"...not the strongest case against him," I agree. Perhaps you agree, too, that he illegally kept & shared classified documents. You acknowledge "a pro Trump mob" (as in "Trump-inspired) attacked the Capital. Stronger cases, indeed.
I also agree that prosecution by liberal judges and Democrat AG's is a bad look. But Trump's bigger problem is the evidence. In this case, exhibits 35 & 36 outline the whole plot in Weisselberg's handwriting. Was it done to influence the election? Pecker & Hicks said so, and Trump's own voice confirmed it.
You share the opinion of skeptical legal scholars. But it seems that each represents a media that has proved to court a Trump audience by being sympathetic to him. They could be right about the shaky legal ground in this case. They would have more credibility if they admitted the evidence in this case would convince a fair jury no matter where it was impaneled.
As for "deep state" and "DOJ interference" I simply ask: show us ONE piece of real evidence, i.e. a document or an utterance from the Attorney General or Biden. Anything other than "you think so". Anything?
Yes, It would look better if it weren't during a campaign. Just like it would look better if sentencing wasn't right before the convention- another fact cited by your experts as evidence of persecution - until they learn that Trump's lawyers asked for mid-July.
A weak legal theory. The timing. The venue. I get the reservations. What I don't get is...understanding the evidence in this case and feeling sympathy for the defendant
1) Thank you for having the guts to express your point of view.
2) I think those who condemn these convictions forget that the State of New York does have an appeals system, yet to be played out. I would even say that they conveniently forget, in an effort to condemn a justice system out of hand for political purposes.
3) The real stretch would be to believe that some conspirators created the appeals system in advance and filled it with anti-Trump judges.
4) The novelty of the theory behind the prosecution will be tested in the appeal. Perhaps this was the first prosecution brought under this theory. But twelve jurors seemed to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed. Are we who did not hear the evidence first hand to negate their hard work rather than let the appeals court decide?
5) Granted that payment of hush money to squelch a scandalous story is not illegal. But isn't the issue whether the defendant should have covered up and glossed over the payment of the hush money? I mean, characterizing all those funds as "legal fees" is just outrageous, no? Would you or I have been able to do that and escape prosecution?
6) No matter what you think of this prosecution, Donald Trump is hardly courageous. He is only out for Donald Trump. And it is completely sad and depressing that about one-third of America and a whole slew of billionaires and Iowa's entire congressional delegation cannot admit that. See Mr. Hauenstein's comments.
7) D. Trump is running to become a dictator. Few seem to believe that. Dictators need all their sycophantic enablers and the willing middle class (afraid to express their fears) to survive.
I offer two perspectives to John’s essay. 1. The decision to charge Trump was complex; its history included the resignation of former prosecutors who disagreed with the initial Bragg decision not to prosecute https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/01/politics/trump-bragg-inside-indictment. 2. The judicial process (the judge, grand jury, and trial jury), were praised by many legal experts, including former Trump attorneys. As opposed to the Florida situation with Judge Cannon’s questionable rulings, Judge Merchan was beyond reproach.
Bragg’s decision to prosecute was not accompanied by quality and transparent reasoning to justify going forward (I say that disagreeing with conclusion of John’s essay). Both Bragg and Georgia’s Willis efforts may have solid legal foundations, but the handling/ messaging of the cases were poorly done.
As a former county prosecutor, there is tremendous discretion, sometime missed by media or the public. I don’t know how much pushback there was whenCapone was charged and sentenced to jail for tax violations.
Trump is the first ex-president to be convicted as a felon.
The fact that this happened in the midst of an election where he leads the incumbent, albeit narrowly, gives this event an undeniably political aspect.
In that sense this feels like as perilous a moment as the indefensible impeachment of Clinton and George W. Bush's wicked decision to mount an invasion of Iraq based on a lie.
The lust for power knows no limits and that imperils us all.
I agree with John's conclusion we are living in a perilous moment, without precedent, except for the civil war. Even during civil rights and Vietnam war protests I did not doubt that democracy would continue. Now, I doubt.
Power is like a drug and virus combined. That is a deadly combination for an individual to forget about morality and humanity in all aspects. Like an addict, one wants more,. Like a virus, it can spread to supporters. It requires courage in our political leaders to stand out--more like Liz Cheney or Romney and less like JD Vance. or Tim Scott.
There’s nothing courageous about denigrating veterans, their families, the disabled, immigrants, or people of different religions.
There’s nothing courageous about stiffing contractors, cops, and cities across the nation who provided you with services.
There’s nothing courageous about siding with dictators over your own intelligence agencies and elevating one of the worst of them, Kim Jong-Un, on the national stage while getting nothing in return.
Kidnapping children at the southern border isn’t courageous.
Attacking peaceful protestors isn’t courageous.
Trying to steal an election isn’t courageous.
Donald Trump is a weak, petty man who will go down in history as one of the worst chief executives in our nations history.
Thanks John for this conversation. You wrote of politicians of times past (full disclosure: I served in the Iowa legislature in he 80's and 90"). Today's social media, unless reined in, will accelerate falsehoods and lies. Journalism and society can figure out ways to harness social media to hold politicians more accountable.
John, I have been writing a draft piece on this, which explains this lengthier response.
Powerful individuals act without fear of consequences; they are understandably perceived as courageous.
From my experience, courage involves recognizing risks and potential negative outcomes but proceeding regardless because the cause or principle is worth the personal cost. Putting country ahead of one’s well-being is a historical principle, best exemplified with D-Day programs and WWII soldiers appropriately revered.
Those in power often have mechanisms that shield them from the consequences of their actions, such as legal immunity, wealth, or influence. This lack of accountability can make their actions seem bold when, in reality, they face minimal personal risk.
Public figures can manipulate perceptions of their actions. They can create an image of fearlessness by projecting confidence and dismissing potential repercussions. However, this is more about image management than genuine bravery.
Political leaders defy norms and laws without fearing retribution due to their influence and control over legal or institutional processes. This behavior might be framed as courageous leadership but lacks the inherent risk and moral consideration that define true courage. I grew up with an earlier example of this, during my years living in Chicago under Mayor Daley (the first); Daley had no fear of consequences due to his power.
As a reporter in Iowa and Texas I often saw how politicians escaped accountability for their decisions.
I think the problem has become worse as office-holders, even at relatively low levels, have acquired more and more assistants to spin actions to their bosses' benefit.
Exceptions were rare. I remember covering a political event at C Y. Stephens in Ames and seeing then-congressman Neal Smith walk by with no flunkies in tow. Smith was a vanishing breed of politician who didn't take himself as seriously as the coiffed, rehearsed nobodies of today.
IMHO this NYC show trial unfortunately is the icing on his November victory cake. Will make for a stressful four years but democracy and our institutions will survive and the sky will not fall, albeit the times certainly are interesting. 🤨
Politically ordained? Maybe, maybe not? Not quitw according to Hoyle, I would say this is New York, and things never seem to be quitw right most of the time, so was it political or could it be New York has delt with Trump far longer than many others and they are justified in hating his guts! The fact that he left New York for Florida elimanted the city of one slimeball that won't be missed , not even for a second!
"...not the strongest case against him," I agree. Perhaps you agree, too, that he illegally kept & shared classified documents. You acknowledge "a pro Trump mob" (as in "Trump-inspired) attacked the Capital. Stronger cases, indeed.
I also agree that prosecution by liberal judges and Democrat AG's is a bad look. But Trump's bigger problem is the evidence. In this case, exhibits 35 & 36 outline the whole plot in Weisselberg's handwriting. Was it done to influence the election? Pecker & Hicks said so, and Trump's own voice confirmed it.
You share the opinion of skeptical legal scholars. But it seems that each represents a media that has proved to court a Trump audience by being sympathetic to him. They could be right about the shaky legal ground in this case. They would have more credibility if they admitted the evidence in this case would convince a fair jury no matter where it was impaneled.
As for "deep state" and "DOJ interference" I simply ask: show us ONE piece of real evidence, i.e. a document or an utterance from the Attorney General or Biden. Anything other than "you think so". Anything?
Yes, It would look better if it weren't during a campaign. Just like it would look better if sentencing wasn't right before the convention- another fact cited by your experts as evidence of persecution - until they learn that Trump's lawyers asked for mid-July.
A weak legal theory. The timing. The venue. I get the reservations. What I don't get is...understanding the evidence in this case and feeling sympathy for the defendant
Mr. Kirsch:
1) Thank you for having the guts to express your point of view.
2) I think those who condemn these convictions forget that the State of New York does have an appeals system, yet to be played out. I would even say that they conveniently forget, in an effort to condemn a justice system out of hand for political purposes.
3) The real stretch would be to believe that some conspirators created the appeals system in advance and filled it with anti-Trump judges.
4) The novelty of the theory behind the prosecution will be tested in the appeal. Perhaps this was the first prosecution brought under this theory. But twelve jurors seemed to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed. Are we who did not hear the evidence first hand to negate their hard work rather than let the appeals court decide?
5) Granted that payment of hush money to squelch a scandalous story is not illegal. But isn't the issue whether the defendant should have covered up and glossed over the payment of the hush money? I mean, characterizing all those funds as "legal fees" is just outrageous, no? Would you or I have been able to do that and escape prosecution?
6) No matter what you think of this prosecution, Donald Trump is hardly courageous. He is only out for Donald Trump. And it is completely sad and depressing that about one-third of America and a whole slew of billionaires and Iowa's entire congressional delegation cannot admit that. See Mr. Hauenstein's comments.
7) D. Trump is running to become a dictator. Few seem to believe that. Dictators need all their sycophantic enablers and the willing middle class (afraid to express their fears) to survive.
8) I hope you will revise your opinion.
The final sentence reads..."But when a political party subverts the justice system to destroy a rival, or anyone else, we’re all at risk."
Replace "a political party" with "Donald Trump, as both a sitting and former President"
But when Donald Trump, as both a sitting and former President, subverts the justice system to destroy a rival, or anyone else, we're all at risk
Which holds up to greater scrutiny as true?
I offer two perspectives to John’s essay. 1. The decision to charge Trump was complex; its history included the resignation of former prosecutors who disagreed with the initial Bragg decision not to prosecute https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/01/politics/trump-bragg-inside-indictment. 2. The judicial process (the judge, grand jury, and trial jury), were praised by many legal experts, including former Trump attorneys. As opposed to the Florida situation with Judge Cannon’s questionable rulings, Judge Merchan was beyond reproach.
Bragg’s decision to prosecute was not accompanied by quality and transparent reasoning to justify going forward (I say that disagreeing with conclusion of John’s essay). Both Bragg and Georgia’s Willis efforts may have solid legal foundations, but the handling/ messaging of the cases were poorly done.
As a former county prosecutor, there is tremendous discretion, sometime missed by media or the public. I don’t know how much pushback there was whenCapone was charged and sentenced to jail for tax violations.
Trump is the first ex-president to be convicted as a felon.
The fact that this happened in the midst of an election where he leads the incumbent, albeit narrowly, gives this event an undeniably political aspect.
In that sense this feels like as perilous a moment as the indefensible impeachment of Clinton and George W. Bush's wicked decision to mount an invasion of Iraq based on a lie.
The lust for power knows no limits and that imperils us all.
I agree with John's conclusion we are living in a perilous moment, without precedent, except for the civil war. Even during civil rights and Vietnam war protests I did not doubt that democracy would continue. Now, I doubt.
Power is like a drug and virus combined. That is a deadly combination for an individual to forget about morality and humanity in all aspects. Like an addict, one wants more,. Like a virus, it can spread to supporters. It requires courage in our political leaders to stand out--more like Liz Cheney or Romney and less like JD Vance. or Tim Scott.
Whatever else one might say about Trump, I think he is certainly courageous.
I fact I think he is the only American politician with the quality that JFK considered vital.
That quality separates Trump from a political class that comes across as a profile in cowardice.
There’s nothing courageous about denigrating veterans, their families, the disabled, immigrants, or people of different religions.
There’s nothing courageous about stiffing contractors, cops, and cities across the nation who provided you with services.
There’s nothing courageous about siding with dictators over your own intelligence agencies and elevating one of the worst of them, Kim Jong-Un, on the national stage while getting nothing in return.
Kidnapping children at the southern border isn’t courageous.
Attacking peaceful protestors isn’t courageous.
Trying to steal an election isn’t courageous.
Donald Trump is a weak, petty man who will go down in history as one of the worst chief executives in our nations history.
Thanks John for this conversation. You wrote of politicians of times past (full disclosure: I served in the Iowa legislature in he 80's and 90"). Today's social media, unless reined in, will accelerate falsehoods and lies. Journalism and society can figure out ways to harness social media to hold politicians more accountable.
John, I have been writing a draft piece on this, which explains this lengthier response.
Powerful individuals act without fear of consequences; they are understandably perceived as courageous.
From my experience, courage involves recognizing risks and potential negative outcomes but proceeding regardless because the cause or principle is worth the personal cost. Putting country ahead of one’s well-being is a historical principle, best exemplified with D-Day programs and WWII soldiers appropriately revered.
Those in power often have mechanisms that shield them from the consequences of their actions, such as legal immunity, wealth, or influence. This lack of accountability can make their actions seem bold when, in reality, they face minimal personal risk.
Public figures can manipulate perceptions of their actions. They can create an image of fearlessness by projecting confidence and dismissing potential repercussions. However, this is more about image management than genuine bravery.
Political leaders defy norms and laws without fearing retribution due to their influence and control over legal or institutional processes. This behavior might be framed as courageous leadership but lacks the inherent risk and moral consideration that define true courage. I grew up with an earlier example of this, during my years living in Chicago under Mayor Daley (the first); Daley had no fear of consequences due to his power.
As a reporter in Iowa and Texas I often saw how politicians escaped accountability for their decisions.
I think the problem has become worse as office-holders, even at relatively low levels, have acquired more and more assistants to spin actions to their bosses' benefit.
Exceptions were rare. I remember covering a political event at C Y. Stephens in Ames and seeing then-congressman Neal Smith walk by with no flunkies in tow. Smith was a vanishing breed of politician who didn't take himself as seriously as the coiffed, rehearsed nobodies of today.
IMHO this NYC show trial unfortunately is the icing on his November victory cake. Will make for a stressful four years but democracy and our institutions will survive and the sky will not fall, albeit the times certainly are interesting. 🤨
Politically ordained? Maybe, maybe not? Not quitw according to Hoyle, I would say this is New York, and things never seem to be quitw right most of the time, so was it political or could it be New York has delt with Trump far longer than many others and they are justified in hating his guts! The fact that he left New York for Florida elimanted the city of one slimeball that won't be missed , not even for a second!