
George Venning
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Bolt’s More is, of course, a fiction – who may or may not resemble the actual More to a greater or lesser degree than the rather less sympathetic More depicted by Hilary Mantel.
The exchange – the point – is Bolt’s then, not More’s

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

..and St.Paul persecuted and killed early Christians and still became one of the Church‘s greatest Saints.

Roger Sponge
Roger Sponge
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

More is remembered for his death. Not his life.

Rob Nock
Rob Nock
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Important to remember that the real More was very different to the More from ‘A Man for all Seasons.’

George Venning
George Venning
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Bolt’s More is, of course, a fiction – who may or may not resemble the actual More to a greater or lesser degree than the rather less sympathetic More depicted by Hilary Mantel.
The exchange – the point – is Bolt’s then, not More’s

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Satan is in the Whitehouse, and most of the Deep State,so your post is apropos this situation. The problem is as he occupies the position of law giver and enforcer in this time; he takes to himself the benefit of the law, to further his attacks on mankind.

A darkness is on the world – one beyond what has been seen before. We are in the final struggle between good and evil; now the Tech exists to forever suppress the good if evil wins – if we lose it will be the end. The 2024 election decides the fate of the world.

Ken Shersley
Ken Shersley
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

This is my fear also; The Tech exists. Previous totalitarian states have failed because of overreach and the impossibility of remaining watertight. Modern tech may well overcome the problem of a leaking system. But only “may well”… The more complex the system, the more ways the system could go wrong and the more difficult it might be to fix it. Paul Ehrlich: “To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.” That or some natural disaster might save us – otherwise yes, we’re f**ked. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Ken Shersley
Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Ken Shersley

Paul Ehrlich is a poor guide for policy, since he has managed to foul things up to perfection, even without a computer. Since 1968 none of his sensational predictions of global doom has come true — not one even close.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Ken Shersley

Paul Ehrlich is a poor guide for policy, since he has managed to foul things up to perfection, even without a computer. Since 1968 none of his sensational predictions of global doom has come true — not one even close.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wim de Vriend
george villeneau
george villeneau
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I kind of agree with you .

Ken Shersley
Ken Shersley
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

This is my fear also; The Tech exists. Previous totalitarian states have failed because of overreach and the impossibility of remaining watertight. Modern tech may well overcome the problem of a leaking system. But only “may well”… The more complex the system, the more ways the system could go wrong and the more difficult it might be to fix it. Paul Ehrlich: “To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.” That or some natural disaster might save us – otherwise yes, we’re f**ked. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Ken Shersley
george villeneau
george villeneau
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I kind of agree with you .

Ian S
Ian S
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?” Perfect question for the once-respected Sam Harris and his trampling on the truth regarding Hunter’s laptop.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It is not just politicians, prosecutors and judges. it is the whole apparatus of the state.
We have seen it all before. It was how they got rid of Nixon.
How the Deep State Took Down Nixon | Compact Mag

Max Rottersman
Max Rottersman
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I can see why Mamet published here on Unherd. Where else would this comment get 106 likes and such a literate discussion?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“During More’s chancellorship, six people were burned at the stake for heresy”. Hardly a saint then. But doubtless he was just doing his job and enforcing the law.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Satan is in the Whitehouse, and most of the Deep State,so your post is apropos this situation. The problem is as he occupies the position of law giver and enforcer in this time; he takes to himself the benefit of the law, to further his attacks on mankind.

A darkness is on the world – one beyond what has been seen before. We are in the final struggle between good and evil; now the Tech exists to forever suppress the good if evil wins – if we lose it will be the end. The 2024 election decides the fate of the world.

Ian S
Ian S
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?” Perfect question for the once-respected Sam Harris and his trampling on the truth regarding Hunter’s laptop.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It is not just politicians, prosecutors and judges. it is the whole apparatus of the state.
We have seen it all before. It was how they got rid of Nixon.
How the Deep State Took Down Nixon | Compact Mag

Max Rottersman
Max Rottersman
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I can see why Mamet published here on Unherd. Where else would this comment get 106 likes and such a literate discussion?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Whenever I see a politician, judge, or prosecutor trying to weaponize the legal system against their enemies I cannot help but think about that scene from A Man for All Seasons.
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

I’m not a US citizen but for quite a while now I’ve had the impression that no one actually governs anymore in that country – each term of office seems to consist of both sides attempting to screw each other over as much as possible rather than getting on with the business of government

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Considering the caliber of teams red and blue, we probably should be grateful of that fact.

Brian Burnell
Brian Burnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

I’m in no doubt that many Americans, aware of the relatively stable political systems that have evolved in the United Kingdom and its Dominions, are now regretting that they fought a war to overthrow their monarch, King George.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

To be fair Britain’s system could do with an overhaul

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

That has got to be the most ill-conceived comment of the day.
Blair use the weasel words “transparency ” and “accountability” to justify changes to centuries old legal traditions as a means of asserting political control and as a result the legal system has become politicised and increasingly bought into disrepute

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

That has got to be the most ill-conceived comment of the day.
Blair use the weasel words “transparency ” and “accountability” to justify changes to centuries old legal traditions as a means of asserting political control and as a result the legal system has become politicised and increasingly bought into disrepute

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

No, no we aren’t. For the very same reason that we have these issues in the states. Your system allows untrammeled political power to those who hold the reins. Ours at least allows a fight.
In theory.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Not really. There is, through the separation of state, federal, and local governments, there are mechanisms to rebel against imperial authority short of open rebellion. Sanctuary cities, for example, or the fact that Florida and Texas could choose to end COVID lockdowns while California continued them, and the federal government had no authority to stop them (despite dim-witted Trump insisting the opposite). People and businesses could then vote with their feet and live under the rulers they preferred. America’s system is subtle. If it survives our current travails as it has survived others in the past, it will be for the same reasons. The American system works because it is arcane, ugly, complex, and often adversarial not despite those qualities. It allows a great deal of conflict short of violence because there’s no way a country so large and diverse is going to agree on much of anything for very long. The British system would never work here. We’d be more like France used to be, constantly rioting over whatever the current government is doing, embracing various strongman figures, and having a good ole fashioned rebellion every few decades.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Nah.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Like. And boy, did they dress that war with noble dross.

Carole Mitchell
Carole Mitchell
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

This is meant to be ironic, isn’t it? How many prime ministers (and a head of lettuce) did the UK run through in how few months?

John Gardner
John Gardner
1 year ago

Technically, the Conservative party repeatedly changed their leader. The government can only be changed by a vote of no confidence in Parliament. Or by a General Election. That is what l take Brian Burnell to mean

John Gardner
John Gardner
1 year ago

Technically, the Conservative party repeatedly changed their leader. The government can only be changed by a vote of no confidence in Parliament. Or by a General Election. That is what l take Brian Burnell to mean

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Actually, we’re not.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

To be fair Britain’s system could do with an overhaul

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

No, no we aren’t. For the very same reason that we have these issues in the states. Your system allows untrammeled political power to those who hold the reins. Ours at least allows a fight.
In theory.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Not really. There is, through the separation of state, federal, and local governments, there are mechanisms to rebel against imperial authority short of open rebellion. Sanctuary cities, for example, or the fact that Florida and Texas could choose to end COVID lockdowns while California continued them, and the federal government had no authority to stop them (despite dim-witted Trump insisting the opposite). People and businesses could then vote with their feet and live under the rulers they preferred. America’s system is subtle. If it survives our current travails as it has survived others in the past, it will be for the same reasons. The American system works because it is arcane, ugly, complex, and often adversarial not despite those qualities. It allows a great deal of conflict short of violence because there’s no way a country so large and diverse is going to agree on much of anything for very long. The British system would never work here. We’d be more like France used to be, constantly rioting over whatever the current government is doing, embracing various strongman figures, and having a good ole fashioned rebellion every few decades.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Nah.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Like. And boy, did they dress that war with noble dross.

Carole Mitchell
Carole Mitchell
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

This is meant to be ironic, isn’t it? How many prime ministers (and a head of lettuce) did the UK run through in how few months?

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Burnell

Actually, we’re not.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Actually, unlike Britain, the Fed, the Treasury and the US equivalent of our Civil Service is of such a high quality, that in the case of Trump, who knows and understands nothing about anything, the country purrs along as the lesser the incumbent presidents Cerebral power and reading ability, the less he gets in the way. A perfect example was the Israeli peace process put together by Avi Cohen and US advisors with the Arab Gulf states. Trump naturally took the credit, but had not a blind clue what it was about, the history, or geography, let alone the difference between Sunni and Shiah, whom he thought were a pop duo who sang ” I’ve got you babe”.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

Well it’s good to hear there are people getting things done – thanks!

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Trump, a highly successful businessman
and biiionare, is clueless according to you.
Your opinion is based on ignorance and
blind prejudice and no substance.
It is pretty tedious.
You really do post some utter rot.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Successful my posterior. He inherited a large pot of cash from his genuinely successful Dad, and then proceeded to lose most of it, and topping up his losses with endless loans and dodgy dealings:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/as-a-businessman-trump-was-the-biggest-loser-of-all
They worked out that, had he just put his inheritance into a fund, he’d have done rather better than pretending to be a businessman.

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Highly successful – how often did he declare bankruptcy?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Many, many entrepreneurs start multiple businesses- some work others don’t. They have personalities that like ideas and innovation and the are willing to play the odds, ie taking on more risk than the average person. Just because Trump inherited $22million doesn’t mean he’s any different than other entrepreneurs who seek venture capital money. His money just happened to be in the family. Most money inheritors sit on their wealth preferring advisors to manage it – they don’t start businesses.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Many, many entrepreneurs start multiple businesses- some work others don’t. They have personalities that like ideas and innovation and the are willing to play the odds, ie taking on more risk than the average person. Just because Trump inherited $22million doesn’t mean he’s any different than other entrepreneurs who seek venture capital money. His money just happened to be in the family. Most money inheritors sit on their wealth preferring advisors to manage it – they don’t start businesses.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Highly succesful businessman ? He inherited from his father! His businesses were a disaster: I know that he was banned from and by Citibank from even having a deposit account- do your research!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

ps don’t post imbecilic innacurate rubbish: it makes you look like Trump…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

ps don’t post imbecilic innacurate rubbish: it makes you look like Trump…

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Successful my posterior. He inherited a large pot of cash from his genuinely successful Dad, and then proceeded to lose most of it, and topping up his losses with endless loans and dodgy dealings:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/as-a-businessman-trump-was-the-biggest-loser-of-all
They worked out that, had he just put his inheritance into a fund, he’d have done rather better than pretending to be a businessman.

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Highly successful – how often did he declare bankruptcy?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Highly succesful businessman ? He inherited from his father! His businesses were a disaster: I know that he was banned from and by Citibank from even having a deposit account- do your research!

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

Well it’s good to hear there are people getting things done – thanks!

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Trump, a highly successful businessman
and biiionare, is clueless according to you.
Your opinion is based on ignorance and
blind prejudice and no substance.
It is pretty tedious.
You really do post some utter rot.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Yes, that’s correct. Then Donald Trump came along and found out precisely how and who they were screwing over – the citizen taxpayers. He had to be stopped by any means necessary: fake Clinton-concocted dossiers, impeachments for crimes committed by Democrats, a phony Fed-seeded “insurrection”, a technicolor raid on his wife’s panty drawer, and now this charade. When this thing blows up in their faces, there’s really only one option left, but I wouldn’t want to sign up as Mr. Trump’s food taster.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Such is his culture and sophistication he only eats hamburgers

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago

And, who cares what he eats, other than small minded.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  aaron david

errrr… ” the” small minded..

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  aaron david

errrr… ” the” small minded..

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

Everyone loves a good burger

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago

And only drinks Coke

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

And Trump never drinks liquor or beer or any alcohol.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

me too

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

me too

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

me too but I dont have a shoe size IQ, the vocabulary of a 12 year old…. and am not a vapid simpleton…

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

And Trump never drinks liquor or beer or any alcohol.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

me too but I dont have a shoe size IQ, the vocabulary of a 12 year old…. and am not a vapid simpleton…

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Anna Wintour, the eponymous editor of Vogue USA supposedly only eats steak for lunch – odd – but who cares!?

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago

And, who cares what he eats, other than small minded.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

Everyone loves a good burger

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago

And only drinks Coke

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Anna Wintour, the eponymous editor of Vogue USA supposedly only eats steak for lunch – odd – but who cares!?

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

It certainly seems petty and vindictive – and also quite funny – Stormy Daniels! Heh!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Such is his culture and sophistication he only eats hamburgers

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

It certainly seems petty and vindictive – and also quite funny – Stormy Daniels! Heh!

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

The central problem here in the US is that, simply, there isn’t one philosophy of how to govern. Rather, there are two, and until that is reconciled, by either a concurrence or a forcing, the smiting of one’s political enemy is the primary use of what power you have.
We are starting to see this in Europe now, as the once powerful mode is shown to not effect the changes it pledges.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

It’s gone that way alright.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Considering the caliber of teams red and blue, we probably should be grateful of that fact.

Brian Burnell
Brian Burnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

I’m in no doubt that many Americans, aware of the relatively stable political systems that have evolved in the United Kingdom and its Dominions, are now regretting that they fought a war to overthrow their monarch, King George.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Actually, unlike Britain, the Fed, the Treasury and the US equivalent of our Civil Service is of such a high quality, that in the case of Trump, who knows and understands nothing about anything, the country purrs along as the lesser the incumbent presidents Cerebral power and reading ability, the less he gets in the way. A perfect example was the Israeli peace process put together by Avi Cohen and US advisors with the Arab Gulf states. Trump naturally took the credit, but had not a blind clue what it was about, the history, or geography, let alone the difference between Sunni and Shiah, whom he thought were a pop duo who sang ” I’ve got you babe”.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Yes, that’s correct. Then Donald Trump came along and found out precisely how and who they were screwing over – the citizen taxpayers. He had to be stopped by any means necessary: fake Clinton-concocted dossiers, impeachments for crimes committed by Democrats, a phony Fed-seeded “insurrection”, a technicolor raid on his wife’s panty drawer, and now this charade. When this thing blows up in their faces, there’s really only one option left, but I wouldn’t want to sign up as Mr. Trump’s food taster.

aaron david
aaron david
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

The central problem here in the US is that, simply, there isn’t one philosophy of how to govern. Rather, there are two, and until that is reconciled, by either a concurrence or a forcing, the smiting of one’s political enemy is the primary use of what power you have.
We are starting to see this in Europe now, as the once powerful mode is shown to not effect the changes it pledges.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

It’s gone that way alright.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago

I’m not a US citizen but for quite a while now I’ve had the impression that no one actually governs anymore in that country – each term of office seems to consist of both sides attempting to screw each other over as much as possible rather than getting on with the business of government

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

This all seems very strange. I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, as people on this site can attest, but if he has committed a felony crime why was this not made clear at his arraignment? Even the BBC this morning seemed to be confused about the charges, its correspondant said that as far as he could see, from the details given, Mr. Trump could be charged with no more than a misdemeanour.

I think it’s a big problem having openly partisan legal system, I know it can be argued that in any system judges/prosecutors etc. all have political views and perhaps it’s better to have them out in the open. However, I believe that being elected as a partisan prosecutor gives one less incentive to even try to be even-handed, the attitude can become – I was voted in with these particular views, therefore, I have a mandate to make my decisions based on these views. It goes without saying that this is the case for those from the Republican as well as the Democrat side (but I thought it worth saying here anyway 🙂 )

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Thanks for your sensible comment, free from hyperbole about satan, the end of the world and all the rest of the overblown rhetoric this article seems prone to.

Nona Yubiz
Nona Yubiz
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

David Mamet seems to have lost his mind.

Nona Yubiz
Nona Yubiz
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

David Mamet seems to have lost his mind.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

District Attorney Bragg is Harvard Affirmative Action. That’s all you have to know.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Correct, All those elected are partisans, which is why they campaign. But when only one side gets to exercise their mandate, something is wrong. Trump was elected President, yet the levers of power made every attempt to usurp the electorate’s decision from the day he was elected. Calls for his impeachment began before he was inaugurated. Yet, the Democrats scream about saving democracy!

Last edited 1 year ago by Warren Trees
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

I agree. I have no time for a charlatan TV-land muppet like Trump, but disagree with this prosecution. So, he “paid off a broad who was going to squawk” – big deal, it was his money, wasn’t it? Who cares – in France, nobody would have batted an eyelid, they probably have a servant to make such payments for senior politicians lol. Much more civilised.

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Two French presidents were prosecuted

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Two French presidents were prosecuted

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Thanks for your sensible comment, free from hyperbole about satan, the end of the world and all the rest of the overblown rhetoric this article seems prone to.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

District Attorney Bragg is Harvard Affirmative Action. That’s all you have to know.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Correct, All those elected are partisans, which is why they campaign. But when only one side gets to exercise their mandate, something is wrong. Trump was elected President, yet the levers of power made every attempt to usurp the electorate’s decision from the day he was elected. Calls for his impeachment began before he was inaugurated. Yet, the Democrats scream about saving democracy!

Last edited 1 year ago by Warren Trees
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

I agree. I have no time for a charlatan TV-land muppet like Trump, but disagree with this prosecution. So, he “paid off a broad who was going to squawk” – big deal, it was his money, wasn’t it? Who cares – in France, nobody would have batted an eyelid, they probably have a servant to make such payments for senior politicians lol. Much more civilised.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

This all seems very strange. I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, as people on this site can attest, but if he has committed a felony crime why was this not made clear at his arraignment? Even the BBC this morning seemed to be confused about the charges, its correspondant said that as far as he could see, from the details given, Mr. Trump could be charged with no more than a misdemeanour.

I think it’s a big problem having openly partisan legal system, I know it can be argued that in any system judges/prosecutors etc. all have political views and perhaps it’s better to have them out in the open. However, I believe that being elected as a partisan prosecutor gives one less incentive to even try to be even-handed, the attitude can become – I was voted in with these particular views, therefore, I have a mandate to make my decisions based on these views. It goes without saying that this is the case for those from the Republican as well as the Democrat side (but I thought it worth saying here anyway 🙂 )

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

I don’t get it. Being from the UK I don’t understand what is a grand jury, or the difference between a felony and a misdemeanour, but it does seem that Mr Trump spent money on a personal matter and then evaded tax by classifying those payments as a bona-fide business expense. In the UK that is tax evasion and a crime, and being charged and then prosecuted in court would be appropriate for anyone denying doing so. Why should a criminal get off because he is an important politician, and why would you want such a criminal as your president? Whataboutery doesn’t hack it – if any other politician commits a crime then they should be subject to the same legal process.

It is also strange from over here that the political affiliations of legal officers are so obvious, presumably because they are elected by popular vote. I can understand why that system was initiated centuries ago, but in the modern world is that really the best way to get an independent justice system?

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

To clarify, in the UK a crime is a crime, and you are either guilty or not, and there are no graduations of criminal behaviour (eg from felony to misdemeanour, assuming that is relevant here), only in sentencing. I think that stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the tax system is a crime, but apparently some in the USA think not, which is confusing to us Brits. If I stole $5 from someone in the street that would be a crime, as would stealing a can of beans from a shop.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Not quite so.. Magistrates courts can only try crimes of a certain type, otherwise its up to The Crown Court.There are also other distinctions, but as it is so long since I read for the law, I cannot remember.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

ahh I remember… we have indictable offences and non indictable offences, and we used to have capital crime.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

ahh I remember… we have indictable offences and non indictable offences, and we used to have capital crime.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Where in the indictment is there any notion that there was any tax evasion?

I know you think Trump is guilty as charged, without needing to see the evidence, but it seems you also don’t even need to see the charges.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

In the UK if you claim expenditure as a business expense when it is not then that is tax evasion. I thought that was the basis of the charges against Trump but it seems that you consider me to be wrong.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

That is Mr. Price’s unique way of saying there has been no mention of tax evasion in the indictment or by any of the prosecutors or by any person with the slightest knowledge of the charges.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

That is Mr. Price’s unique way of saying there has been no mention of tax evasion in the indictment or by any of the prosecutors or by any person with the slightest knowledge of the charges.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Trump never deducted the hush money as a tax expense. Moreover these transactions happened in 2017, years after the election so the idea he did so because of the 2015 election is just garbage.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

In the UK if you claim expenditure as a business expense when it is not then that is tax evasion. I thought that was the basis of the charges against Trump but it seems that you consider me to be wrong.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Trump never deducted the hush money as a tax expense. Moreover these transactions happened in 2017, years after the election so the idea he did so because of the 2015 election is just garbage.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Nor sure it’s a tax evasion charge out front (although we’ll see). More an illegal campaign expenditure not declared. It’ll have to be close to what Cohen went to jail for and if Trump instructed those payments difficult to see how Cohen goes down and Trump doesn’t. One suspects Cohen shared specific details showing Trump instruction and it’s fairly clear-cut. So trump will look to find a statue of limitations defence and then rubbish Cohen. But if there’s clear evidence…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Not quite so.. Magistrates courts can only try crimes of a certain type, otherwise its up to The Crown Court.There are also other distinctions, but as it is so long since I read for the law, I cannot remember.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Where in the indictment is there any notion that there was any tax evasion?

I know you think Trump is guilty as charged, without needing to see the evidence, but it seems you also don’t even need to see the charges.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Nor sure it’s a tax evasion charge out front (although we’ll see). More an illegal campaign expenditure not declared. It’ll have to be close to what Cohen went to jail for and if Trump instructed those payments difficult to see how Cohen goes down and Trump doesn’t. One suspects Cohen shared specific details showing Trump instruction and it’s fairly clear-cut. So trump will look to find a statue of limitations defence and then rubbish Cohen. But if there’s clear evidence…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

We have indictable and non-indictable offences, jury trial and magistrates trial, so some similar distinctions.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

‘….but it does seem that Mr Trump spent money on a personal matter and then evaded tax ‘
Remember, Mr. Price is not a lawyer.
Mr. Price is not a tax accountant.
Mr. Price is not a prosecutor.
But Mr. Price is somebody who can read misinformation about taxes from his favourite echo-chamber and then repeat it at every chance he can find.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steven Carr
Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Note that I said “it does seem”, which seems to be a reasonable summation of what is going on. I have no idea whether that is what he did or whether if he did it is illegal – presumably that is for the court to decide. At least I haven’t decided that he is innocent either!

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Note that I said “it does seem”, which seems to be a reasonable summation of what is going on. I have no idea whether that is what he did or whether if he did it is illegal – presumably that is for the court to decide. At least I haven’t decided that he is innocent either!

Troy MacKenzie
Troy MacKenzie
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

A tax crime isn’t even alleged as far as we know. An NDA to protect the company brand is a legitimate expense. They are claiming that it helped his campaign, so it was an illegal campaign contribution. A novel legal theory that would never be applied to anyone not named Donald Trump.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Troy MacKenzie

Trump can’t legally contribute his own money to his own campaign. That is illegal, under the ‘Being Donald Trump Act’ of 2023.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Troy MacKenzie

I think the case hinges really on the same issue that sent Cohen to jail. And if it’s proved Cohen instructed to make certain payments by Trump quite difficult to see how the Law can be applied to one not the other. I think also it’s about whether the motive was hide the affair from electors as opposed to his wife, and thus trigger the rules on campaign finance. We’ll see what comes out.
Worth bearing in mind Capone was only done on tax evasion and not murder, extortion etc. But a public service was nonetheless done and Eliot Ness got the credit. Capone still had lots of supporters and still romanticised. I’m sure be same with Trump.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

‘I think the case hinges really on the same issue that sent Cohen to jail.’
You mean the issue that investigators spent a huge amount of time on in 2017 and couldn’t find a single thing to charge Trump with?

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

We’re going to see aren’t we. He’s innocent until proven guilty, just like everyone else. And should be treated the same as everyone else. All equal before the law.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I think also worth remembering Trump was exempt from charges whilst President. He’s not now.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

We’re going to see aren’t we. He’s innocent until proven guilty, just like everyone else. And should be treated the same as everyone else. All equal before the law.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I think also worth remembering Trump was exempt from charges whilst President. He’s not now.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

‘I think the case hinges really on the same issue that sent Cohen to jail.’
You mean the issue that investigators spent a huge amount of time on in 2017 and couldn’t find a single thing to charge Trump with?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Troy MacKenzie

Trump can’t legally contribute his own money to his own campaign. That is illegal, under the ‘Being Donald Trump Act’ of 2023.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Troy MacKenzie

I think the case hinges really on the same issue that sent Cohen to jail. And if it’s proved Cohen instructed to make certain payments by Trump quite difficult to see how the Law can be applied to one not the other. I think also it’s about whether the motive was hide the affair from electors as opposed to his wife, and thus trigger the rules on campaign finance. We’ll see what comes out.
Worth bearing in mind Capone was only done on tax evasion and not murder, extortion etc. But a public service was nonetheless done and Eliot Ness got the credit. Capone still had lots of supporters and still romanticised. I’m sure be same with Trump.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

To answer your questions, the grand jury presents an indictment, which basically states that sufficient evidence exists for a person to be brought to trial. There is a common expression in American jurisprudence that the prosecutor could ‘indict a ham sandwich’. The burden of proof is very low. Felonies are serious crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, arson, dealing drugs, theft over a certain dollar amount (can vary from state to state), etc. Misdemeanors include minor offenses such as petty theft, drug use, disorderly conduct, DUI, and so forth all the way down to minor traffic violations, though I believe some jurisdictions have a separate category for traffic and parking tickets. As for why would you want a criminal to get off because he was an important politician, the answer is subtler. It’s not a question of the letter of the law. The fact is, paying hush money to hide an affair, while technically illegal in some places, would rarely warrant the expense of a prosecution. It would be settled out of court in some way if it were pursued at all. The assertion the author and others have made is that Trump is being singled out BECAUSE he is an important politician, which sets an important precedent. Not prosecuting politicians criminally, especially for minor crimes unrelated to what they did while in office, has historically been something of an unwritten rule in American politics, not written down but respected by both parties as a way to avoid the judicial system being used for political purposes. This prosecution, for example, opens the door for Republican DA’s to go after Democrats for minor crimes as well, like Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc. Also, make no mistake, Trump will be neither the first criminal to be President nor will he be the last, nor will his crimes be the most egregious. Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, probably Kennedy, definitely Nixon, and probably many others I don’t know about, have done or at least participated in worse offenses. It’s worth mentioning that Nixon was never criminally prosecuted for Watergate after he resigned. As for why anyone would want this particular criminal to be President, I don’t really know. I consider myself a populist and an anti-globalist, but I never wanted Trump and I don’t understand why anyone ever thought he would ever be anything other than the corrupt egomaniac narcissist he so plainly is. Wishful thinking perhaps? And to your final question, which I realize was rhetorical but I’ll answer anyway. Our system is definitely not the best way to get an independent judiciary, but it IS a good way to get a judiciary that reflects the will of the people who are ultimately being judged. One of the problems we currently have in America is that the Supreme Court justices are NOT elected but appointed by the President for life. As a result, based on the timings of retirements and deaths, it is possible for one President or one party to have a huge impact on the court system and the Constitution offers little recourse. Trump, for example, appointed three of the current nine justices in his one term. As a result, there is currently a 6-3 Republican/conservative majority, though of course they don’t officially have party affiliations. Many Democrats are now advocating expanding the court, which is something that has happened before. The Supreme Court was treated as a partisan football for most of the antebellum period with Presidents expanding and shrinking the court for overtly political reasons. After the Civil War, it was left at 9 and became something politically toxic to touch. Termed ‘packing’ the court, it was only attempted once, by FDR, when the Supreme Court struck down parts of his New Deal legislation. He was criticized so harshly that it hasn’t been even discussed until recently. Some Democrats want to expand the court because of the current split, but it’s a dangerous road to go down. What we really need is some way to make the highest court LESS independent and MORE representative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

To clarify, in the UK a crime is a crime, and you are either guilty or not, and there are no graduations of criminal behaviour (eg from felony to misdemeanour, assuming that is relevant here), only in sentencing. I think that stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the tax system is a crime, but apparently some in the USA think not, which is confusing to us Brits. If I stole $5 from someone in the street that would be a crime, as would stealing a can of beans from a shop.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

We have indictable and non-indictable offences, jury trial and magistrates trial, so some similar distinctions.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

‘….but it does seem that Mr Trump spent money on a personal matter and then evaded tax ‘
Remember, Mr. Price is not a lawyer.
Mr. Price is not a tax accountant.
Mr. Price is not a prosecutor.
But Mr. Price is somebody who can read misinformation about taxes from his favourite echo-chamber and then repeat it at every chance he can find.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steven Carr
Troy MacKenzie
Troy MacKenzie
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

A tax crime isn’t even alleged as far as we know. An NDA to protect the company brand is a legitimate expense. They are claiming that it helped his campaign, so it was an illegal campaign contribution. A novel legal theory that would never be applied to anyone not named Donald Trump.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

To answer your questions, the grand jury presents an indictment, which basically states that sufficient evidence exists for a person to be brought to trial. There is a common expression in American jurisprudence that the prosecutor could ‘indict a ham sandwich’. The burden of proof is very low. Felonies are serious crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, arson, dealing drugs, theft over a certain dollar amount (can vary from state to state), etc. Misdemeanors include minor offenses such as petty theft, drug use, disorderly conduct, DUI, and so forth all the way down to minor traffic violations, though I believe some jurisdictions have a separate category for traffic and parking tickets. As for why would you want a criminal to get off because he was an important politician, the answer is subtler. It’s not a question of the letter of the law. The fact is, paying hush money to hide an affair, while technically illegal in some places, would rarely warrant the expense of a prosecution. It would be settled out of court in some way if it were pursued at all. The assertion the author and others have made is that Trump is being singled out BECAUSE he is an important politician, which sets an important precedent. Not prosecuting politicians criminally, especially for minor crimes unrelated to what they did while in office, has historically been something of an unwritten rule in American politics, not written down but respected by both parties as a way to avoid the judicial system being used for political purposes. This prosecution, for example, opens the door for Republican DA’s to go after Democrats for minor crimes as well, like Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc. Also, make no mistake, Trump will be neither the first criminal to be President nor will he be the last, nor will his crimes be the most egregious. Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, probably Kennedy, definitely Nixon, and probably many others I don’t know about, have done or at least participated in worse offenses. It’s worth mentioning that Nixon was never criminally prosecuted for Watergate after he resigned. As for why anyone would want this particular criminal to be President, I don’t really know. I consider myself a populist and an anti-globalist, but I never wanted Trump and I don’t understand why anyone ever thought he would ever be anything other than the corrupt egomaniac narcissist he so plainly is. Wishful thinking perhaps? And to your final question, which I realize was rhetorical but I’ll answer anyway. Our system is definitely not the best way to get an independent judiciary, but it IS a good way to get a judiciary that reflects the will of the people who are ultimately being judged. One of the problems we currently have in America is that the Supreme Court justices are NOT elected but appointed by the President for life. As a result, based on the timings of retirements and deaths, it is possible for one President or one party to have a huge impact on the court system and the Constitution offers little recourse. Trump, for example, appointed three of the current nine justices in his one term. As a result, there is currently a 6-3 Republican/conservative majority, though of course they don’t officially have party affiliations. Many Democrats are now advocating expanding the court, which is something that has happened before. The Supreme Court was treated as a partisan football for most of the antebellum period with Presidents expanding and shrinking the court for overtly political reasons. After the Civil War, it was left at 9 and became something politically toxic to touch. Termed ‘packing’ the court, it was only attempted once, by FDR, when the Supreme Court struck down parts of his New Deal legislation. He was criticized so harshly that it hasn’t been even discussed until recently. Some Democrats want to expand the court because of the current split, but it’s a dangerous road to go down. What we really need is some way to make the highest court LESS independent and MORE representative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago

I don’t get it. Being from the UK I don’t understand what is a grand jury, or the difference between a felony and a misdemeanour, but it does seem that Mr Trump spent money on a personal matter and then evaded tax by classifying those payments as a bona-fide business expense. In the UK that is tax evasion and a crime, and being charged and then prosecuted in court would be appropriate for anyone denying doing so. Why should a criminal get off because he is an important politician, and why would you want such a criminal as your president? Whataboutery doesn’t hack it – if any other politician commits a crime then they should be subject to the same legal process.

It is also strange from over here that the political affiliations of legal officers are so obvious, presumably because they are elected by popular vote. I can understand why that system was initiated centuries ago, but in the modern world is that really the best way to get an independent justice system?

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

Interesting. I don’t really know enough about the technicalities of this case to know if it is prosecutorial abuse but there certainly seems to be many people from the Left and Right who think so.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. Kennedy did likewise, as did a long long list of Democrat presidents, governors, senators, etc. But now we’re going after this former president. A perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

I know adultery is not a crime (maybe in Iran) but I’ve missed the bit about being exclusively in the context of Democrat politicians. Mishandling of classified infomation is probably common to all current and previous presidents and VPs and indicates a systemic problem with security authorisation and handling management at this level. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen, enforced through controls and protocols. Trump’s case was probably worse than average but if they’re going after him for this then they should be doing it for all, including then VP Biden.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Apparently Republican politicians are as clean as the driven snow in their moral rectitude, that is before Trump messed it all up with his moral turpitude of course!

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Another childish response.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Another childish response.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Iran? And many many other countries!

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Apparently Republican politicians are as clean as the driven snow in their moral rectitude, that is before Trump messed it all up with his moral turpitude of course!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Iran? And many many other countries!