I am starting to prevaricate on my feeling I would like a decent Labour majority, but not a landslide (though there is no way of controlling this).
I have for some time felt a stonking Labour majority would not be ideal, because I do not like the idea of one party having such dominance. I admit that I felt the same way in the 2001-2005 Parliament, particularly.
However, despite his ruthless party management Starmer feels to me a naturally cautious fellow. With a small majority, that would I fear manifest itself in government inertia, when what we really need at the moment is some bold action towards addressing the myriad problems we face. With a larger majority, perhaps he will feel more emboldened to take more risks.
The problem is that you are basically trying to guess what Starmer really wants to do, and whether he has the leadership ability to take advantage of a large majority. And basically he's a blank sheet of paper. You just don't know.
I think the best argument I can make for a huge Labour victory, or at least for a huge Tory defeat, is that it would create an opening for the Lib Dems to replace the Tories as the main party of the centre-right [of Labour].
The Lib Dems might not take that opportunity, but in the best case scenario the competition between the two parties heads off the Tories from being a party only of the hard right.
The Lib Dems have no desire to be a party of the centre right.
Yet. Entryism could change that if the Tories really went south. A flood of moderate right members could shift them quite easily.
While labour is rightly castigated for parachuting its favoured few into safe seats. Luke Fucking Akehurst will be my MP in a few weeks FFS. The Tories have been doing the same.
Yup, seems Starmer and the NEC are purging Corbynites from winnable Labour seats for loyalists and Sunak and CCHQ are similarly largely purging Boris supporters from winnable Conservative seats and pushing in loyalists instead
Smart strategy.
I'm not sure whether you are being ironic. If the leading figures and apparatchiks in the two main parties had been smart AND they'd had enough freedom to do what's supposed to be their job, they wouldn't have found themselves in this position a week after the election date has been announced and a week before the closing date for nominations. This position being there are several constituencies in which they don't have a clue what fuckers will or won't be standing on their respective tickets. Surprising shit just keeps happening from out of the blue.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
Well, that might depend on who replaced him and who used his death to what purpose. Consequences can be hard to see. He might have been replaced by someone very nearly as bad and more competent, for example.
Yes, his rise might have derailed the rise of someone a couple of years younger who might have had the same views but been a much more effective leader during war and listened to generals. So killing him woukd have removed the barrier to Rudolph Shitler, Global Reichsfuhrer 1944 - 1989.
My hypothesis is that the basis for a lot of Trump support is a 'gut feeling' that the current situation is existentially bad and that Trump would be a slightly less worse disaster. That point of view makes a lot of sense to me.
There is good reason for Americans not to be fond of the status quo, and I've long been a critic of the Democrats on the basis that they're a party for the status quo in the US.
But the bits of the status quo that Trump wants to rip up - the rule of law, free and fair elections, freedom to dissent, etc - are not the bits of the status quo I object to.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
Hitler's mistakes really only become *his* mistakes after 1943, when in reality, the war has been lost already. Responsibility for things that we see as mistakes, prior to that date, are really shared collectively by the German High Command.
One could easily view taking on France, Poland, and the British Empire simultaneously as a huge mistake. Germany ought to have lost in 1940, and instead, achieved a fluke. That convinced the OKW that they could achieve a similar miracle in the Soviet Union, a year later.
Even as early as Spring 1941, the Royal Naval blockade was doing immense damage to the German economy, to the point that some German planners doubted they could even continue the war after the end of 1942.
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
QED. I give up. You’re not even listening so what’s the point
@leon you didn't answer the question which was 'What foul means?' There might be. I don't know, but what?
I’ve given one link about the way the Biden admin pressured Facebook and Twitter to suppress the lab leak hypothesis in the election year
As for the Hunter Biden story that is also true, not MAGA nonsense
“Testimony Reveals FBI Employees Who Warned Social Media Companies about Hack and Leak Operation Knew Hunter Biden Laptop Wasn’t Russian Disinformation”
“In the hours following publication of the Post’s story, Twitter blocked the story from being shared, while Facebook deamplified the story, significantly reducing its circulation and prevalence in users’ newsfeeds. As the federal court in Missouri v. Biden explained in damning language, the FBI’s actions prevented millions of Americans from having a clear understanding about a salient issue in the 2020 presidential election:”
I am starting to prevaricate on my feeling I would like a decent Labour majority, but not a landslide (though there is no way of controlling this).
I have for some time felt a stonking Labour majority would not be ideal, because I do not like the idea of one party having such dominance. I admit that I felt the same way in the 2001-2005 Parliament, particularly.
However, despite his ruthless party management Starmer feels to me a naturally cautious fellow. With a small majority, that would I fear manifest itself in government inertia, when what we really need at the moment is some bold action towards addressing the myriad problems we face. With a larger majority, perhaps he will feel more emboldened to take more risks.
As things stand, there isn't going to be much money available until the middle of the first term (and only then if they're lucky with the economy). That means we can probably rule out any unexpectedly bold spending pledges, no matter how big a win they get.
On the revenue-raising side, I could see them trialling some minor wealth taxation - but anything more major probably requires a second term. There's scope for some changes around local govt funding, but again that hardly needs a massive majority to achieve.
So what else? Maybe some constitutional stuff - though I'd expect we're more likely to see more power given to mayoralties rather than changing the voting system or abolishing the HoL. Planning reform (for real, this time). Social care (can this be done in a revenue-neutral way?).
It's tricky, because they clearly don't want to plan on the basis of winning by a landslide. Theresa May tried that, and look where it got her!
It's an interesting question, though: what sort of worthwhile policies would each party pursue if it were assured of winning a huge majority?
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
The other thing to mention is it is purely as a result of the Second World War that we had the institutions and the international rules based order that in many ways kept the world secure in the post-war period. Maybe we would have gotten there without them, but it is impossible to tell.
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
I am starting to prevaricate on my feeling I would like a decent Labour majority, but not a landslide (though there is no way of controlling this).
I have for some time felt a stonking Labour majority would not be ideal, because I do not like the idea of one party having such dominance. I admit that I felt the same way in the 2001-2005 Parliament, particularly.
However, despite his ruthless party management Starmer feels to me a naturally cautious fellow. With a small majority, that would I fear manifest itself in government inertia, when what we really need at the moment is some bold action towards addressing the myriad problems we face. With a larger majority, perhaps he will feel more emboldened to take more risks.
The problem is that you are basically trying to guess what Starmer really wants to do, and whether he has the leadership ability to take advantage of a large majority. And basically he's a blank sheet of paper. You just don't know.
I think the best argument I can make for a huge Labour victory, or at least for a huge Tory defeat, is that it would create an opening for the Lib Dems to replace the Tories as the main party of the centre-right [of Labour].
The Lib Dems might not take that opportunity, but in the best case scenario the competition between the two parties heads off the Tories from being a party only of the hard right.
The Lib Dems have no desire to be a party of the centre right.
Yet. Entryism could change that if the Tories really went south. A flood of moderate right members could shift them quite easily.
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
People are trying to stop Trump because he's a crook, that sides with America's enemies, and has done God knows what with America's secrets. They aren't after him simply because he's the Republican opponent. Romney and McCain had none of these issues.
I’ll say it again for the hard of thinking
I agree Trump is a crook I agree he is far too pally with evil dictators I agree he’s a twat in multiple other ways
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
And this is why America is a bit fucked. It would be much better if the democrats had pursued Trump by wholly legitimate means. But they didn’t
Foul means like allowing the most serious cases against him to be deferred until after the election?
That's not foul either. That's all working within the legal system. It makes me feel impatient and I don't like it, but Trump's legal team have (mostly) not done anything wrong there. Although there's something about the one case in Florida that seems a bit off.
That's what I mean. Nefarious Establishment Plot to use the Courts to prevent Trump getting back as President? Or the US legal system doing its best to bring a crook to account? The evidence (inc the deferral of the most serious cases until after the election) suggests the latter.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
IIRC the ‘Final Solution’ wasn’t, or wasn’t entirely, Hitler’s idea. I may be wrong, though.
My impression was that Eichmann, at the Wansee conference, was arguably the single individual most responsible.
But it was very much in line with Hitlerian ideology. Exterminate the Jews and Slavs and repopulate Eastern Europe with Aryans.
My hypothesis is that the basis for a lot of Trump support is a 'gut feeling' that the current situation is existentially bad and that Trump would be a slightly less worse disaster. That point of view makes a lot of sense to me.
It is a ridiculous point of view based on a complete lack of appreciation for the achievements of Western civilization, and a willingness to throw them away for upset feelings.
Mainly because the American right has a deep psyche that obsesses over 1950s white society and a Middle Eastern tribal religion, rather than the actually important Greco-Roman and Enlightenment heritage.
I am starting to prevaricate on my feeling I would like a decent Labour majority, but not a landslide (though there is no way of controlling this).
I have for some time felt a stonking Labour majority would not be ideal, because I do not like the idea of one party having such dominance. I admit that I felt the same way in the 2001-2005 Parliament, particularly.
However, despite his ruthless party management Starmer feels to me a naturally cautious fellow. With a small majority, that would I fear manifest itself in government inertia, when what we really need at the moment is some bold action towards addressing the myriad problems we face. With a larger majority, perhaps he will feel more emboldened to take more risks.
The problem is that you are basically trying to guess what Starmer really wants to do, and whether he has the leadership ability to take advantage of a large majority. And basically he's a blank sheet of paper. You just don't know.
I think the best argument I can make for a huge Labour victory, or at least for a huge Tory defeat, is that it would create an opening for the Lib Dems to replace the Tories as the main party of the centre-right [of Labour].
The Lib Dems might not take that opportunity, but in the best case scenario the competition between the two parties heads off the Tories from being a party only of the hard right.
The Lib Dems have no desire to be a party of the centre right.
Yet. Entryism could change that if the Tories really went south. A flood of moderate right members could shift them quite easily.
Interesting thought: did the Tory 1997 defeat lead to the Clegg/Laws Party?
That might not be Starmer's intention but that is what it looks like, especially given Abbott's iconic status as Britain's first Black woman MP.
There’s still a large number of Black and Asian Labour candidates in place and supported by Starmer. There’s Parful Nargund who’s likely to win in Islington North, if he’s not defeated by Jeremy Corbyn. There’s Tulip Siddiq in my constituency. Others include Rushanara Ali, Tahir Ali, Yasmin Qureshi, Thangam Debbonaire, Rupa Huq, Rosena Allin-Khan, Tan Dhesi, Florence Eshalomi, Marsha de Cordova, Abena Oppong-Asare etc. etc. etc.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
This isn't what Democratic officials are doing. They are not calling for violence. They are not preventing him from giving speeches. They are bringing correct charges of criminal behaviour through the correct legal channels.
You could make a case they were abusing the justice system and wasting his time if he was not guilty. But he IS guilty, showing they did the correct thing.
OK
How do the jury convictions of hundreds of sub postmasters fit with your final paragraph? It is necessary *within a given legal system itself* to treat conviction for most purposes as conclusive evidence of guilt (but even there, with all sorts of caveats and grounds for appeal) because otherwise you would be going round in circles. But outside the system that is not true, and it's nonsensical to say he was convicted so he did it so there.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
The other thing to mention is it is purely as a result of the Second World War that we had the institutions and the international rules based order that in many ways kept the world secure in the post-war period. Maybe we would have gotten there without them, but it is impossible to tell.
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
We tend to forget that pre-1948, Right of Conquest was an entirely accepted term of international law, and ethnic cleansing was considered statesmanship.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
QED. I give up. You’re not even listening so what’s the point
@leon you didn't answer the question which was 'What foul means?' There might be. I don't know, but what?
He gave up because his argument was effectively deconstructed.
...our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Hmm. If "our" means Iceland, then possibly. But if "our" means the British Isles, then I really have to educate you...
The actions of the Great Heathen Army, and the Harrying of the North, to name just two.
The Anarchy was fairly brutal tis rumoured
Yes, and of course, the dynastic/baronial conflicts of 1260-1485. The Civil War was very brutal too (I think the 17th century was perhaps the most brutal era in world history).
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
QED. I give up. You’re not even listening so what’s the point
@leon you didn't answer the question which was 'What foul means?' There might be. I don't know, but what?
I’ve given one link about the way the Biden admin pressured Facebook and Twitter to suppress the lab leak hypothesis in the election year
As for the Hunter Biden story that is also true, not MAGA nonsense
“Testimony Reveals FBI Employees Who Warned Social Media Companies about Hack and Leak Operation Knew Hunter Biden Laptop Wasn’t Russian Disinformation”
“In the hours following publication of the Post’s story, Twitter blocked the story from being shared, while Facebook deamplified the story, significantly reducing its circulation and prevalence in users’ newsfeeds. As the federal court in Missouri v. Biden explained in damning language, the FBI’s actions prevented millions of Americans from having a clear understanding about a salient issue in the 2020 presidential election:”
@leon you said there was an endeavour to STOP him (Trump) by foul means the question was 'What foul mean (to STOP Trump)?
You weren't asked what other stuff the other side got up to hide their dirty washing or discredit him. That's normal stuff. Every political party throughout the world does that. You have answered a question not asked.
I'm looking for foul means to stop Trump (your words) such as trumped up (pun unintended) charges by the State to disqualify him for running for president. Not the normal throwing around political dirt (which I don't like but seems the norm in democracies)
That might not be Starmer's intention but that is what it looks like, especially given Abbott's iconic status as Britain's first Black woman MP.
There’s still a large number of Black and Asian Labour candidates in place and supported by Starmer. There’s Parful Nargund who’s likely to win in Islington North, if he’s not defeated by Jeremy Corbyn. There’s Tulip Siddiq in my constituency. Others include Rushanara Ali, Tahir Ali, Yasmin Qureshi, Thangam Debbonaire, Rupa Huq, Rosena Allin-Khan, Tan Dhesi, Florence Eshalomi, Marsha de Cordova, Abena Oppong-Asare etc. etc. etc.
Priti Patel has a lady with an Asian name as Labour opponent. I believe she’s a councillor from Luton.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
The other thing to mention is it is purely as a result of the Second World War that we had the institutions and the international rules based order that in many ways kept the world secure in the post-war period. Maybe we would have gotten there without them, but it is impossible to tell.
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
We tend to forget that pre-1948, Right of Conquest was an entirely accepted term of international law, and ethnic cleansing was considered statesmanship.
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
...our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Hmm. If "our" means Iceland, then possibly. But if "our" means the British Isles, then I really have to educate you...
The actions of the Great Heathen Army, and the Harrying of the North, to name just two.
The Anarchy was fairly brutal tis rumoured
Yes, and of course, the dynastic/baronial conflicts of 1260-1485. The Civil War was very brutal too (I think the 17th century was perhaps the most brutal era in world history).
The suppression of the Peasants Revolt and subsequent general pardon for all who undertook summary execution without due process was also not a great moment
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
This isn't what Democratic officials are doing. They are not calling for violence. They are not preventing him from giving speeches. They are bringing correct charges of criminal behaviour through the correct legal channels.
You could make a case they were abusing the justice system and wasting his time if he was not guilty. But he IS guilty, showing they did the correct thing.
OK
How do the jury convictions of hundreds of sub postmasters fit with your final paragraph? It is necessary *within a given legal system itself* to treat conviction for most purposes as conclusive evidence of guilt (but even there, with all sorts of caveats and grounds for appeal) because otherwise you would be going round in circles. But outside the system that is not true, and it's nonsensical to say he was convicted so he did it so there.
This was an impenetrable word salad.
No, the concepts are just too difficult for you
In youthink, the conviction of nearly a thousand subpostmasters means nearly a thousand subpostmasters PROVEN GUILTY
I am starting to prevaricate on my feeling I would like a decent Labour majority, but not a landslide (though there is no way of controlling this).
I have for some time felt a stonking Labour majority would not be ideal, because I do not like the idea of one party having such dominance. I admit that I felt the same way in the 2001-2005 Parliament, particularly.
However, despite his ruthless party management Starmer feels to me a naturally cautious fellow. With a small majority, that would I fear manifest itself in government inertia, when what we really need at the moment is some bold action towards addressing the myriad problems we face. With a larger majority, perhaps he will feel more emboldened to take more risks.
The problem is that you are basically trying to guess what Starmer really wants to do, and whether he has the leadership ability to take advantage of a large majority. And basically he's a blank sheet of paper. You just don't know.
I think the best argument I can make for a huge Labour victory, or at least for a huge Tory defeat, is that it would create an opening for the Lib Dems to replace the Tories as the main party of the centre-right [of Labour].
The Lib Dems might not take that opportunity, but in the best case scenario the competition between the two parties heads off the Tories from being a party only of the hard right.
The Lib Dems have no desire to be a party of the centre right.
Indeed this is the teensy weensy flaw in his theory.
Now thinking about the political consequences: if the prosecution case was so obviously vexatious and Trump, with all his resources, couldn't organise a team to poke even one little hole in that, then he'd be a fucking useless president.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
This isn't what Democratic officials are doing. They are not calling for violence. They are not preventing him from giving speeches. They are bringing correct charges of criminal behaviour through the correct legal channels.
You could make a case they were abusing the justice system and wasting his time if he was not guilty. But he IS guilty, showing they did the correct thing.
OK
How do the jury convictions of hundreds of sub postmasters fit with your final paragraph? It is necessary *within a given legal system itself* to treat conviction for most purposes as conclusive evidence of guilt (but even there, with all sorts of caveats and grounds for appeal) because otherwise you would be going round in circles. But outside the system that is not true, and it's nonsensical to say he was convicted so he did it so there.
This was an impenetrable word salad.
No, the concepts are just too difficult for you
In youthink, the conviction of nearly a thousand subpostmasters means nearly a thousand subpostmasters PROVEN GUILTY
In adultthink it's a bit more complicated
Clear now?
Just because you are poor at communication does not mean other people struggle with concepts. I am not familiar with the subpostmasters case. I am familiar with the Trump case, and it is extremely clear ihe is guilty.
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
QED. I give up. You’re not even listening so what’s the point
@leon you didn't answer the question which was 'What foul means?' There might be. I don't know, but what?
He gave up because his argument was effectively deconstructed.
You don't know what deconstructed means. But never mind that. Please share your thoughts on the legitimacy of the misdemeanor to felony swerve?
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
That's obviously the Holyrood list only, though, so different from Westminster (and incomplete without the constituency data which it tends to complement rather than emulate).
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Seems a shame as he was one with an independent brain but he was going down with the ship anyway. Maybe we'll finally get that Only Connect Champion of Champion of Champions special now?
None of this means that there is not a joint endeavour to stop him by foul means as well as fair. There is indeed such an endeavour
What foul means?
The documents trial is fair because Trump had ample opportunity to comply with the law but obstructed justice repeatedly and lied again and again.
The pay-off case we know about because Trump's own personal lawyer was on record about what was done. Are prosecutors meant to ignore crimes?
The Georgia election case is where we have Trump recorded asking for votes to be found to help him win.
The federal election case is about Trump's actions before the 2020 election up to the Capital riot. Again this is all due to things Trump has done on record, involving other government officers, and statements made in public.
Maybe if Trump wants to avoid prosecution he should stop brazenly committing crimes so often?
QED. I give up. You’re not even listening so what’s the point
@leon you didn't answer the question which was 'What foul means?' There might be. I don't know, but what?
He gave up because his argument was effectively deconstructed.
You don't know what deconstructed means. But never mind that. Please share your thoughts on the legitimacy of the misdemeanor to felony swerve?
Here are my thoughts: the “swerve” was tested by due legal process and Trump was found guilty.
I woke up this morning singing to myself For he’s a jolly good felon, he’s a jolly good felon he’s a jolly good feloooon, which nobody can deny etc etc🤡🤪
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
See what Trump’s done? He’s got us all fighting and arguing between ourselves. He’s ruined the harmony and happy consensus on PB. Don’t let him win. Be kind to each other.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
This is all completely incorrect.
First, it was absolutely clear that the payment was to cover up a story in order to help Trump's campaign. That was clear in all the discussions had about the payment. The state absolutely showed that.
Secondly, the legal requirements for declaring campaign requirements and filing accurate financial information outweigh civil benefits of NDAs. If legal requirements mean an NDA is going to be ineffective, then you shouldn't sign one.
Thirdly, 12 civilians, vetted by Trump's legal team and hearing all the arguments from both sides, unanimously considered all this and determined he was guilty. The anti-anti-Trumpers on here have lost their collective minds over this.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
Hat tip to @HYUFD I believe he was the first to call Iain Dale's selection bid dead as a result of this.
Dale has said many times that he isn't interested any more in becoming an MP, so presumably didn't think slagging off his home town would matter. Why he chose this moment to throw his hat in the ring and whether or not and how he was *persuaded* by Tory HQ to put himself forward, who knows? Rashly, he seems to have chucked his job at LBC, although he is probably popular enough to get it back with a bit of grovelling. What a chump!
He'd have been stupid to have quit the job, except under an understanding that he'd come back if not elected. LBC would probably have been fine with that.
they will have already contracted his replacement Ali Miraj for a set period at least
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
The other thing to mention is it is purely as a result of the Second World War that we had the institutions and the international rules based order that in many ways kept the world secure in the post-war period. Maybe we would have gotten there without them, but it is impossible to tell.
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
We tend to forget that pre-1948, Right of Conquest was an entirely accepted term of international law, and ethnic cleansing was considered statesmanship.
That was not the view of the League of Nations.
But, it was the view of the leading powers, who never took the League seriously.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
Bell voted for TRUSS as I recall. Perhaps he was simply wise before his time?
...our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Hmm. If "our" means Iceland, then possibly. But if "our" means the British Isles, then I really have to educate you...
The actions of the Great Heathen Army, and the Harrying of the North, to name just two.
The Anarchy was fairly brutal tis rumoured
Yes, and of course, the dynastic/baronial conflicts of 1260-1485. The Civil War was very brutal too (I think the 17th century was perhaps the most brutal era in world history).
The suppression of the Peasants Revolt and subsequent general pardon for all who undertook summary execution without due process was also not a great moment
One can get a lot later than that. The Civil Wars of Britain and Ireland extended into 1746 and the ensuing suppressions by Cumberland, and that's just the British part.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
I wouldn't vote for him but have always respected his honest motivation to improve the country. I just disagree on the direction of travel.
It will be good to have him back on PB, but I do have some disquiet as to how many relatively young MPs are stepping down because it is not a sustainable life. We are going to be left only with the most anodyne.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
See what Trump’s done? He’s got us all fighting and arguing between ourselves. He’s ruined the harmony and happy consensus on PB. Don’t let him win. Be kind to each other.
Rik: Guys... Guys... Look at us... Squabbling... Bickering... Like children... What's happening to us. We never used to be like this. Vyvyan: Yes we did
...our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Hmm. If "our" means Iceland, then possibly. But if "our" means the British Isles, then I really have to educate you...
The actions of the Great Heathen Army, and the Harrying of the North, to name just two.
The Anarchy was fairly brutal tis rumoured
Yes, and of course, the dynastic/baronial conflicts of 1260-1485. The Civil War was very brutal too (I think the 17th century was perhaps the most brutal era in world history).
The suppression of the Peasants Revolt and subsequent general pardon for all who undertook summary execution without due process was also not a great moment
One can get a lot later than that. The Civil Wars of Britain and Ireland extended into 1746 and the ensuing suppressions by Cumberland, and that's just the British part.
First election anecdata from the real world. My secretary is voting Tory as she likes the quadruple lock for her immenent retirement and thinks Natty Serves a good policy.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Dammit! Whilst I am pleased to see one of our own return to the fold, I am sure he was a credit to his party and raised the standards of that disreputable body more than it deserved.
Julian Knight has confirmed he will run as an independent in Solihull West and Shirley, challenging the Tories. Could plausibly throw the seat to Labour, who were 2/1 last night.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
This is all completely incorrect.
First, it was absolutely clear that the payment was to cover up a story in order to help Trump's campaign. That was clear in all the discussions had about the payment. The state absolutely showed that.
Secondly, the legal requirements for declaring campaign requirements and filing accurate financial information outweigh civil benefits of NDAs. If legal requirements mean an NDA is going to be ineffective, then you shouldn't sign one.
Thirdly, 12 civilians, vetted by Trump's legal team and hearing all the arguments from both sides, unanimously considered all this and determined he was guilty. The anti-anti-Trumpers on here have lost their collective minds over this.
The jury verdict is the clincher here. If the case had not been made or was entirely spurious, surely Trump would not have been found guilty.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
No I am not but I have read a lot of commentary by people who are and it always comes back to this central point: was there criminal conduct which was facilitated by the book keeping?
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
The other thing to mention is it is purely as a result of the Second World War that we had the institutions and the international rules based order that in many ways kept the world secure in the post-war period. Maybe we would have gotten there without them, but it is impossible to tell.
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
We tend to forget that pre-1948, Right of Conquest was an entirely accepted term of international law, and ethnic cleansing was considered statesmanship.
Pre-1928, rather.
But Kellogg-Briand was only one of a whole series of steps towards building an international order throughout the 1920s.
And it wasn't just the rise of Nazism that prevented that order from taking root - the Wall St Crash, Smoot-Hawley, and the Sterling Crisis were surely all just as much to blame.
Sad to see Aaron Bell standing down. Like many on here I've had a few interactions with him. While our politics are very different he is very smart, always friendly and not an ideologue. He's exactly the kind of MP the Tories need.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
You have to respect any MP who does this, this early in their career because, as I understand the system, he would make more money if he stood, did very little and lost than by choosing not to stand now.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
It is, sadly, a completely unwinnable seat on the present polling and, in any event, the life of a back bench opposition MP can hardly be said to be enthralling.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
No I am not but I have read a lot of commentary by people who are and it always comes back to this central point: was there criminal conduct which was facilitated by the book keeping?
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
Trump gets to appeal. We'll see what happens to that appeal. Until then, I trust the outcome of the actual case over your analysis.
Tice and Farage have apparently had a bit of a tiff. Oh dear
From the Telegraph:
"Richard Tice has slapped down Nigel Farage over his hint at a possible election pact with the Tories.
"Mr Tice, the Reform UK leader, said there were “no deals” to be done with the Conservatives after Mr Farage suggested he could be willing to come to an agreement.
"Mr Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, said he would be open to “a conversation” with the Conservatives if they give him “something back” for the “huge favours” he has done over the years.
"In an interview with The Sun’s Never Mind the Ballots show, Mr Farage said: “I’ve done them some huge favours over the years as a party. Give me something back. We might have a conversation.”"
Apparently Aaron was campaigning just a few days ago. I imagine he realised that his party was hopeless and no personal vote would get him there so (wisely) decided to say screw it.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
You have to respect any MP who does this, this early in their career because, as I understand the system, he would make more money if he stood, did very little and lost than by choosing not to stand now.
This system has changed. It now is payable to all MPs who stand down once an election is called - whether they fight and lose or not.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
Isn't it barber's poles which are stripy? From all the blood. Or were maypoles also striped? One needs to understand these things.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
IIRC the ‘Final Solution’ wasn’t, or wasn’t entirely, Hitler’s idea. I may be wrong, though.
He created the idea - the passage in his book.
The Nazi doctrines of Working Towards The Führer and Escalating When Able meant that his subordinates created the actual plans. Which he knew about and was pleased by.
Significant news about Aaron Bell. He’s a loss to Parliament. I thought he faced extraordinarily challenging circumstances and conducted himself with integrity. I hope he knows that’s a rare thing and appreciated. Perhaps having left parliament he will have more freedom to achieve his political ambitions.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
English history is Toytown, though, compared to Scottish history, or China, or just about anywhere in Eastern Europe.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
You have to respect any MP who does this, this early in their career because, as I understand the system, he would make more money if he stood, did very little and lost than by choosing not to stand now.
The extra for loss of office payment is fairly trivial for an MP who has only done a five year stint. We're talking low four figures. It isn't meaningless, but equally it isn't generous when you look at the reality that you'll make yourself really unpopular in the party if you don't pull your weight on the campaign, and the record books show it as a defeat.
I don't use that as a stick with which to beat Aaron Bell - he's made a decision and explained it, and it's all fair enough. But the financial difference these days between stepping down and losing an election isn't really enough to make death by electorate worth it.
At one time it was more generous and you didn't have to stand in the same seat. So there were cases of people standing down by standing as a paper candidate in the no hope seat next door.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
No I am not but I have read a lot of commentary by people who are and it always comes back to this central point: was there criminal conduct which was facilitated by the book keeping?
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
Trump gets to appeal. We'll see what happens to that appeal. Until then, I trust the outcome of the actual case over your analysis.
Its a free country, believe what you want.
Can you imagine the problems if this conviction is quashed after November and he has lost?
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
No I am not but I have read a lot of commentary by people who are and it always comes back to this central point: was there criminal conduct which was facilitated by the book keeping?
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
Comments
But the bits of the status quo that Trump wants to rip up - the rule of law, free and fair elections, freedom to dissent, etc - are not the bits of the status quo I object to.
https://benryan.substack.com/p/why-special-interest-groups-are-motivated
One could easily view taking on France, Poland, and the British Empire simultaneously as a huge mistake. Germany ought to have lost in 1940, and instead, achieved a fluke. That convinced the OKW that they could achieve a similar miracle in the Soviet Union, a year later.
Even as early as Spring 1941, the Royal Naval blockade was doing immense damage to the German economy, to the point that some German planners doubted they could even continue the war after the end of 1942.
On the revenue-raising side, I could see them trialling some minor wealth taxation - but anything more major probably requires a second term. There's scope for some changes around local govt funding, but again that hardly needs a massive majority to achieve.
So what else? Maybe some constitutional stuff - though I'd expect we're more likely to see more power given to mayoralties rather than changing the voting system or abolishing the HoL. Planning reform (for real, this time). Social care (can this be done in a revenue-neutral way?).
It's tricky, because they clearly don't want to plan on the basis of winning by a landslide. Theresa May tried that, and look where it got her!
It's an interesting question, though: what sort of worthwhile policies would each party pursue if it were assured of winning a huge majority?
Without WWII you may not see the same level of American intervention in maintaining the security of the wider Western world. The Soviet Union, in the absence of German domination, may have overrun Europe. There are just too many what ifs when it comes to the Nazis not taking power. That is a reality that is simply not ours to see.
But it was very much in line with Hitlerian ideology. Exterminate the Jews and Slavs and repopulate Eastern Europe with Aryans.
Mainly because the American right has a deep psyche that obsesses over 1950s white society and a Middle Eastern tribal religion, rather than the actually important Greco-Roman and Enlightenment heritage.
You weren't asked what other stuff the other side got up to hide their dirty washing or discredit him. That's normal stuff. Every political party throughout the world does that. You have answered a question not asked.
I'm looking for foul means to stop Trump (your words) such as trumped up (pun unintended) charges by the State to disqualify him for running for president. Not the normal throwing around political dirt (which I don't like but seems the norm in democracies)
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
In youthink, the conviction of nearly a thousand subpostmasters means nearly a thousand subpostmasters PROVEN GUILTY
In adultthink it's a bit more complicated
Clear now?
Indeed, he was.
For he’s a jolly good felon, he’s a jolly good felon
he’s a jolly good feloooon, which nobody can deny etc etc🤡🤪
https://x.com/Martina/status/1796452292222427504
First, it was absolutely clear that the payment was to cover up a story in order to help Trump's campaign. That was clear in all the discussions had about the payment. The state absolutely showed that.
Secondly, the legal requirements for declaring campaign requirements and filing accurate financial information outweigh civil benefits of NDAs. If legal requirements mean an NDA is going to be ineffective, then you shouldn't sign one.
Thirdly, 12 civilians, vetted by Trump's legal team and hearing all the arguments from both sides, unanimously considered all this and determined he was guilty. The anti-anti-Trumpers on here have lost their collective minds over this.
It will be good to have him back on PB, but I do have some disquiet as to how many relatively young MPs are stepping down because it is not a sustainable life. We are going to be left only with the most anodyne.
https://youtu.be/w6wehTxU9Ik
Vyvyan: Yes we did
https://x.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1796505089030689096
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
But Kellogg-Briand was only one of a whole series of steps towards building an international order throughout the 1920s.
And it wasn't just the rise of Nazism that prevented that order from taking root - the Wall St Crash, Smoot-Hawley, and the Sterling Crisis were surely all just as much to blame.
What's your view on Exmouth and Exeter East? Three parties competing, it looks like.
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Tee hee
...His Time in Parliament.
Quite frankly assaulting a peace protester and receiving a caution for the attack should render him unfit for public office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24285711
Someone is trying to out "innuendo" you !!!!
"Richard Tice has slapped down Nigel Farage over his hint at a possible election pact with the Tories.
"Mr Tice, the Reform UK leader, said there were “no deals” to be done with the Conservatives after Mr Farage suggested he could be willing to come to an agreement.
"Mr Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, said he would be open to “a conversation” with the Conservatives if they give him “something back” for the “huge favours” he has done over the years.
"In an interview with The Sun’s Never Mind the Ballots show, Mr Farage said: “I’ve done them some huge favours over the years as a party. Give me something back. We might have a conversation.”"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
The Nazi doctrines of Working Towards The Führer and Escalating When Able meant that his subordinates created the actual plans. Which he knew about and was pleased by.
I don't use that as a stick with which to beat Aaron Bell - he's made a decision and explained it, and it's all fair enough. But the financial difference these days between stepping down and losing an election isn't really enough to make death by electorate worth it.
At one time it was more generous and you didn't have to stand in the same seat. So there were cases of people standing down by standing as a paper candidate in the no hope seat next door.
We're currently in the disbelief phase. "Surely the polls can't be correct?" But if the polls are correct...
Can you imagine the problems if this conviction is quashed after November and he has lost?
Girvan for example is a dump.
How's it playing in Scotland?