Main Edition
US
FR
'Why is this night different from all other nights?' (Andrew Kelly-Pool/Getty Images)
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.
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.
SubscribeWhenever 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!”
“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.
..and St.Paul persecuted and killed early Christians and still became one of the Church‘s greatest Saints.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank God the wonderful Romans intervened!
Thank God the wonderful Romans intervened!
interesting that i haven’t come across that in my bible reading. Maybe it’s not true !
You may want to read a bit more.
You may want to read a bit more.
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.
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.
interesting that i haven’t come across that in my bible reading. Maybe it’s not true !
More is remembered for his death. Not his life.
…. and Utopia. Which took slavery as a given.
…. and Utopia. Which took slavery as a given.
Important to remember that the real More was very different to the More from ‘A Man for all Seasons.’
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
..and St.Paul persecuted and killed early Christians and still became one of the Church‘s greatest Saints.
More is remembered for his death. Not his life.
Important to remember that the real More was very different to the More from ‘A Man for all Seasons.’
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I kind of agree with you .
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.
I kind of agree with you .
“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.
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
I can see why Mamet published here on Unherd. Where else would this comment get 106 likes and such a literate discussion?
“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.
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.
“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.
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
I can see why Mamet published here on Unherd. Where else would this comment get 106 likes and such a literate discussion?
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!”
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
Considering the caliber of teams red and blue, we probably should be grateful of that fact.
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.
To be fair Britain’s system could do with an overhaul
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
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
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.
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.
Nah.
Like. And boy, did they dress that war with noble dross.
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?
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
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
Actually, we’re not.
To be fair Britain’s system could do with an overhaul
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.
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.
Nah.
Like. And boy, did they dress that war with noble dross.
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?
Actually, we’re not.
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”.
Well it’s good to hear there are people getting things done – thanks!
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.
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.
Highly successful – how often did he declare bankruptcy?
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.
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.
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!
ps don’t post imbecilic innacurate rubbish: it makes you look like Trump…
ps don’t post imbecilic innacurate rubbish: it makes you look like Trump…
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.
Highly successful – how often did he declare bankruptcy?
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!
Well it’s good to hear there are people getting things done – thanks!
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.
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.
Such is his culture and sophistication he only eats hamburgers
And, who cares what he eats, other than small minded.
errrr… ” the” small minded..
errrr… ” the” small minded..
Everyone loves a good burger
And only drinks Coke
And Trump never drinks liquor or beer or any alcohol.
me too
me too
me too but I dont have a shoe size IQ, the vocabulary of a 12 year old…. and am not a vapid simpleton…
And Trump never drinks liquor or beer or any alcohol.
me too but I dont have a shoe size IQ, the vocabulary of a 12 year old…. and am not a vapid simpleton…
Anna Wintour, the eponymous editor of Vogue USA supposedly only eats steak for lunch – odd – but who cares!?
And, who cares what he eats, other than small minded.
Everyone loves a good burger
And only drinks Coke
Anna Wintour, the eponymous editor of Vogue USA supposedly only eats steak for lunch – odd – but who cares!?
It certainly seems petty and vindictive – and also quite funny – Stormy Daniels! Heh!
Such is his culture and sophistication he only eats hamburgers
It certainly seems petty and vindictive – and also quite funny – Stormy Daniels! Heh!
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.
It’s gone that way alright.
Considering the caliber of teams red and blue, we probably should be grateful of that fact.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
It’s gone that way alright.
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
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 🙂 )
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.
David Mamet seems to have lost his mind.
David Mamet seems to have lost his mind.
It’s felony according to Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-04/read-full-text-of-the-trump-indictment-34-charges-in-new-york
District Attorney Bragg is Harvard Affirmative Action. That’s all you have to know.
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!
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.
Two French presidents were prosecuted
Two French presidents were prosecuted
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.
It’s felony according to Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-04/read-full-text-of-the-trump-indictment-34-charges-in-new-york
District Attorney Bragg is Harvard Affirmative Action. That’s all you have to know.
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!
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.
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 🙂 )
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?
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.
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.
ahh I remember… we have indictable offences and non indictable offences, and we used to have capital crime.
ahh I remember… we have indictable offences and non indictable offences, and we used to have capital crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
We have indictable and non-indictable offences, jury trial and magistrates trial, so some similar distinctions.
‘….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.
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!
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!
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.
Trump can’t legally contribute his own money to his own campaign. That is illegal, under the ‘Being Donald Trump Act’ of 2023.
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.
‘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?
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.
I think also worth remembering Trump was exempt from charges whilst President. He’s not now.
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.
I think also worth remembering Trump was exempt from charges whilst President. He’s not now.
‘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?
Trump can’t legally contribute his own money to his own campaign. That is illegal, under the ‘Being Donald Trump Act’ of 2023.
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.
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.
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.
We have indictable and non-indictable offences, jury trial and magistrates trial, so some similar distinctions.
‘….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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Another childish response.
Another childish response.
Iran? And many many other countries!
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!
Iran? And many many other countries!
If it would have been right to lock HC up for mishandling classified information, then is Trump above the law for doing likewise ?
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.
If it would have been right to lock HC up for mishandling classified information, then is Trump above the law for doing likewise ?
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.
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.
Well, the democrats have finally done it. They have made Trump a victim.
And to get there, they just smashed one of the last firewalls protecting us from civil war, the sense that the judicial system, flawed as it may be, is not just a weapon in political warfare?
What conservative in his or her right mind is not asking themselves if they will be targeted next?
And if they are asking themselves that then they are asking how they protect themselves from it.
One approach would be to retaliate and show the democrats that the republicans can do it too so maybe they want to rethink it.
The other approach is to say that there is no way they are willing to live under the power of democrats. That means a divorce. That means all conservatives move to conservative states and then do all they can to separate themselves from the progressive states. Where that leads is anyone’s guess but we can be sure that it will result in a weaker US.
Trump is a victim… a victim of unbelieveable levels of arrogance, combined with ill educated stupidity, a man devoid of intellect who has never said or argued for and against anything of consequence, in any depth on record, ever.
There is not one recorded second of Trump actually displaying knowledge in any single field.
Quite how so many in America can support such a vapid, shallow, uncultured imbecile just says volumes about average American education…. and Biden , due to his senility is merely the frying pan to Trump’s fire.
Hmmmmm… Take the words Trump out of your opinion and you could be speaking about any of Biden’s cabinet choices.
I’d rather have a “vapid, shallow, uncultured imbecile” as President than a brilliant, quick witted, rhetorically gifted, handsome Harvard educated totalitarian.
AMEN!
Obama has a sad.
Even where the imbecile is question is intent on splitting up America, albeit is too dumb to realise it. Half the country can’t stand him. In the past, the losing party at least always tolerated the winner’s guy. Those days are gone. Most candidates seem to nowadays to be divisive, and Trump is the most divisive of the lot.
He’d be well suited to leading a confederation of breakaway redneck / bible-bashing states, but he’s simply unsuited to leading America.
Sad to say, I think America is on the way out. It was good while it lasted, but I see no will anywhere in the US – in either main party – to wish to govern in the national interest. They hate each other. Trump is not the answer to America’s divisions.
AMEN!
Obama has a sad.
Even where the imbecile is question is intent on splitting up America, albeit is too dumb to realise it. Half the country can’t stand him. In the past, the losing party at least always tolerated the winner’s guy. Those days are gone. Most candidates seem to nowadays to be divisive, and Trump is the most divisive of the lot.
He’d be well suited to leading a confederation of breakaway redneck / bible-bashing states, but he’s simply unsuited to leading America.
Sad to say, I think America is on the way out. It was good while it lasted, but I see no will anywhere in the US – in either main party – to wish to govern in the national interest. They hate each other. Trump is not the answer to America’s divisions.
So long as you got the right opinions, you’ll be elected. Competence optional.
Hmmmmm… Take the words Trump out of your opinion and you could be speaking about any of Biden’s cabinet choices.
I’d rather have a “vapid, shallow, uncultured imbecile” as President than a brilliant, quick witted, rhetorically gifted, handsome Harvard educated totalitarian.
So long as you got the right opinions, you’ll be elected. Competence optional.
What nonsense. The DOJ was overly partisan under Trump. Just look at the Durham investigation which was basically started on conspiracy theories without probable cause, and when they found the opposite of what they were looking for, they swepped it under the rug.
V much doubt that. For a period he’ll weaponise it as best as poss, if for nothing else but to fleece another set of mugs of donations (Note: watch out for the NY case spinning into broader stuff on campaign funding irregularities. Trump taken alot of money off people which records will struggle to show spent as they will have been led to believe). As the details emerge and the other indictments follow most who may once have voted for him will just tire and yearn for normality and a stable candidate. Instructive his family weren’t alongside. They want no more of this too. One wonders if at 77 if this all gets too much for an elderly man whose neurons are fading naturally, and of course a huge distraction from really thinking through responses to all the complex policy challenges in the US.
A ‘core’ of crazies will remain, but world moves on. Republicans want someone who can win. He can’t, not anymore. And if comes to a choice about Biden again or dump Trump and get somebody else, fairly obvious outcome. But key Republicans hoping the Courts take him out to save them the pain.
Trump is a victim… a victim of unbelieveable levels of arrogance, combined with ill educated stupidity, a man devoid of intellect who has never said or argued for and against anything of consequence, in any depth on record, ever.
There is not one recorded second of Trump actually displaying knowledge in any single field.
Quite how so many in America can support such a vapid, shallow, uncultured imbecile just says volumes about average American education…. and Biden , due to his senility is merely the frying pan to Trump’s fire.
What nonsense. The DOJ was overly partisan under Trump. Just look at the Durham investigation which was basically started on conspiracy theories without probable cause, and when they found the opposite of what they were looking for, they swepped it under the rug.
V much doubt that. For a period he’ll weaponise it as best as poss, if for nothing else but to fleece another set of mugs of donations (Note: watch out for the NY case spinning into broader stuff on campaign funding irregularities. Trump taken alot of money off people which records will struggle to show spent as they will have been led to believe). As the details emerge and the other indictments follow most who may once have voted for him will just tire and yearn for normality and a stable candidate. Instructive his family weren’t alongside. They want no more of this too. One wonders if at 77 if this all gets too much for an elderly man whose neurons are fading naturally, and of course a huge distraction from really thinking through responses to all the complex policy challenges in the US.
A ‘core’ of crazies will remain, but world moves on. Republicans want someone who can win. He can’t, not anymore. And if comes to a choice about Biden again or dump Trump and get somebody else, fairly obvious outcome. But key Republicans hoping the Courts take him out to save them the pain.
Well, the democrats have finally done it. They have made Trump a victim.
And to get there, they just smashed one of the last firewalls protecting us from civil war, the sense that the judicial system, flawed as it may be, is not just a weapon in political warfare?
What conservative in his or her right mind is not asking themselves if they will be targeted next?
And if they are asking themselves that then they are asking how they protect themselves from it.
One approach would be to retaliate and show the democrats that the republicans can do it too so maybe they want to rethink it.
The other approach is to say that there is no way they are willing to live under the power of democrats. That means a divorce. That means all conservatives move to conservative states and then do all they can to separate themselves from the progressive states. Where that leads is anyone’s guess but we can be sure that it will result in a weaker US.
Justice delayed is justice denied, except in politics, where the delaying is all part of the show, and milked for maximum political gain.
And potentially a way of sidelining a candidate for the bulk of the 2024 election season. I’m not a fan of Trump, but the timing of this should raise questions on both sides of the aisle. Plus, why didn’t the Feds under Garland prosecute if there were credible federal election law violations? Why did Bragg’s predecessor (a staunch Dem) decline to bring charges against Trump? Questions, questions…
And potentially a way of sidelining a candidate for the bulk of the 2024 election season. I’m not a fan of Trump, but the timing of this should raise questions on both sides of the aisle. Plus, why didn’t the Feds under Garland prosecute if there were credible federal election law violations? Why did Bragg’s predecessor (a staunch Dem) decline to bring charges against Trump? Questions, questions…
Justice delayed is justice denied, except in politics, where the delaying is all part of the show, and milked for maximum political gain.
I would never vote for Trump, but I can’t help but see a resemblance to Navalny’s trail in Russia. It certainly looks like a politically motivated trail. Also, while not agreeing that 2020 election was stolen, imprisoning the Jan 6th protesters also reminds me of how Iran has been jailing protesters.
Iran has been killing peaceful protesters. The US are prosecuting people that tried to violently impede the peaceful transfer of power. There is no such thing as trial by combat in a democracy. How could a democratic state not forbid such a behavior?
Strongly suspect that had same invasion of Parliament happened in Iran the security service there would have opened fire and killed scores of people without much compunction. Instead the copious film records, witness testimonies and other social media records are used to ensure the law is upheld in the US peacefully. Demonstrations are legit. Invading, vandalising, threatening violence and trying to stop an election ratification can’t just be let go. A police officer also died lest we forget.
Which police officer died on January 6th?
The security services killed one person.
I guess killing just one person means the law is upheld ‘peacefully.’
Brian Sicknick. Attacked by the mob. That’s a lynching essentially. Why don’t you inquisitively look it up first? No instead you just don’t want to believe it do you, but it won’t be because you don’t have time. You probably imbibe copious on-line rubbish all the time.
Babbbitt was shot by officers after repeatedly trying to enter the House Chamber and after repeatedly warnings. Attacking the centre of legal representation shouting hang Pelosi and Pence etc not a peaceful demo.
The things that some folks on Unherd try to defend beyond comprehension occasionally. Those who do just make sometimes look stupid and diminish any other sensible contributions they might make.
Brian Sicknick was walking around unharmed after being allegedly lynched…. The Jan 6 committee simply forgot to release video footage of that…
Please repeat the warnings the police officer allegedly gave Babbitt before he shot her.
‘Brian Sicknick. Attacked by the mob. That’s a lynching essentially.’
Another TDS victim repeating lies. Lie, lie and lie again.
Never believe a word an anti-Trump fanatic says.
Never.
‘U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who engaged with pro-Trump rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, died of natural causes the day after the attack, Washington, D.C.’s chief medical examiner announced Monday.
Sicknick died after suffering strokes, the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, said in a report. In an interview, Diaz told The Washington Post, which first reported on the determination, that Sicknick suffered two strokes.
Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.
He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.’
‘MORE than 50 Secret Service agents have been injured during ugly clashes outside the White House on a sixth night of violence sparked by the death of George Floyd.
The attacks came after President Trump was reportedly moved to a secure bunker usually used during terror attacks as heated protests escalated across Washington D.C.’
So I imagine you would want those protestors also to be shot down in cold blood.
Brian Sicknick was walking around unharmed after being allegedly lynched…. The Jan 6 committee simply forgot to release video footage of that…
Please repeat the warnings the police officer allegedly gave Babbitt before he shot her.
‘Brian Sicknick. Attacked by the mob. That’s a lynching essentially.’
Another TDS victim repeating lies. Lie, lie and lie again.
Never believe a word an anti-Trump fanatic says.
Never.
‘U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who engaged with pro-Trump rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, died of natural causes the day after the attack, Washington, D.C.’s chief medical examiner announced Monday.
Sicknick died after suffering strokes, the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, said in a report. In an interview, Diaz told The Washington Post, which first reported on the determination, that Sicknick suffered two strokes.
Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.
He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.’
‘MORE than 50 Secret Service agents have been injured during ugly clashes outside the White House on a sixth night of violence sparked by the death of George Floyd.
The attacks came after President Trump was reportedly moved to a secure bunker usually used during terror attacks as heated protests escalated across Washington D.C.’
So I imagine you would want those protestors also to be shot down in cold blood.
Brian Sicknick. Attacked by the mob. That’s a lynching essentially. Why don’t you inquisitively look it up first? No instead you just don’t want to believe it do you, but it won’t be because you don’t have time. You probably imbibe copious on-line rubbish all the time.
Babbbitt was shot by officers after repeatedly trying to enter the House Chamber and after repeatedly warnings. Attacking the centre of legal representation shouting hang Pelosi and Pence etc not a peaceful demo.
The things that some folks on Unherd try to defend beyond comprehension occasionally. Those who do just make sometimes look stupid and diminish any other sensible contributions they might make.
Which police officer died on January 6th?
The security services killed one person.
I guess killing just one person means the law is upheld ‘peacefully.’
Iran has been killing peaceful protesters. The US are prosecuting people that tried to violently impede the peaceful transfer of power. There is no such thing as trial by combat in a democracy. How could a democratic state not forbid such a behavior?
Strongly suspect that had same invasion of Parliament happened in Iran the security service there would have opened fire and killed scores of people without much compunction. Instead the copious film records, witness testimonies and other social media records are used to ensure the law is upheld in the US peacefully. Demonstrations are legit. Invading, vandalising, threatening violence and trying to stop an election ratification can’t just be let go. A police officer also died lest we forget.
I would never vote for Trump, but I can’t help but see a resemblance to Navalny’s trail in Russia. It certainly looks like a politically motivated trail. Also, while not agreeing that 2020 election was stolen, imprisoning the Jan 6th protesters also reminds me of how Iran has been jailing protesters.
Anyone that could have gone to Studio 54 so many times without touching a single drop of alcohol, or anything else, cannot be trusted.
And he wore a suit! The same damned dark suit/red tie!!?&%#$$&
Can’t imagine him on a white horse either …
And he wore a suit! The same damned dark suit/red tie!!?&%#$$&
Can’t imagine him on a white horse either …
Anyone that could have gone to Studio 54 so many times without touching a single drop of alcohol, or anything else, cannot be trusted.
Whereas the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton was entirely free of prosecutorial sharp practices and persecution? Really? It is amazing how shocking a breach of propriety is when it hits someone we really care about for the first time.
Another way of putting it would be that Trump has been under continuous investigation and litigation since long before he even thought of entering politics. Why should that stop just because he is running for office? From Wikipedia:
That’s a really good point and a refreshing perspective. This (rather than the deplorables and all that stuff) is what Trump brought to the Presidency.
That’s a really good point and a refreshing perspective. This (rather than the deplorables and all that stuff) is what Trump brought to the Presidency.
Whereas the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton was entirely free of prosecutorial sharp practices and persecution? Really? It is amazing how shocking a breach of propriety is when it hits someone we really care about for the first time.
Another way of putting it would be that Trump has been under continuous investigation and litigation since long before he even thought of entering politics. Why should that stop just because he is running for office? From Wikipedia:
I just hope America is prepared for the violence that will erupt when Trump is found not guilty.
Mind you, Trump has been charged with falsifying business records just like I would be charged with putting down 50 pounds for stationary when actually I spent the money on a USB stick for backing up my computer.
Only if you used that USB stick to commit a crime which you tried to hide. And also, while a USB stick is broadly speaking stationary, paying the sex worker of the CEO isn’t a legal expense.
Has your co-conspirator in the USB stick case also spent time in jail?
So Trump actually committed another crime, but in his infinite wisdom, Mr. Bragg is not charging Trump for that other crime. (Because there is no evidence?)
I bet Kafka wishes he had thought of that.
Oh wait, he did.
‘Has your co-conspirator in the USB stick case also spent time in jail?’
Strangely, nobody at that time ever dreamed that Trump had done anything illegal in the Stormy Daniels case.
Almost as though the investigators at that time went through everything with a fine toothcomb looking for criminal stuff and realised that the Stormy Daniels payment was nothing they could hold against Trump.
So Trump actually committed another crime, but in his infinite wisdom, Mr. Bragg is not charging Trump for that other crime. (Because there is no evidence?)
I bet Kafka wishes he had thought of that.
Oh wait, he did.
‘Has your co-conspirator in the USB stick case also spent time in jail?’
Strangely, nobody at that time ever dreamed that Trump had done anything illegal in the Stormy Daniels case.
Almost as though the investigators at that time went through everything with a fine toothcomb looking for criminal stuff and realised that the Stormy Daniels payment was nothing they could hold against Trump.
Only if you used that USB stick to commit a crime which you tried to hide. And also, while a USB stick is broadly speaking stationary, paying the sex worker of the CEO isn’t a legal expense.
Has your co-conspirator in the USB stick case also spent time in jail?
I just hope America is prepared for the violence that will erupt when Trump is found not guilty.
Mind you, Trump has been charged with falsifying business records just like I would be charged with putting down 50 pounds for stationary when actually I spent the money on a USB stick for backing up my computer.
This is one of many ‘lines’ recently ‘demolished’. We’re in trouble.
This is one of many ‘lines’ recently ‘demolished’. We’re in trouble.
It is always nice to be able to welcome you to our world. Just as you never minded cancel culture when you were cancelling us, so you never minded political lawfare when we were the only ones subjected to it. But like workers who broke strikes, you were feeding the crocodile in the hope that he would eat you last.
You never thought that you were the crocodile. There is a reason why prosecutors all have the same politics. Like the more statist elements of the Left, traditional conservatives would not want the job under anything like the present circumstances. Like people of more-or-less Trotskyist, syndicalist or anarchist leanings, libertarians would not want the job at all. So the people who even so much as apply for it are all like Alvin Bragg, Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer.
Bragg ran for office on a promise to indict Donald Trump, and we laugh at how coarse everything about that sounds to British ears. But if any country’s rulers are determined to arrest, charge, try, convict and imprison a political opponent, then they will find a way. Failure, such as in the case of Alex Salmond, is a sign of weakness, usually in the form of decline and decay, as we now see today in relation to that case. In Britain, we may count ourselves lucky only that our masters no longer had capital punishment at their disposal, although that does not stop them from trying to kill us, and sometimes succeeding.
Well, the way to win the game is to play the game. Contest the next General Election on a promise to deploy the full powers at the disposal of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to secure the prosecution of Tony Blair and his accomplices in the waging of the war against Iraq. His defenders, such as they are, maintain in all seriousness that that war must have been legal because the Attorney General had said so, or, if pushed, because the House of Commons had voted for it. Let them test those defences before 12 randomly assembled members of the general public, and before a person who, having worked for 30 years to reach the middle of a self-employed but mostly publicly funded profession, had become a directly salaried and pensionable employee of the same State that had brought the prosecution.
Wishful thinking? Not at all. When I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair’s Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.
To strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.
It is always nice to be able to welcome you to our world. Just as you never minded cancel culture when you were cancelling us, so you never minded political lawfare when we were the only ones subjected to it. But like workers who broke strikes, you were feeding the crocodile in the hope that he would eat you last.
You never thought that you were the crocodile. There is a reason why prosecutors all have the same politics. Like the more statist elements of the Left, traditional conservatives would not want the job under anything like the present circumstances. Like people of more-or-less Trotskyist, syndicalist or anarchist leanings, libertarians would not want the job at all. So the people who even so much as apply for it are all like Alvin Bragg, Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer.
Bragg ran for office on a promise to indict Donald Trump, and we laugh at how coarse everything about that sounds to British ears. But if any country’s rulers are determined to arrest, charge, try, convict and imprison a political opponent, then they will find a way. Failure, such as in the case of Alex Salmond, is a sign of weakness, usually in the form of decline and decay, as we now see today in relation to that case. In Britain, we may count ourselves lucky only that our masters no longer had capital punishment at their disposal, although that does not stop them from trying to kill us, and sometimes succeeding.
Well, the way to win the game is to play the game. Contest the next General Election on a promise to deploy the full powers at the disposal of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to secure the prosecution of Tony Blair and his accomplices in the waging of the war against Iraq. His defenders, such as they are, maintain in all seriousness that that war must have been legal because the Attorney General had said so, or, if pushed, because the House of Commons had voted for it. Let them test those defences before 12 randomly assembled members of the general public, and before a person who, having worked for 30 years to reach the middle of a self-employed but mostly publicly funded profession, had become a directly salaried and pensionable employee of the same State that had brought the prosecution.
Wishful thinking? Not at all. When I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair’s Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.
To strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.
Bravo.
Bravo.
I’ll never look at a Mamet production (the same way?) again.
I’ll never look at a Mamet production (the same way?) again.
Nice piece of rhetoric but not much in the way of legal arguments. Let’s see how the process unfolds. Anyway, amusing to see how all these former Republican critics line up to kiss his ass – the GOP has become a party of hero worshippers. Explains the scandalous fact that they couldn’t come up with a party program.
Nice piece of rhetoric but not much in the way of legal arguments. Let’s see how the process unfolds. Anyway, amusing to see how all these former Republican critics line up to kiss his ass – the GOP has become a party of hero worshippers. Explains the scandalous fact that they couldn’t come up with a party program.
As the great Lenny Bruce once said: ” hey you – sit over there with POTZ!..” May Hoshem shower you with the pubic hairs of Rebbe Schneerson, the False Moshiach!
Your active contrarianism is a great way for you to monetise and weaponise your ageing mediocrity! Gay cucken oyfen yum Haim Schmeckel Berech!
There is no persecution of Donald Trump- If you or I had done even half the felonies Trump has committed we would be in jail already. The narcissist is always his own worst enemy and Trump is a stupid one who has done all this to himself.
There is no persecution of Donald Trump- If you or I had done even half the felonies Trump has committed we would be in jail already. The narcissist is always his own worst enemy and Trump is a stupid one who has done all this to himself.
> More recently, some pedestrians strolling outside the Capitol on January 6 were imprisoned,
I thought Unheard was a respectable publication.
> More recently, some pedestrians strolling outside the Capitol on January 6 were imprisoned,
I thought Unheard was a respectable publication.
We all admire David’s work, but the trouble with his argument is that Trump was the one trampling on the law all over the place, the one Who Would Be King and clearly as bad a one as any babbling megalomaniac if not restrained. I’m not sure whether David writes in jest or not.
We all admire David’s work, but the trouble with his argument is that Trump was the one trampling on the law all over the place, the one Who Would Be King and clearly as bad a one as any babbling megalomaniac if not restrained. I’m not sure whether David writes in jest or not.
I would have thought that ” Being Donald Trump” was a crime under the Terminal Brain dead Bullshitting Cretins Act?
I would have thought that ” Being Donald Trump” was a crime under the Terminal Brain dead Bullshitting Cretins Act?
I’m always surprised that a corrupt, crooked sociopath like Trump is a hill Republicans are prepared to die on.
Probably explains the absurd hyperbole and crazed rhetoric that comes with any article about the man.
More people vote Democrat than Republican election after election not because they are sold on them but they see the flight from the real world and performative nastiness that inflames the American Right today.
“performative nastiness “!
Where did you learn that expression JM,
High School?
Back to Twitter’ with you.
Reality TV is where the Trumper belongs. A weak and gullible fellow. How Rocketman and Putin laughed at him.
“performative nastiness “!
Where did you learn that expression JM,
High School?
Back to Twitter’ with you.
Reality TV is where the Trumper belongs. A weak and gullible fellow. How Rocketman and Putin laughed at him.
I’m always surprised that a corrupt, crooked sociopath like Trump is a hill Republicans are prepared to die on.
Probably explains the absurd hyperbole and crazed rhetoric that comes with any article about the man.
More people vote Democrat than Republican election after election not because they are sold on them but they see the flight from the real world and performative nastiness that inflames the American Right today.
Threats to Judges, DAs and even the daughters of judges seems pretty thuggish IMO.
Dog whistle calls to insurrection similar. Doing dinner with White Supramacists – ditto.
There is one clear Thug here, and he’s in the dock.
That said the optics of the Indictment yesterday not the best as the case doesn’t seem, to the uninitiated, more than a dishonest husband trying to cover up his infidelity – not exactly unprecedented. Whereas seeking to overturn an election and keeping classified papers to use in malign ways feel much more serious. What’s probable is these indictments do follow and move faster through legal stages to overtake the NY DA case. So the optics will change.
Which threats, specifically, has he made to the Judge or his family?
I think that pointing out the supposed political affiliations of the Judge’s daughter when his supporters are prone to issuing threats of death and violence is a clue.
…and posting a picture of himself with a baseball bat alongside that of the judge. Nice chap eh?
Exactly. You do that here in the UK you’d have bail withdrawn and have an additional charge of contempt of court. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Exactly. You do that here in the UK you’d have bail withdrawn and have an additional charge of contempt of court. He knew exactly what he was doing.
I think that pointing out the supposed political affiliations of the Judge’s daughter when his supporters are prone to issuing threats of death and violence is a clue.
…and posting a picture of himself with a baseball bat alongside that of the judge. Nice chap eh?
Which threats, specifically, has he made to the Judge or his family?
Threats to Judges, DAs and even the daughters of judges seems pretty thuggish IMO.
Dog whistle calls to insurrection similar. Doing dinner with White Supramacists – ditto.
There is one clear Thug here, and he’s in the dock.
That said the optics of the Indictment yesterday not the best as the case doesn’t seem, to the uninitiated, more than a dishonest husband trying to cover up his infidelity – not exactly unprecedented. Whereas seeking to overturn an election and keeping classified papers to use in malign ways feel much more serious. What’s probable is these indictments do follow and move faster through legal stages to overtake the NY DA case. So the optics will change.
If a president that attempts an auto-coup and incited a violent insurrection only gets convicted for having his company paying a sex worker, this would very much remind of Al Capone’s conviction for tax evasion.
Let’s hope that the more relevant crimes that truly endangered one of the oldest democracies will also be accounted for.
Coups usually involve guns at the very least. A protest that descended into a riot is a more apt description. And it is no crime to claim the election was stolen, even if some people get worked up over it.
Proof?
‘A protest that descended into a riot’ (what is becoming clearer and clearer) at the behest of the FBI instigators and the Capitol Police.
Proof?
‘A protest that descended into a riot’ (what is becoming clearer and clearer) at the behest of the FBI instigators and the Capitol Police.
You should research all the information about the NO
WEAPON so=called Coup. There is so much to learn.
It has never been called a coup, it has been called an ‘insurrection’. For which weapons are an obligatory requirement.
It has never been called a coup, it has been called an ‘insurrection’. For which weapons are an obligatory requirement.
Yes indeed. Those of Hillary Clinton!
Coups usually involve guns at the very least. A protest that descended into a riot is a more apt description. And it is no crime to claim the election was stolen, even if some people get worked up over it.
You should research all the information about the NO
WEAPON so=called Coup. There is so much to learn.
Yes indeed. Those of Hillary Clinton!
If a president that attempts an auto-coup and incited a violent insurrection only gets convicted for having his company paying a sex worker, this would very much remind of Al Capone’s conviction for tax evasion.
Let’s hope that the more relevant crimes that truly endangered one of the oldest democracies will also be accounted for.
He is not President Trump, Mr Mamet, he is Mr Trump. He lost the last election, remember?
No, Trump won in 2020 – and when he wins again in 2024 he will be the first President to win three consecutive times in a great wile.
ULTRA MAGA!
That would be the case, apart from the complete and total lack of evidence that that there was any other than risibly minor and inconsequential fraud in that 2020 election, no more than in any other election and the same for all parties. If there is any credible evidence of material fraud could someone reference the detail please as I would like to know.
Seconded. I have asked that ebfore, and never got a sensible answer.
Maybe never got an answer you liked. There was fraud in the 2020 election – when the count closed in the middle of the night with Trump ahead and re-opened some time later with Trump behind after the Dems had stuffed the ballot boxes with more Dem votes. Biden had spent the campaign hiding in his basement while Trump had played to vast rallies several times a day – and you expect me to believe Biden won bigly? If so I have a lovely bridge over here…
If you have a link I shall check it out and see what it proves. But let me point out that it was said well before the vote that Democrats were likely to be ahead in the mail vote, so the *expected outcome* was that the Democrats would surge during the night. As for your Biden v. Trump argument, that translates as ‘my candidate was so much better so there is no way he could possibly have lost honestly‘. Not the most convincing of arguments.
If you have a link I shall check it out and see what it proves. But let me point out that it was said well before the vote that Democrats were likely to be ahead in the mail vote, so the *expected outcome* was that the Democrats would surge during the night. As for your Biden v. Trump argument, that translates as ‘my candidate was so much better so there is no way he could possibly have lost honestly‘. Not the most convincing of arguments.
Maybe never got an answer you liked. There was fraud in the 2020 election – when the count closed in the middle of the night with Trump ahead and re-opened some time later with Trump behind after the Dems had stuffed the ballot boxes with more Dem votes. Biden had spent the campaign hiding in his basement while Trump had played to vast rallies several times a day – and you expect me to believe Biden won bigly? If so I have a lovely bridge over here…
Here is one: The Michigan supreme court ruled that their Attorney General acted illegally by changing the rules for signature validation of mail-in ballots a few weeks before the election. By law these rules are set by the legislature. So what was the result of this illegal act? Who knows? Michigan had 3.5 million mail-in ballots. What if 10% of the Biden votes were accepted due to this action? What if 5% were? That would be 175,000 votes. Biden won the state by 150,000. (Going from memory here but I believe these are the numbers.)
And what if 10% of the Trump votes were accepted due to this validation? And is the Michigan Supreme Court a politically neutral body? So no evidence of fraud as such.
I’m a Liverpool supporter so maybe I should become a Republican and insist they really won the Quadruple last year. Be lovely to live in a world where you can invent your own reality…
Stop bluffing you old cove!
And you already “live in a world where you can invent your own reality…”
So off to Twitter with you, and be smart about it!
The Electoral College system is a joke. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 2.87 million votes(!), yet still was deemed to “win” lol.
Stop bluffing you old cove!
And you already “live in a world where you can invent your own reality…”
So off to Twitter with you, and be smart about it!
The Electoral College system is a joke. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 2.87 million votes(!), yet still was deemed to “win” lol.
I’m a Liverpool supporter so maybe I should become a Republican and insist they really won the Quadruple last year. Be lovely to live in a world where you can invent your own reality…
And what if 10% of the Trump votes were accepted due to this validation? And is the Michigan Supreme Court a politically neutral body? So no evidence of fraud as such.
Seconded. I have asked that ebfore, and never got a sensible answer.
Here is one: The Michigan supreme court ruled that their Attorney General acted illegally by changing the rules for signature validation of mail-in ballots a few weeks before the election. By law these rules are set by the legislature. So what was the result of this illegal act? Who knows? Michigan had 3.5 million mail-in ballots. What if 10% of the Biden votes were accepted due to this action? What if 5% were? That would be 175,000 votes. Biden won the state by 150,000. (Going from memory here but I believe these are the numbers.)
wrong, according to Stormy Daniels he has anything but a ” great wile”… Good to see that a Trump supporter cannot even spell in his own language….
You can’t even spell.
And you are so thick you cannot even spot the play on words… God save us!! and you advertise the fact! You have made my day! Dunce cap for you!!!
I think his brief comment was aimed at Mr Bjorn rather than your good self!
I think his brief comment was aimed at Mr Bjorn rather than your good self!
And you are so thick you cannot even spot the play on words… God save us!! and you advertise the fact! You have made my day! Dunce cap for you!!!
That would be the case, apart from the complete and total lack of evidence that that there was any other than risibly minor and inconsequential fraud in that 2020 election, no more than in any other election and the same for all parties. If there is any credible evidence of material fraud could someone reference the detail please as I would like to know.
wrong, according to Stormy Daniels he has anything but a ” great wile”… Good to see that a Trump supporter cannot even spell in his own language….
You can’t even spell.
I understand that a former president is still addressed as president in the US so this may not be a mistake.
Actually, it’s incorrect – I checked before I posted.
It would lead to confusion to have all living ex presidents addressed as ‘President’. There can only be one, the one in office.
Wrong. We still call Lincoln “President Lincoln”. A person is usually addressed as his/her last held title.
Wrong. We still call Lincoln “President Lincoln”. A person is usually addressed as his/her last held title.
Actually, it’s incorrect – I checked before I posted.
It would lead to confusion to have all living ex presidents addressed as ‘President’. There can only be one, the one in office.
People call him President because in a system that wasn’t completely rigged he probably would be.
Rigged alright – in 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 2.87 million votes(!), yet still was deemed to “win” lol.
Rigged alright – in 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 2.87 million votes(!), yet still was deemed to “win” lol.
Incorrect. A person retains the last title of office given.
According to the US protocol, all former presidents are referred to and addressed as “President”. So, it’s only logical for Mr Mamet to call President Trump errrr… “President Trump”.
One suspects that, for yer average parallel-universe Trumper, it’s not merely an honorific.
One suspects that, for yer average parallel-universe Trumper, it’s not merely an honorific.
No, Trump won in 2020 – and when he wins again in 2024 he will be the first President to win three consecutive times in a great wile.
ULTRA MAGA!
I understand that a former president is still addressed as president in the US so this may not be a mistake.
People call him President because in a system that wasn’t completely rigged he probably would be.
Incorrect. A person retains the last title of office given.
According to the US protocol, all former presidents are referred to and addressed as “President”. So, it’s only logical for Mr Mamet to call President Trump errrr… “President Trump”.
He is not President Trump, Mr Mamet, he is Mr Trump. He lost the last election, remember?