Is it my imagination or have we gone from a phase in which the only humor was irony to people being unable to recognize irony with blinding speed? I’ll give examples. If DA Alvin Bragg’s argument that Donald Trump engaged in illegal election interference holds up, then he’s engaging in illegal election interference. And if Trump isn’t exempt from the suit, then he wouldn’t be, either? Or if Jack Smith’s argument is correct and upheld, every living or future president would likely be subject to criminal suit?
I’m really, really not a Trump supporter. I’ve never voted for him and never will. I think he’s a shmuck unworthy of being president. But the irony of these suits is astonishing.
Imagine a world where the expectation for every President is when they relinquish office, they are immediately escorted to the DC courthouse to take their mugshot, and that they will be convicted for their crimes and spend the rest of their days in jail.
Extend it to Congress; you may have a supermajority in support.
“There is no distinctly American criminal class – except Congress”
Comedy is easy, irony is hard. Is “a free ride when you’ve already paid” actually ironic?
Isn’t it ironic that the various “democracy on the ballot” concerns at this point boil down to the risk Trump might be lawfully elected?
How is Bragg engaging in illegal election interference? So far he has provided lots of evidence for his claims.
” every living or future president would likely be subject to criminal suit?”
They should be. Any of them that tries to prevent the peaceful handover of power should be prosecuted.
Steve
Steve
What’s Braggs charge. Where is the statute. And what evidence. Simple questions.
Straightforward answer, please.
Under Mr. Bragg’s novel and extremely expansive legal theory any action that might have an impact on an election, measurable or not, is felonious election interference. How could he not be engaging in election interference?
This is a good primer on the legal theory behind Mr Bragg’s indictment.
The charges are pretty clear, campaign finance violations, the same thing that got Michael Cohen sent to jail. Cohen was the bag man but it was Trump’s money and his election.
But that wasn’t my question. How is Bragg engaging in illegal election interference? What statute and on what basis? Just with what Pecker has testified to so far it’s clear there are grounds for a case.
Steve
Not a lawyer; but it’s rather convoluted with loops and contortions.
CuriousOnlooker: Not a lawyer; but it’s rather convoluted with loops and contortions.
The law is “a twisty, cranky old thing.”
Dave Schuler: If DA Alvin Bragg’s argument that Donald Trump engaged in illegal election interference holds up, then he’s engaging in illegal election interference.
Huh? Enforcing the law against election interference is election interference? The case does appear weak, but the indictment has been largely upheld by the court based on facts and the law.
Dave Schuler: Or if Jack Smith’s argument is correct and upheld, every living or future president would likely be subject to criminal suit?
Bank robbers have a similar problem. The solution is to not break the law.
Steve
You really should read real legal scholars and analysis. In the more popular press I find Jon Turleys commentary the most clear and sober. But there are others.
You want to believe the charges and law are clear, but they are not. (BTW- the facts are pretty straightforward. It’s the law and Bragg that’s really on trial). The word “sham trial” seems to be the most popular among real commentators, not shills. Brags entire effort is to get a hanging jury who will disregard the law.
Read Turley plus some others, including the guy at the NYT who are pretty negative about the prosecution. What it all comes across as is lawyerly stuff saying that Trump actually committed the crime but it should have been prosecuted by the Justice Department, which Biden wont allow since it would look bad. It takes a fair bit of lawyerly twisting to reach that conclusion. That being the case I dont have a lot of issue with some lawyerly interpretations to justify protection since what is most important to me is that Trump actually did try to hide payments in order to win the election, which is illegal for anyone else.
Steve