General Election 2024

Quote: Mission146

I'm not going to dispute your first paragraph, but the thing is, you pick and choose.

For example, the Georgia phone call---nailed to the cross.

Incitement? Doubt it, but you can make a case. I don't think you have to make the case; I think if you leave it alone, Trump fades into obscurity and is seen as unelectable even if he gets the nomination.

Losing a civil case because of a 20+ year old rape claim for which there is no evidence and you can't even get the accusation down to a nine month window? Blatant targeting. The claims aren't even theoretically falsifiable, due to how unspecific they are. They did specify a specific place, but there were no witnesses, an unusual set of circumstances is alleged...and most importantly....it's a nine-month window. The location also happens to be all but next door to where Trump lives. The only support for the claims is two personal friends of the Plaintiff claiming she called them about it...neither of them (one also a journalist) happened to note so much as the month for such an important claim, of what would be a serious crime, either. Yeah, they totally couldn't be compelled to lie; they don't even need financial motivation; they probably hate Trump anyway.

As far as the fraud case for misreporting of value, I would assume that's something that is pretty frequent and you could go after all sorts of folks for similar, if you really wanted to. It's kind of like the Hunter Biden thing; if that was normally enforced, then the justice system would be clogged with pretty much people just being charged for similar.

The problem is that those who support him are becoming more fully entrenched on his side; the bigger problem is that you're flipping people who didn't support him. Not throwing every case you possibly can at him, however ridiculous, isn't going to flip anyone to being on his side.

The classified documents case is fairly legit.

I guess I will make a risky argument. Who gets to decide if a prosecution is valid? We don’t submit them to a vote. And they should go on if a prosecutor feels it’s valid, even if it’s unpopular with everyone and considered risky for some reason. Pretty sure much of the rejuvenation of the Hunter Biden case was politically motivated. But I’m fine with letting it play out. Doesn’t mean I won’t also note what I think are irregularities if I notice them.

Quote: rxwine

I guess I will make a risky argument. Who gets to decide if a prosecution is valid? We don’t submit them to a vote. And they should go on if a prosecutor feels it’s valid, even if it’s unpopular with everyone and considered risky for some reason. Pretty sure much of the rejuvenation of the Hunter Biden case was politically motivated. But I’m fine with letting it play out. Doesn’t mean I won’t also note what I think are irregularities if I notice them.

That's what I'm saying; I think we agree more than we disagree. I think you probably sort of agreed with me before, but the part where I really feel like I got it right is that it swung some people to Trump's side who he'd either lost or didn't have in the first place.

The problem is really more with the judges than the prosecutors.

Let's do an experiment: Can you please close your eyes, take three deep breaths and put all thought of Donald Trump out of your mind, if only for a moment?

EXPERIMENT

There's a business owner for a relatively minor city somewhere in Midwest America. In terms of the community, it seems like some people really love him and others really hate him. He owns a car dealership and some customers have felt ripped off by him, in addition to thinking he's an @$$40!3 besides, but other customers think he runs a good business and have enjoyed their social interactions with him.

Suddenly, a woman who has lived in town for a long time accuses this business owner of raping her. She claims that it happened 25 years ago, but she can't specify a date, and, in fact, can only narrow it down to roundabout a nine month window.

The location of the alleged rape is the QuikTrip that just so happens to be half a block from the business owner's house. Naturally, all camera footage of that night is long gone and, for the most part, you'd have trouble knowing who all worked there 25 years ago.

As the allegation goes, it was a relatively quiet night at the gas station/store. The accuser recalls that the attendant on duty was outside smoking a cigarette and, as she recalls, her big mistake was telling him to finish his smoke. The owner of the car dealership came in, clearly intoxicated, but she made the usual pleasantries with him as one would if you see someone you know about town...even if you don't particularly like them.

For whatever reason, the business owner took her general pleasantries as sexual advances and suggested that the two go into the QuikTrip's restroom and, "Get to know each other."

Absolutely baffled that the dealership owner would ever propose such a ridiculous notion, and quite certain he HAD to be joking, she laughed nervously. For some reason, as she claims, the business owner took her laughter as an indication that she'd love to do this, so he grabbed her aggressively and, from her perspective, shoved her into the bathroom.

Shocked beyond belief, she didn't initially fight back or even do very much outwardly that would prevent this. The owner of the car dealership latched the lock on the door and proceeded to remove enough of her clothing to sexually access her. When it finally occurred to her what was happening, she shoved him away and it was at that point that he turned her around and managed to insert himself into her.

After a few seconds, she was able to wriggle around and fight back enough that she successfully unlatched the lock and made a beeline out of the station. She'd also started to make quite a bit of noise, by that point, so the dealership owner decided not to try to force the issue any longer.

When she left the station, the attendant didn't see her go; even if the attendant had, he or she might be difficult to track down anyway. It could be that they don't even still have a record of all employees who worked there 25 years ago, and even if they did have, you'd have to find them and recognize them as the employee who was there that night...and that employee would have to remember seeing the victim leave in a panic in the first place.

Of course, someone running out of the store in a seeming panic would be noticeable, and for a short time, memorable...but, after twenty-five years? Probably not THAT memorable.

In any event, we have zero employees who witnessed any aspect of this altercation.

This is a lady of some means. She's certainly not destitute. After 25 years, she starts going around town alleging to all who will hear it that the owner of the car dealership raped her. In response, the owner of the dealership tells all who will listen that not only is her allegation absolutely untrue, but furthermore, he thinks that she's an ugly B!*** besides. (I mean, it's not a word that I would generally call a woman, but if she accused me of a rape that I didn't commit...that's probably going to be the second word out of my mouth after an even worse word before that)

For denying her unprovable allegation that he raped her, she sues him for slander.

In terms of her case presentation, she offers a nine-month window during which this alleged event, for which there are no witnesses, would have occurred. Also, the event took place only a half mile from the dealership owner's home. Her additional evidence is her two best friends both claiming that she called and told them about it.

-----

First of all, I don't see how a judge doesn't toss that out for insufficient evidence in the first place. Secondly, assuming that the judge doesn't toss it out, if you're on the jury, do you find in her favor that he slandered her by denying that he raped her?

Could this story have been made up to satisfy a vendetta of some kind? I just made it up. I didn't even edit.

Quote: Mission146

Nobody tried to steal an election on January 6th; the so-called, "Insurrectionists," succeeded only in obstructing an official proceeding...and they should have been put down like dogs and weren't; that would have ended that. In any event, there was no world in which January 6th changing the result of the election was even a theoretically possible outcome. The news just likes drama, as do most people who pay any attention to politics. I've already stipulated the Georgia phone call is actionable; I think he's dead to rights there, or should be.

Juries are made up mostly of idiots. In the case of New York State, they are made up of mostly idiots who can be assumed to be highly biased against Trump for reasons both including, and predating, his Presidency. Also, I understand the anonymity is for their own protection, but that absolutely would never fly in a criminal trial; at least, it shouldn't. If you're supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers and you are not anonymous, then how can anonymous people be your peers? As far as appeal and his election prospects, especially on the Carroll case, he probably half hopes to lose. Think about it---now he can argue that even higher level courts are against him.

The Democrats directly involved in these things, who are morons, should have focused only on the stuff related to the election and, I guess, the so-called, "Insurrection." This other stuff is what makes it look like systematic railroading and could have waited. The states trying to keep him off the ballot were being profoundly ridiculous and, for all of these reasons, he now has a chance to win this year whereas he'd have been massacred otherwise.

There will be no quaking in any boots because the system wouldn't make such an effort to deeply investigate such matters for others; that's the entire point.

They only succeeded in assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, entering or remaining in a restricted area and also obstructing, impeding or influencing an official proceeding. They did so with the expressed intent of preventing Congress from properly counting the electoral votes and naming Biden/Harris the winners of the election. That does not mean they did not attempt insurrection or preventing Biden from taking office and attempting to keep Trump in office. Indeed, some Jan 6 defendants have been convicted of exactly that. The probability (or lack thereof) of success is irrelevant to their criminal intent.

Juries may be anonymous to the public, but their identifies were known to E Jean Carroll and Trump. Court rules and the possibility of fines and criminal sanctions prevented Trump or Carroll from outing the jurors. Same rules apply in criminal trials. Do you have examples of criminal trials where the identity of jurors were kept from the defense? As for jurors being highly biased or whatever, the defense had ample opportunity to try and weed out anti-Trump jurors. And if those procedures aren't good enough for you, then no jury selection process would satisfy you. In that case, we would have to go to judges deciding cases. How well did that work out for Donnie last time?

Jurors may indeed be idiots, but that also includes you and me.

As for the financial sanctions. when is it acceptable to lie to others in business?

Donnie was never going to be "massacred" if we ignored his legal troubles, or never attempted to prosecute his alleged election or financial crimes. To ignore would turn him into more of an uncontrollable golem than he is now.

I would imagine there are a lot of evidence and trial issues with the scenario you presented, which proves nothing

Quote: GenoDRPh

They only succeeded in assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, entering or remaining in a restricted area and also obstructing, impeding or influencing an official proceeding. They did so with the expressed intent of preventing Congress from properly counting the electoral votes and naming Biden/Harris the winners of the election. That does not mean they did not attempt insurrection or preventing Biden from taking office and attempting to keep Trump in office. Indeed, some Jan 6 defendants have been convicted of exactly that. The probability (or lack thereof) of success is irrelevant to their criminal intent.

Juries may be anonymous to the public, but their identifies were known to E Jean Carroll and Trump. Court rules and the possibility of fines and criminal sanctions prevented Trump or Carroll from outing the jurors. Same rules apply in criminal trials. Do you have examples of criminal trials where the identity of jurors were kept from the defense? As for jurors being highly biased or whatever, the defense had ample opportunity to try and weed out anti-Trump jurors. And if those procedures aren't good enough for you, then no jury selection process would satisfy you. In that case, we would have to go to judges deciding cases. How well did that work out for Donnie last time?

Jurors may indeed be idiots, but that also includes you and me.

As for the financial sanctions. when is it acceptable to lie to others in business?

Donnie was never going to be "massacred" if we ignored his legal troubles, or never attempted to prosecute his alleged election or financial crimes. To ignore would turn him into more of an uncontrollable golem than he is now.

They did so with the expressed intent of doing something that they had no chance of succeeding at; also, did you miss that they should have all been put down like dogs? If you want to throw the book at them and do all of this to keep it in the news, I guess that's fine, but bullets are much cheaper.

Beyond that, the question is whether or not Trump incited them to commit the specific action of storming into the Capitol Building rather than moving what had been a lawful and peaceful assembly (prior to that) to the Capitol Building. "Fight," is often used in a context that does not mean to literally commit physical violence.

Any reasonable judge, in a bench trial, would have tossed it for insufficient evidence. There's no way...no matter how biased...that I could envision a judge actually deciding the case in Carroll's favor on a preponderance of the evidence standard. What evidence? She says it happened; he says it didn't, therefore; she wins. I mean, I guess she technically had slightly more evidence than he did...he should call two friends every nine months, or so, and inform his two friends that he didn't rape anyone in the previous nine months...they'd have had an equal amount of evidence then. The trial by jury was absolutely for a reason; of course, she does have the right to request a jury...either party does in a civil, generally.

"Acceptable," to lie to others in business? From what I can tell, that's all most businesses ever do; some artfully, others directly. In any event, any financial institution who made Donald Trump a loan when they knew, or should have known, about his dealings in Atlantic City was...I'd argue...categorically foolish, but certainly, more than willing to take a known risk.

I didn't say not to prosecute his election crimes. I'm starting to wonder if you literally don't see the words in my posts that you would prefer not to be there. Georgia---dead to rights; prosecute the hell out of the Georgia call. Probably the documents thing, as well.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I would imagine there are a lot of evidence and trial issues with the scenario you presented, which proves nothing

You're right; it does prove nothing.

Quote: rxwine

I guess I will make a risky argument. Who gets to decide if a prosecution is valid? We don’t submit them to a vote. And they should go on if a prosecutor feels it’s valid, even if it’s unpopular with everyone and considered risky for some reason. Pretty sure much of the rejuvenation of the Hunter Biden case was politically motivated. But I’m fine with letting it play out. Doesn’t mean I won’t also note what I think are irregularities if I notice them.

Standards of due process must be met in order for a prosecution to be valid in a legal sense. Cops can only detain someone if there is reasonable suspicion. Cops can only arrest someone if there is probable cause to suspect criminality. Prosecutors can only prosecute if there they think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Impartial judges, who aren't supposed to recognize faces (as the bible tells it) are supposed to monitor to make sure everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. Popularity or public persuasion should have nothing to do with it.

Quote: Mission146

You're right; it does prove nothing.

It is also completely inapplicable.

Quote: GenoDRPh

It is completely inapplicable.

It is an extremely similar scenario.

Quote: Mission146

It is an extremely similar scenario.

That's your interpretation of the evidence. The jury had another. The judge, in allowing the case to trial, ruled there was enough evidence for a jury to decide the case. Don't know what else to tell you. If Donnie feels there was insufficient evidence, he's welcome to argue that on appeal.