The slug in the editors of the Wall Street Journal’s reaction piece to the indictment of Donald Trump about which I posted yesterday is “The first indictment of a former U.S. President is a sad day for America.”. We’ve had a lot of sad days lately. I thought that Donald Trump’s becoming the Republican candidate for president in 2016 was a sad day for America since the very qualities his supporters liked in him would make it difficult for him to be a good president and, indeed, made this day inevitable. I agree with the editors’ conclusion:
Once a former President and current candidate is indicted, some local Republican prosecutor will look to make a name for himself by doing the same to a Democrat.
I would put it more bluntly. I think we should anticipate that every living former president with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter will indicted by somebody somewhere for something.
Once a former President and current candidate is indicted, some local Republican prosecutor will look to make a name for himself by doing the same to a Democrat.
Possibly, but indictments have to show probable cause in court or they will be tossed. If the court finds the charges were brought in bad faith, the prosecutor can be sanctioned by the court and by the legal profession.
Dave Schuler: I think we should anticipate that every living former president with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter will indicted by somebody somewhere for something.
You would have to be specific. What charges? In what jurisdiction?
We are well past that point. Dems get impeached for lying about sex. They face prosecutors and have to answer questions directly. Republicans get impeached for using US power and money to try to influence elections or for trying to overthrow election results. Republicans never have to face direct questioning. Totally different rules. Totally different reasons for prosecution.
While we sent Cohen to jail for pretty much the same crime it certainly is possible that the DA is looking to advance his career so we will need to see the details. It probably wont matter though. The people who said you had to go after Clinton for lying about sex will note that it was still lying will also be the same people who will say this was a trivial crime not worthy of prosecution.
Steve
It does happen but successful actions for prosecutorial overreach are rare.
@Zachriel
Since you woke-up, you have inadvertently broken multiple local, state, and federal laws. Some of these laws are obscure, unenforceable, or trivial. When I was a Deputy back in the 1980’s, I knew a shit ton, and if you made me write a report, I would add as many as possible.
I do not like criminals, but this is a standard practice in the justice system. A lot of people, including Young Black Males, are locked-up for crimes they did not commit. (Most of them got away with something else. So, my sympathy is limited, but nevertheless, it is a fucked-up practice.)
@steve
Actually, Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob in an investigation about a real estate deal that occurred well before he ran for president and had nothing to do with it. It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. (At the time, James Carville framed it perfectly.)
While I like Newt Gingrich, I think he did a lot of fucked-up shit that has had ramifications for the past 30 years. He may have been technically correct, but politics should be about finding ways to get along. Sometimes, that means “turning a blind eye”.
“Dems get impeached for lying about sex.”
Perjury is a crime. He wasn’t impeached for lying – something all politicians do with regularity, he was impeached for lying under oath which is an actual crime.
“I would put it more bluntly. I think we should anticipate that every living former president with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter will indicted by somebody somewhere for something.”
Maybe. The case here seems weak and novel, which means it will be hard to actually prosecute and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And it should be fun trying to find jurors in New York that don’t have pre-existing strong opinions about Trump.
The right learned that the impeachment of Clinton was a pyrrhic victory and the left seems poised to want to repeat that mistake in their zealous desire to get Trump convicted of something – anything. Whether or not this causes an outbreak in novel prosecutions of former Presidents and senior officials is still unknown at this point, and I’m skeptical it will come to pass.
Dave Schuler: It does happen but successful actions for prosecutorial overreach are rare.
That’s because being wrong is not the same as acting in bad faith.
Tasty Bits: Since you woke-up, you have inadvertently broken multiple local, state, and federal laws.
Doubtful, even if it often said.
Andy: Perjury is a crime. He wasn’t impeached for lying – something all politicians do with regularity, he was impeached for lying under oath which is an actual crime.
Perjury is a crime, but Clinton didn’t commit perjury. The testimony was ruled immaterial in a court case that was thrown out by the court. By testifying, he did uphold the rule of law. But by dissembling, he weakened it. Nowadays, it seems subpoenas are optional for the high and mighty.
The reason people reacted so negatively to the Clinton scandal is because it was a put-up job by right-wing political actors. Forcing Lewinsky and Clinton to testify about the intimate details of a consensual affair was seen as intrusive. If Lewinsky had made a complaint, then perhaps the situation would have been different. Paula Jones never had a case and was also victimized by the process.
“Perjury is a crime, but Clinton didn’t commit perjury. The testimony was ruled immaterial in a court case that was thrown out by the court.”
Whether something was ruled immaterial at a later date doesn’t negate perjury as a crime. And Clinton’s lawyers’ defense of Clinton against the perjury charge was arguments that he didn’t intentionally lie. Whether or not Lewinsky made a complaint is irrelevant, as is the fact that Jone’s case eventually failed.
In the same way, you can be convicted for lying to the FBI without every being charged by the FBI for a crime. Process crimes don’t magically disappear because a related investigation fails to indict or convict.
“The reason people reacted so negatively to the Clinton scandal is because it was a put-up job by right-wing political actors. Forcing Lewinsky and Clinton to testify about the intimate details of a consensual affair was seen as intrusive.”
And the irony is that the shoe is on the other foot with a consensual physical and financial relationship between Trump and Daniels suddenly being “put up” by a Democratic political actor that ran on indicting Trump.
One could make the same bogus defense of Trump that we’ve heard about Clinton for decades – being dishonest about a consensual sexual relationship is no big deal. After all, having sex with Stormy Daniels isn’t a crime, nor is paying her money to not talk about it.
Like Clinton, Trump is legally vulnerable to something else besides the morally questionable but legal behavior. In Clinton’s case, it was perjury, and in Trump’s it’s reportedly fraud.
@Zachriel
Actually, I kinda do know what I am talking about, at least in Louisiana. The laws and court rulings have changed, but I am sure there are still numerous technicalities.
In the 1980’s, Louisiana still had a law against abortion in the Criminal Code. Technically, all abortions were illegal, but due to Roe v. Wade, the law was unenforceable. While I went to traffic school, I did not do traffic stops, but most drivers stopping at a stop sign were violating the traffic laws.
Stop sign law: You must make a complete and full stop. This means that all parts of the vehicle must have stopped moving. If your wheels are not moving but your bumper is still bouncing, it is not a complete stop, and you ran the stop sign.
You must stop at the sign, exactly. If your bumper initially is exactly at the post for a full stop but when your bumper raises for a complete stop, you ran the stop sign.
If a sign is blocked or missing, you are still required to stop, and it does not matter how far or your ability to see the road. Otherwise, you ran the stop sign.
When a traffic light changes to yellow, speeding up to get through before it turns red is a violation. Your speed is not a factor. If you are driving below the speed limit, accelerate to the speed limit, and get into the intersection before it turns red, you failed to stop at a red light.
Even if the speed limit is not posted or the sign is blocked or missing, you are required to go speed limit. School zones are in effect when students are dismissed. Flashing lights and posted times do not matter.
The only reason I remember this is because it was bizarre, and the instructor spent a lot of time on the technicalities. This is how law enforcement officers are able to locked-up a lot of people, including Young Black Males, for crimes they did not commit.
Breaking inane traffic laws can lead to a traffic stop. A traffic stop leads a Carroll search, and that can lead to more intensive searches. Note: A voluntary search is usually some level of coercive.
Most likely, there is something on your person, your passenger’s person, or in the vehicle that can be considered contraband under the “reasonable man test”. Now, all occupants in the vehicle can be “brought in for questioning”, and your vehicle can be impounded for a more thorough search.
“Resisting arrest” or “interfering with an arrest” are two law enforcement favorites. Again, they do not mean what you think they mean, and they can just be the start.
In the Academy, there was a lot about how to affect a legally justifiable arrest and how to protect yourself from civil suits. I have forgotten a lot, and unlike most Deputies, I was there for the paycheck. I really did not care about ordinary people doing petty shit, but if I knew or could find your mama, she would straighten you out. Times have changed.
If you were doing something that caused me to write a report, you would learn how many laws you broke, and that was before I started stretching the truth. (I do not remember actually lying, but the truth is quite malleable.)
You can believe that several million innocent people, including Young Black Males, are incarcerated, but many of them broke some obscure, unenforceable, or trivial law. If I was still a Deputy, I could have you residing in Angola faster than you can imagine, but you seem like a nice guy/gal.
PS: I wanted thank you for properly citing your quotes. It is quite annoying when others are addressing a specific comment but refuse to quote the passage and/or cite the commenter. At the very least, it is rude.
PPS: I appreciate you using multi-sentence paragraphs and refraining from a link-fest. Perhaps you could help our ER Doctor friend, but he does seem to be following your lead.
In Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan, … and now the US, Rulers use the courts to neutralize political opponents. The old Soviets liked to use psychiatric hospitals. The old Communists were smarter than todays breed.
Trump was a populist, the first since William Jennings Bryan, or maybe Huey Long. He scares the swamp critters out of their wits, which is why everyone in Washington and the mediais united against him. Rank, abject, palpable fear. You can smell it. At some point, if lawfare doesn’t work, they will kill him, machined gun on a escalator, Long style. They’ve killed their opponents before.
Andy: Whether something was ruled immaterial at a later date doesn’t negate perjury as a crime.
That is incorrect. The federal perjury statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1621, requires a finding that someone who has taken an oath “willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true”. If it is not material, it is not perjury. Notably, Clinton was found in civil contempt, not guilty of perjury.
Andy: In the same way, you can be convicted for lying to the FBI without every being charged by the FBI for a crime.
Lying to the FBI is not perjury. But like the perjury statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires a finding of materiality.
Andy: One could make the same bogus defense of Trump that we’ve heard about Clinton for decades – being dishonest about a consensual sexual relationship is no big deal.
No one has forced Trump to testify as to the intimate details of that relationship, while he has lied about it repeatedly to the public. No one cares (other than late-night comedians). The alleged crime apparently has to do with false records. He should have just paid it himself, but he got Trump Org to do it. Like how he paid his CFO under the table.
TastyBits: This is how law enforcement officers are able to locked-up a lot of people, including Young Black Males, for crimes they did not commit.
A lot of criminals could get away with it if they just followed the traffic laws. But they don’t. It’s the Lex Luther problem. It’s hard for criminal masterminds to find good help.
lately. I thought that Donald Trump’s becoming the Republican candidate for president in 2016 was a sad day for America since the very qualities his supporters liked in him would make it difficult for him to be a good president
Trump’s appeal has been pinpointed to the values, principles, and socioeconomic status of a US citizenry who see qualities in him that others either have vilified or dismissed. Most people in Trump’s corner see his concerns, political compass, and policies focusing more on the working and middle classes rather than global or multinational corporate interests. They see his words as authentic and pragmatic, while his detractors find them abrasive and “unpresidential.†Having such a negative read on Trump, anti Trumpers find anything or anyone discrediting or taking him down as deserved fair play. In this kind of biased, twisted environment a prosecutor is given free rein to play dirty and/or change the rule of law to fit their designed purpose to indict.
That’s where we are today, with Alvin Bragg juggling the law to his specifications – 52% of the time downsizing a felony to a misdemeanor, for such offenses as armed robbery if a gun is not fired, to upping a misdemeanor to a felony, involving a presumed sexual pay off in order to target a political opponent. Trump has been through such political crucifixions before, including a 2 1/2 year fake Russian Dossier probe bought and promoted by his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, whose actions, although tantamount to business fraud, were only fined, not criminally prosecuted. Such a lengthy investigation conveniently served, though, as a prolonged disruption of Trump’s presidential agenda, very much like the current charges will heavily burden his presidential run at the starting gate of his campaign.
I find such phony, repetitive hassles as further evidence of our rapidly growing two-tiered kind of justice where democrats can’t win on the popularity of their policies alone. So, they, along with establishment republicans, connive, manipulate, and game the system to secure raw power for themselves. For instance, Trump was impeached when he discussed Biden’s financial corruption in Ukraine during a Zelensky phone call. This was instantly labeled as election interference, which justified Trump’s impeachment. However, as the current front-runner, when Trump is fouled by a fabricated cover-up of a 2006 affair revisited by a disgruntled attorney, and disavowed by exculpatory evidence, felony charges are nevertheless pursued with an indictment pending, while there is no mention of election interference by Trump’s enemies. The only back lash will probably be from the powerless people, not from the DOJ or law enforcement who are supposed to protect everyone from spurious prosecutorial acts meant to destabilize the election process.
There are so many ways I disagree with the statement that Trump was not a “good†president. Unlikable and coarse are truisms that many can use. But, when compared to the many disasters cultivated under the Biden regime, Trump is by far and away a better and more worthy leader, policymaker, strategist, and spokesperson for the ideals and goals of common Americans.
One woman I’ve been following for over a year has been Rebekah Koffler, author of Putin’s Playbook. It’s a look at Putin from a Russian strategist’s perspective. Her recent article in The Federalist is a follow-up in whom she considers the best leader (and why) to counter Putin’s aggression.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/31/there-is-only-one-u-s-leader-who-putin-actually-fears/
Andy- I think the point is that if you were going to prosecute/impeach Clinton for what is considered a “minor” crime and maybe not a crime at all then its pretty consistent to go after Trump for what is seen as a “minor” crime by many. Of course a $130,000 crime would not be seen as a small deal for most people but among the rich and powerful we get that double standard.
Steve
Jan: They see his words as authentic and pragmatic, while his detractors find them abrasive and “unpresidential.â€
Well, inauthentic and corrupt.
Jan: In this kind of biased, twisted environment a prosecutor is given free rein to play dirty and/or change the rule of law to fit their designed purpose to indict.
We have yet to see the actual indictment. In any case, Trump will have opportunity to make that argument.
Seriously, some of you people? This is clearly a political prosecution. And an embarrassingly weak case. Banana republic stuff. Not a good day for the law, or political discourse.
Read the flaming conservative, Democrat professor Jon Turley on the case. One of the few sane voices.
I dont think the details of the indictment have been revealed yet, but we know they put Cohen in jail and we know they invited John Edwards for something similar. (Both the wife of Edwards and Trump’s wife were pregnant when they were out screwing someone else. Of course when Edwards did we all called it out for the moral depravity it was. Trump’s followers praise him for this act.)
Trump says he always hires the best people. Think he gets Sidney Powell and Rudy to handle this?
Steve