Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll start by sharing something I posted on my personal Facebook on the day of the verdict:

Long on ad hominem, short on substantive legal analysis.

It's been a while since I've read up on this case.  

Ilya Somin: A "Water Pistol Unnecessarily Preceding" a "Missile-Launching F-35 Attack": Thoughts on the New York Trump Indictment

Quote

Trump very much deserves to be prosecuted and punished. But the New York case is far more dubious than the other charges likely to be brought against him.
...

In most situations, however, we should not punish a prominent political leader for things that wouldn't get charged in the case of an ordinary person. If the average citizen won't get charged for jaywalking or for possessing a small amount of marijuana, neither should a former president. In a legal system with far too many petty laws, almost anyone can potentially be charged with something. We don't want to create a situation where prosecutors go on fishing expeditions to nail controversial celebrities or political adversaries.

I think this is an important point.

Quote

When it comes to the New York charges, I largely agree with former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb (not to be confused with the legendary baseball Hall of Famer with the same name):

"I think the Bragg case is the water pistol unnecessarily preceding the missile-launching F-35 attack piloted by Jack Smith with [Attorney General] Merrick Garland as his wingman."

I won't go through all the potential flaws in Bragg's case. But prominent election law scholar Rick Hasen, Ian Milhiser of Vox, and former Cato Institute election law expert Andy Craig all have helpful analyses, and all have serious doubts about the soundness of the charges. Furthermore, none of them can easily be dismissed as Trump sympathizers eager to get him off the hook. Regular readers know that I'm no MAGA type myself, either.

Steven Calabresi: NY State v. Trump Does Violate Trump's First Amendment Rights

Quote

My co-blogger Orin Kerr says that President Donald Trump's First Amendment rights are not being violated by the NY State prosecution of him because Trump is being prosecuted only for falsifying business records. But, the indictment of Trump specifically says that Trump had falsified business records "to conceal another crime". That other crime is presumably a violation of federal or NY State election law, and the First Amendment protects Trump's right to make hush money payments for purposes of winning the 2016 presidential election. The 34 counts in the indictment, in any event, are for misdemeanor offenses as to which the statute of limitations has run.

Steven Calabresi: President Donald Trump's Manhattan Convictions are Unconstitutional

Quote

President Donald Trump was convicted yesterday of allegedly altering business records to conceal his alleged payment of money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. But, altering business records under New York State law is only a crime if it is done to conceal the violation of some other law. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that the documents were allegedly falsely altered to conceal a contribution of money in violation of federal campaign finance laws or in pursuance of winning the 2016 election by defrauding the voters of information they had a right to know. Neither argument passes First Amendment scrutiny.
...

The First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause also rules out of order Alvin Bragg's argument that Trump defrauded American voters by preventing them from hearing about Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels. Theories as broad as this one is, of "defrauding voters" would end up eliminating the freedom of speech in American elections. Voters had no "right" to know about Donald Trump's sex life. He was obviously not monogamous being married to a third wife, and voters who adhere to traditional values voted for him anyway because of the kind of stellar conservative justices he went on to appoint to the Supreme Court.

There was thus no predicate crime that Trump could have been concealing when he allegedly altered business records at The Trump Organization. Trump's convictions in the Manhattan trial are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment as it was originally understood.

I find Mr. Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels to be immoral and reprehensible.  But the prosecution of 34 felonies about paperwork comes across pretty strongly as a witch hunt, and a grossly exaggerated one, and there's even a fair likelihood of it being unconstitutional.  We'll see how it plays out.

Meanwhile, the other candidates were pretty terrible.  As between them and Mr. Trump, we faced something of a Sophie's Choice as far as having to choose between candidates who all have substantial moral failings.  On balance, though, I find the Biden-Harris corruption far worse (and I do not think they love America, and I dislike most of their policies, and so on), so I went with the better option and voted for the Bad Orange Man.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Long on ad hominem, short on substantive legal analysis.

I wasn't doing a LEGAL analysis. I was providing my opinion as a forensic accountant.

Do you dispute that he criminally altered business records to hide the payment? Whether it was a misdemeanor or felony is outside of my question. Just whether he is guilty of altering the records.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I wasn't doing a LEGAL analysis. I was providing my opinion as a forensic accountant.

Do you dispute that he criminally altered business records to hide the payment? Whether it was a misdemeanor or felony is outside of my question. Just whether he is guilty of altering the records.

But it’s just trivial “paperwork.” 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But it’s just trivial “paperwork.” 

Apparently. Enron, too, I suppose.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Apparently. Enron, too, I suppose.

Poor Ken Lay was just a victim of weaponized Democrat prosecution. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Poor Ken Lay was just a victim of weaponized Democrat prosecution. 

And Jeff Skilling.

And Richard Causey.

And Andy Fastow.

I mean, it was an even BIGGER witch hunt!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with that.

Ok

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  

I think the status quo constitutes a far greater threat to the constitutional order than the efforts of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk in exposing and getting rid of massive and widespread waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, incompetence, etc., all paid for with tax dolalrs.

Well, No it does not. Preserving the constitution is of paramount importance. Handle the alleged waste and fraud the way the constitution says.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I was not only referring to the day he incited the riot, and he did incite the riot and sat on his hands for three hours watching it play out.  And there were other clearly illegal acts that led up to it.  Did you read the Jan 6 committees final report? Did you read any of the indictments and the recently released summary of the case against Trump that Jack Smith wrote?  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I was deeply disappointed by the January 6 stuff.  However, I was substantially more disturbed by the widespread violence, property damage, personal injuries, and deaths associated with the BLM/Antifa riots.

One can be troubles and disappointed by both. It is not an either or but your side constantly brings up the summer of 2020 riots.  So you seem quite fine that Trump tried to steal an election.  Or are you one who agrees with him that the last election was stolen?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I scratch my head at people who supported Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.  Oh, well.

Nice dodge. My point was what I view as the base hypocrisy from you and yours who claim a high moral ground and support the most amoral man to even be president and who would no doubt be weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth about how horrible a person Trump is if he were a democrat.  But nice try there.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I reject the characterization here of Mr. Trump.  It is exaggerated and overstated by a country mile.

Well, no it is not. It is spot on.  I could list out all the fraud, grift, cheating, immorality and so on committed by the man. Plus he betrayed his oath of office.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I vote based on policies more than personalities.  I would love to see a presidential candidate who was a paragon of moral virtue and decent living (that JD Vance guy seems pretty nice).  As it is, though, we had a choice between two deeply flawed people, one of whom has massive accomplishments, loves America, and has a track record of fulfilling campaign promises, and the other whose career was atrocious, zero accomplishments, and got her political career going by having a sexual affair with a married man.

See what you did there. You give Trump a pass yet you condemn Harris because, well, you do not like her politics. Base hypocrisy in display here folks. Trump does not love America. He loves himself and power and is abjectly corrupt.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I do not endorse Mr. Trump's moral failings.

Well you sure do tolerate them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Do you think voting for the other candidate would have been more reflective of character mattering?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think in utero babies should be humanized.  They are, after all, human.

Thanks,

-Smac

You just don't ever give up or concede do you.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Apparently. Enron, too, I suppose.

Remember, you can falsify records and even storm the Capitol and beat up cops with impunity as long you’re on Trump’s side. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And even then...

I think Obama/Biden EOs were often calculated to facilitate widespread corruption, graft, theft, incompetence, etc.  The same goes for some EOs by "R" presidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh brother.🙄

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

Oh brother.🙄

Honestly, that one made me spit out my Coke Zero. 😂

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Remember, you can falsify records and even storm the Capitol and beat up cops with impunity as long you’re on Trump’s side. 

I'm calling it now - Skilling 2028!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

I'm calling it now - Skilling 2028!

Maybe Skilling/Tarrio in ‘28. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just so I understand where you're coming from, you are against people being elected to higher office who are utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish, and that’s why you support Donald Trump. 

Do I have that correct?

I think you have it correctly summarized.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Long on ad hominem, short on substantive legal analysis.

I wasn't doing a LEGAL analysis. I was providing my opinion as a forensic accountant.

It's a legal issue.  We should be doing legal analysis.

And it was still long on ad hominem, which presumably was not part of your "opinion as a forensic accountant."

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you dispute that he criminally altered business records to hide the payment?

Yes.  "Criminally" is the question here.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Whether it was a misdemeanor or felony is outside of my question. Just whether he is guilty of altering the records.

He was convicted of 34 felonies by the efforts of an activist prosecutor in a deep blue state, just prior to a national election, and with all sorts of shenanigans by the also-pretty-activist judge.  And the substance of the crimes is . . . paperwork about paying Stormy Daniels.

Judge Merchan’s Potemkin sentencing hearing: A continuation of the judicial warfare against Donald Trump and American voters. 

Quote

Judge Juan Merchan’s sentencing hearing for President Trump on Thursday confirmed the political nature of the judicial warfare in which he and hundreds of others have collaborated in an effort to bring down Donald Trump. Both Merchan and the prosecutor treated the sentencing hearing as if its purpose was to make a rational and fair determination of what sentence the court should impose. That was a fraud and deception. The hearing’s purpose was not to make a rational and fair decision about anything. Merchan had already decided and announced the “sentence” he intended to hand down. The purpose of the phony hearing was to give the prosecutor a soapbox from which he could pontificate and continue their joint efforts to weaken President Trump, just eleven days before his inauguration.

John Hinderaker: 

Quote

Of all the bogus criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits that the Democrats have brought against Donald Trump, perhaps the most ridiculous is the New York “hush money” case. In that case, corrupt prosecutors and a corrupt judge colluded, using an unprecedented and incoherent legal theory, to transform Trump’s perfectly legal payment to Stormy Daniels into a felony under New York Law. The jury’s conviction, on charges that the prosecution was literally unable to explain, let alone prove, was a travesty.

Now Judge Juan Merchan, who acted as an agent of the Democratic Party in allowing and furthering this prosecution, has issued an Order directing that Trump appear for sentencing on January 10. Merchan’s order is a political document, and can only be read as such. He actually admits that he is scheduling the sentencing for a week from today because Trump will be inaugurated on the 20th:

Finding no legal impediment to sentencing and recognizing that Presidential immunity will likely attach once Defendant takes his Oath of Office, it is incumbent upon this Court to set this matter down for the imposition of sentence prior to January 20, 2025.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that Trump will be going to prison. On the contrary, Merchan’s order signals his intention to impose no punishment at all on the President-elect:

While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation.

In other words, the Democrats wanted to send Trump to prison, but they can’t, since he won the election. Rarely have the stakes in an election been so high!

As such; in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.

So what is the point? By denying Trump’s various motions to vacate the ridiculous jury verdict and “sentencing” Trump to nothing, Merchan’s order allows his allies in the press to describe Trump as a convicted felon, something that wasn’t technically correct until now.

The Democrats at CNN got the point:

Judge Juan Merchan, however, upheld Trump’s conviction in the case, rejecting the president-elect’s effort to throw out the jury’s verdict because of his reelection in November. This ensures that Trump will be the first convicted felon to become president.

There you have it. The Democrats’ misuse of the legal system to pursue their political ends is one of the more shameful chapters in American history. Happily, their machinations failed to secure the election of a Democrat in 2024, which was their goal. But they contributed to the poisoning of our public life that now constitutes a serious threat to the viability of the Republic.

Your commentary here seems to be corroborating what Mr. Hinderaker is saying above, namely, that the lawsuit was a "misuse of the legal system to pursue {} political ends."

Jonathan Turley:

Quote

Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”

If so, that is a damning indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses.

Looks like Mr. Bragg lacked authority to prosecute federal crimes, but Judge Merchan let it happen anyway.

Quote

He allowed a jury to convict Trump without any agreement, let alone unanimity, on what actually occurred in the case.

Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to agree on why Trump committed an alleged offense in describing settlement costs as legal costs.

Neither the defendant nor the public will ever know what the jury ultimately found in its verdict.

This was one of the more egregious aspects of the case.

Quote

 

I once described this case as a legal Frankenstein: “It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life … Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes.”

Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “bulls–t.”

Now, Merchan seemed quick to assure this Frankenstein case was just like any other creature of the court. It did not matter that it was stitched together from dead cases and zapped into life through lawfare.

Merchan knows that there is a fair chance this monstrosity will finally die on appeal, and he was making the case for his own conduct.

The verdict, however, is likely to last far longer than the Trump verdict. It is a judgment against not just Merchan but the New York legal system, which allowed itself to be weaponized against political opponents.

Trump can now appeal the case as a whole. Prior appeals in the New York court system were unsuccessful, and hopes are low that the system will redeem itself.

However, Trump can eventually escape the vortex of the New York court system in search of jurists willing to see beyond the rage and bring reason to this case.

Merchan’s monster will now go on the road and work its way back to the Supreme Court. Outside of New York, this freak attraction will likely be viewed as less thrilling than chilling.

Lawfare is that monster. It threatens us all, even those who hate Trump and his supporters. Once released, it spreads panic among the public, which can no longer rely on the guarantees of blind and fair justice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which we be overturned because NY prosecutors had to literally invent laws to convict him.

Really?  Are you an attorney or are you opining from your couch?  So you were ok with Trump paying off a porn star then hiding that fact so it did not come out right before the 2016 election? I am no attorney but I know a few who know this case well and it was prosecuted spot on. And he was convicted by a jury of his peers.  But meh, to Trump cultists that does not seem to matter.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

It's a legal issue.  We should be doing legal analysis.

And it was still long on ad hominem, which presumably was not part of your "opinion as a forensic accountant."

Yes.  "Criminally" is the question here.

Again, you're ignoring the statute for your own purposes. The business records statute is a criminal statute. Did he violate the statute, Spencer? It's a simple "yes" or "no".

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a legal issue.  We should be doing legal analysis.

And it was still long on ad hominem, which presumably was not part of your "opinion as a forensic accountant."

Yes.  "Criminally" is the question here.

He was convicted of 34 felonies by the efforts of an activist prosecutor in a deep blue state, just prior to a national election, and with all sorts of shenanigans by the also-pretty-activist judge.  And the substance of the crimes is . . . paperwork about paying Stormy Daniels.

Judge Merchan’s Potemkin sentencing hearing: A continuation of the judicial warfare against Donald Trump and American voters. 

John Hinderaker: 

Your commentary here seems to be corroborating what Mr. Hinderaker is saying above, namely, that the lawsuit was a "misuse of the legal system to pursue {} political ends."

Jonathan Turley:

Looks like Mr. Bragg lacked authority to prosecute federal crimes, but Judge Merchan let it happen anyway.

This was one of the more egregious aspects of the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, just to be clear, intentionally hiding payments does not even rise to the level of a misdemeanor? 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think in utero babies should be humanized.  They are, after all, human.

You just don't ever give up or concede do you.

As to the humanity of in utero babies?  No, I don't think I will.

I'm no William Wilberforce, but I admire his tenacity.  I have long maintained the following quote in my sigline:

"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

It would, I suppose, be easier to bend the knee and conform to the louder and meaner voices speaking about elective abortions.  But the Latter-day Saint in me is a bit too far acclimated to relying on my own moral barometer.  Opposing elective abortion is, in my view, "doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

As to the humanity of in utero babies?  No, I don't think I will.

I'm no William Wilberforce, but I admire his tenacity.  I have long maintained the following quote in my sigline:

"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

It would, I suppose, be easier to bend the knee and conform to the louder and meaner voices speaking about elective abortions.  But the Latter-day Saint in me is a bit too far acclimated to relying on my own moral barometer.  Opposing elective abortion is, in my view, "doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

Thanks,

-Smac

And yet there’s a certain cowardice in asserting a hard and fast moral/legal rule while washing one’s hands of the consequences.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just so I understand where you're coming from, you are against people being elected to higher office who are utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish, and that’s why you support Donald Trump. 

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you'd like to share reasons you feel this way, I'm open to the truth.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

A good reminder of why I don’t take you seriously. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If you'd like to share reasons you feel this way, I'm open to the truth.

Well, obviously Trump loves America. He hugged a flag! 😂