TRUMP AHEAD?

[Gary Childress]

"Lawfare" is better than warfare.

I am somewhat happy that you concede the point: Trump was snared in a law-fare plot.

Most have pointed out the obvious: the use of law-fare may likely backfire. But what its use portends is that the other side will soon enough employ it. And that is just one more bad sign for the integrity of the Republic.

Yes. We all know conservatives steal from the social justice playbook. It's retribution for them and nothing more 'constructive' than that. I guess we'll see who gets dragged through the courts next time. A narcissistic billionaire has been lost to the judicial system. Perhaps in retaliation, the Republicans will start breaking up labor unions or illegally invade another country. Or if that's a little too obvious, maybe go after a labor and minority friendly activist somewhere, or twenty or a thousand of them. There are times for dissent and times for compliance. For me, now is a time of compliance. For you maybe it's time for "dissent"?

[Gary Childress]

You're quite wrong about that.

How do you know?

Simple. Once real and open underhandedness is seen to have worked — using the legal system to block a political opponent — it is inevitable that the other side will employ the same.

The chasm, the abyss, the divisions within the nation will not abate and will increase, to the detriment of all.

That should not be hard for all to see, even those who welcome the various legal proceedings, as dubiously grounded as they may be.

If this were the 1960s and the government was going after people protesting the Vietnam War, would you be standing by the dissenters then? Is "dissent" your goal or is justice your goal?

[FlashDangerpants]

[commonsense]

How do you know?

Simple. Once real and open underhandedness is seen to have worked — using the legal system to block a political opponent — it is inevitable that the other side will employ the same.

The chasm, the abyss, the divisions within the nation will not abate and will increase, to the detriment of all.

That should not be hard for all to see, even those who welcome the various legal proceedings, as dubiously grounded as they may be.

If this were the 1960s and the government was going after people protesting the Vietnam War, would you be standing by the dissenters then? Is "dissent" your goal or is justice your goal?

To the dissenters, dissent is justice. It appears then that you have constructed a false dichotomy. Please explain what you meant.

[Gary Childress]

Simple. Once real and open underhandedness is seen to have worked — using the legal system to block a political opponent — it is inevitable that the other side will employ the same.

The chasm, the abyss, the divisions within the nation will not abate and will increase, to the detriment of all.

That should not be hard for all to see, even those who welcome the various legal proceedings, as dubiously grounded as they may be.

If this were the 1960s and the government was going after people protesting the Vietnam War, would you be standing by the dissenters then? Is "dissent" your goal or is justice your goal?

To the dissenters, dissent is justice. It appears then that you have constructed a false dichotomy. Please explain what you meant.

When I look at the social justice movements of the 60s, civil rights, Vietnam protests, I see a much more real and urgent call for justice than I do watching the Trump affair. I'm just curious if AJ would have been a dissenter in the 1960s as well.

[FlashDangerpants]

If this were the 1960s and the government was going after people protesting the Vietnam War, would you be standing by the dissenters then? Is "dissent" your goal or is justice your goal?

To the dissenters, dissent is justice. It appears then that you have constructed a false dichotomy. Please explain what you meant.

When I look at the social justice movements of the 60s, civil rights, Vietnam protests, I see a much more real and urgent call for justice than I do watching the Trump affair. I'm just curious if AJ would have been a dissenter in the 1960s as well.

AJ would have been a dissenter in 1944

[Alexis Jacobi]

When I look at the social justice movements of the 60s, civil rights, Vietnam protests, I see a much more real and urgent call for justice than I do watching the Trump affair. I'm just curious if AJ would have been a dissenter in the 1960s as well.

In one sense I agree. The cost of the Vietnam war was millions of lives lost and vast social, economic and ecological damage done. Not to speak of the relatively incomparable social and political damage to the US.

But none of this has bearing on the present use of law-fare with what certainly has all the appearance of a stark attempt to affect the outcome of this election.

The logic seems to be: it is a lesser evil to use such means in order to derail Trump’s possible, or likely, return to the presidency. In any case, I cannot discern another motive. It seems plain as day.

I'm just curious if AJ would have been a dissenter in the 1960s as well.

What bearing does this have?

My parents were proponents of an anti-Vietnam war position. I could not have had a genuine position except to believe they were right. I am definitely of the opinion that the US should stop creating wars and getting embroiled in them.

So, what have you gained now that you have this info?

I agree with Levin and others: this ruling against Trump is worthy of being brought immediately before the Supreme Court. The issue being that of immediate, irreversible damage.

[Gary Childress]

I am definitely of the opinion that the US should stop creating wars and getting embroiled in them.

Then we're in agreement.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am definitely of the opinion that the US should stop creating wars and getting embroiled in them.

Then we're in agreement.

We are not at least insofar as you have made no statement about the injustice and destructiveness of this recent NY trial and what such law-fare portends.

[Gary Childress]

I am definitely of the opinion that the US should stop creating wars and getting embroiled in them.

Then we're in agreement.

We are not at least insofar as you have made no statement about the injustice and destructiveness of this recent NY trial and what such law-fare portends.

If Trump is innocent of the charges he was convicted of, then yes, it should be brought to the Supreme Court for review and the Supreme Court ought to overturn the erroneous convictions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then we're in agreement.

We are not at least insofar as you have made no statement about the injustice and destructiveness of this recent NY trial and what such law-fare portends.

If Trump is innocent of the charges he was convicted of, then yes, it should be brought to the Supreme Court for review and the Supreme Court ought to overturn the erroneous convictions.

You have missed the point.

First, the misdemeanor was artificially escalated to be not one but some dozens of felonies. That in itself reveals the intentions and game-plan of the prosecutor. Second, this right in an election cycle.

But the largest, the most important and consequential issue here is •election interference•.

[Gary Childress]

We are not at least insofar as you have made no statement about the injustice and destructiveness of this recent NY trial and what such law-fare portends.

If Trump is innocent of the charges he was convicted of, then yes, it should be brought to the Supreme Court for review and the Supreme Court ought to overturn the erroneous convictions.

You have missed the point.

First, the misdemeanor was artificially escalated to be not one but some dozens of felonies. That in itself reveals the intentions and game-plan of the prosecutor. Second, this right in an election cycle.

But the largest, the most important and consequential issue here is •election interference•.

As I say, if he's innocent, then he ought to be cleared. However, no one is above the law. What is the danger of punishing a former president that the laws ought to be suspended on his behalf? What kind of precedent is it going to set if a presidential candidate is allowed exception to breaking laws by virtue of being a presidential candidate. If it's a bad law, then whoever wrote the law was mistaken and the law should be overturned. And I'll agree there are a lot of crappy laws on the books that probably are unreasonable. But someone got the laws enacted, so we're stuck with them for the time being until we can repeal them.

[commonsense]

But the largest, the most important and consequential issue here is •election interference•.

It could be an instance of dirty politics. But not much more so than any negative ad posted by the Democrat Party.

[Alexiev]

The "lawfare" whining is ridiculous, given the "lock her up" chants and the Clinton impeachment. Perhaps prosecutions are politically motivated. If the convictions are fair, who cares?

Obviously, the New York case is relatively trivial, and Trump's sentence will probably not involve prison. It's still clear that Trump promoted sleazy and illegal shenanigans, for which he was properly found guilty. There's no evidence that the jury was politically motivated.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "lawfare" whining is ridiculous, given the "lock her up" chants and the Clinton impeachment.

Since the *lock her up* refrain did not result in charges brought there was no substantial harm. Though it is certainly correct that to lead your followers in such chants is obviously unethical.

In the end, I think a day before Clinton left office, he agreed to sacrifice his law license and thereby to avoid prosecution. His crimes were not of a trivial nature:

Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;
prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;
prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and
his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
... corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
... corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
... corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
... intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
... at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
... related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
... made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

Perhaps prosecutions are politically motivated. If the convictions are fair, who cares?

Political motivations during an election cycle especially, and acted upon, are certainly care-worthy. Certainly the political motivations are plain to everyone. The issue about how the convictions were attained (the legal proceedings) are also in question.

And the charges for what is a misdemeanor, elevated to felonies, certainly matters. Definitely to Trump himself. As it would to you or anyone were they in such a situation.

Obviously, the New York case is relatively trivial, and Trump's sentence will probably not involve prison.

It is not at all trivial since it involves felony convictions.

It's still clear that Trump promoted sleazy and illegal shenanigans, for which he was properly found guilty.

That is simply opinion. I might agree, or I might not. But it has no bearing.

There's no evidence that the jury was politically motivated.

How could you know anything at all about this?